Cited by 70Religion and Society InteractionsRisk Perception and ManagementScience Education and Perceptions

Opposing ends of the spectrum: Exploring trust in scientific and religious authorities

Cacciatore, Michael A., Browning, Nick, Scheufele, Dietram A., Brossard, Dominique, Xenos, Michael A., Corley, Elizabeth A.·2018·Public Understanding of Science

Abstract

Given the ethical questions that surround emerging science, this study is interested in studying public trust in scientific and religious authorities for information about the risks and benefits of science. Using data from a nationally representative survey of American adults, we employ regression analysis to better understand the relationships between several variables—including values, knowledge, and media attention—and trust in religious organizations and scientific institutions. We found that Evangelical Christians are generally more trusting of religious authority figures to tell the truth about the risks and benefits of science and technology, and only slightly less likely than non-Evangelicals to trust scientific authorities for the same information. We also found that many Evangelicals use mediated information and science knowledge differently than non-Evangelicals, with both increased knowledge and attention to scientific media having positive impacts on trust in scientific authorities among the latter, but not the former group.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0963662516661090

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Both scientific expert testimony and science reporting receive a high degree of trust and authority from the public compared with non-scientific claims.

    “both types of public scientific testimony share a key feature: overall, the public assigns a high degree of trust and authority to them compared to non-scientific claims (Pew Research Center [2015]; Jamieson [2017]; Cacciatore et al. [2018]; Sanz-Menéndez and Cruz-Castro [2019]).”

    From Science Communication and the Problematic Impact of Descriptive Norms (2023) · cites this paper as Cacciatore et al. [2018]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Dawkins R, 2008, The God Delusion
  2. Gould SJ, 1997, Natural History, 106, 16
  3. Harrison P, 2006, Science & Christian Belief, 18, 115
  4. Harrison P, 2009, Science & Christian Belief, 21, 155
  5. 10.1038/nnano.2008.341 · DOI
  6. Nisbet MC, 2005, Geotimes, 50, 28
  7. Petty RE, 2009, Media Effects Advances in Theory and Research, 125

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cacciatore, M. A., Browning, N., Scheufele, D. A., Brossard, D., Xenos, M. A., & Corley, E. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Georgia (US)
  • University of Indiana, USA
  • University of Wisconsin System (US)
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
  • Arizona State University (US)
Corresponding author
Cacciatore, Michael A.
Venue
Public Understanding of Science
Published
2016-07-25
Volume
27
Issue
1
Pages
11-28
ISSN
  • 0963-6625 (ISSN-L)
  • 1361-6609
OpenAlex
W2485758860
Cited by
70
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2
FWCI
10.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Public Understanding of Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Religion and Society Interactions
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Science Education and Perceptions
Keywords
public trust in science, evangelical Christians, science and religion, scientific knowledge, media attention, religious organizations, science communication, United States adults

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review