Public Trust in Science
Sources of Science News Stories
Section 01
Survey Overview and Demographics
General Overview
Geographic Coverage: United States
Expertise:
- 31% Biology
- 69% Public Health
Response Overview
Sample Size: 2551
Valid Responses: 579
Response Rate: 19.7
Date initial findings posted: 11.22.21
Most recent update: 11.22.21
Days survey in field: 28
Average response time: 12
Survey Demographics
Respondent Demographics:
- 46% Female
- 54% Male
- 100% Academic
- 0% Industry
Language(s): English
Section Overview
Do stories from different media sources affect the perceived trustworthiness of science information by scientists?
The below results were the statistically significant findings. The survey was designed in consultation with ASU’s News Co/Lab.
Science News Experiment
To answer this question, we conducted the following experiment: Participants were randomly assigned 1 of 3 vignettes about wildland fire management. Each vignette contained the exact same content, except for a variation in reference to the vignette’s source. The three different options for sources, or treatments, were 1) a story presented by scientists, 2) a story presented by traditional media, or 3) a story presented on a community blog distributed by social media. The participants were then asked various questions about the trustworthiness of the story they just read.
Question
In general, how appropriate would it be for the article to dedicate the majority of its coverage to scientific evidence and facts in order to increase public trust in conducting prescribed fires?
Finding
Respondents felt it was highly appropriate for blogs (77%) and media (70%) to dedicate the majority of story coverage to science fact as compared to scientific reports (63%) (This difference is statistically significant, p < .05).
Question
In general, how appropriate would it be for the article to provide equal coverage to scientific facts and public concerns?
Finding
For each of the three sources (traditional media, community science blog, scientific report), about the same percentage of respondents (approximately 50%) felt that it was highly appropriate for an article from that source to provide equal coverage of scientific facts and public concerns.
However, a larger percentage of respondents (16%) felt that it was not appropriate to provide equal coverage in an article from a traditional media source, as compared to a community science blog (10%) or a scientific report (10%). (This difference is statistically significant, p < .05).
Question
How much can the public trust public concerns were accurately and fairly reported?
Finding
The majority of the respondents felt that traditional media (90%) and community blogs (75%) could be trusted to fairly and accurately report public concerns. 64% of respondents felt that public concerns were not well represented in scientific reports. (This difference is statistically significant, p < .05).
