Building Public Support for Science Spending: Misinformation, Motivated Reasoning, and the Power of Corrections
Abstract
While most Americans support scientific research, few favor an increase in federal investment. This opposition is driven in large part by misinformation about the actual level of governmental support for science. Employing an experiment embedded on a nationally representative survey, we find that most Americans significantly overestimate the share of the federal budget allocated to scientific research. Correcting this misperception significantly increases support for additional science spending. We find little evidence that subjects engage in motivated reasoning when confronted with this correction. Information about the low level of existing funding increased support for investment in science across partisan and ideological divides.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The ideological distance between Democrats and Republicans was not reduced by information about the share of the federal budget allocated to scientific research.
“The ideological distance between Democrats and Republicans was, however, not reduced by this information.”
From Factual belief polarization between Democrats and Republicans: source or epiphenomenon of ideological and affective polarization? (2024) · cites this paper as Goldfarb and Kriner, 2017
Another study found that people became more supportive of additional science spending after being informed about the share of the federal budget allocated to scientific research.
“another study found that people became more supportive of additional science spending after being informed about the share of the federal budget allocated to scientific research (Goldfarb and Kriner, 2017).”
From Factual belief polarization between Democrats and Republicans: source or epiphenomenon of ideological and affective polarization? (2024) · cites this paper as Goldfarb and Kriner, 2017
Cites
The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics
Pielke, Jr. (2007) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511818110 · Cited by 2,020 · see citing works
Lupia, A. (1994) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.2307/2944882 · Cited by 1,850 · cited 2× · see citing works
“These beliefs were fostered and reinforced in large part by a steady stream of cues transmitted by trusted, copartisan elites (Lupia, 1994; Zaller, 1992) and by the conservative media (Feldman, Maibach, Roser-Renouf, & Leiserowitz, 2012; Hmielowski, Feldman, Myers, Leiserowitz, & Maibach, 2013;…”
BackgroundGauchat, G. (2012) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.1177/0003122412438225 · Cited by 1,091 · see citing works
Lewandowsky, S., Oberauer, K., & Gignac, G. E. (2013) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797612457686 · Cited by 638 · see citing works
Nisbet, E. C., Cooper, K. E., & Garrett, R. K. (2015) · The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science · doi:10.1177/0002716214555474 · Cited by 437 · see citing works
Dunlap, R. E., Xiao, C., & McCright, A. M. (2001) · Environmental Politics · doi:10.1080/714000580 · Cited by 432 · see citing works
Defeating the merchants of doubt
Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. M. (2010) · Nature · doi:10.1038/465686a · Cited by 292 · see citing works
Ansolabehere, S., & Rivers, D. (2013) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-022811-160625 · Cited by 257 · see citing works
Myers, T. A., Maibach, E., Peters, E., & Leiserowitz, A. (2015) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0120985 · Cited by 102 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Routledge Companion to Media Disinformation and Populism
Waisbord, S., Armitage, R., & Vaccari, C. (2021) · doi:10.4324/9781003004431 · Cited by 84
“After estimating federal spending on scientific research and then learning that the actual spending fell short of their estimates, participants showed higher levels of support for increased spending in science (Goldfarb and Kriner 2017).”
BackgroundMisinformation and public opinion of science and health: Approaches, findings, and future directions
Cacciatore, M. A. (2021) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1912437117 · Cited by 92 · see citing works
Sanz-Menéndez, L., & Cruz-Castro, L. (2019) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/0963662519840946 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
“Examples of interesting experiment-based case studies in other thematic domains are as follows: Critchley (2008), Carlisle et al. (2010), Brewer and Ley (2014) or Goldfarb and Kriner (2017).”
BackgroundSarathchandra, D., & Haltinner, K. (2020) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/0963662519886089 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
Federal R&D funding: the bedrock of national innovation
Mandt, R., Seetharam, K., & Chang, C. H. M. (2020) · MIT Science Policy Review · doi:10.38105/spr.n463z4t1u8 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Vance-Chalcraft, H. D., Smith, K., Allen, J., Bowser, G., Cooper, C. B., Jelks, N. O., Karl, C., Kodner, R., & Laslo, M. (2024) · CBE - Life Sciences Education · doi:10.1187/cbe.23-06-0123 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
“Understanding how the variations of social justice and related activities are defined and their place in academia is especially significant in a time when the importance of social justice and the merits of higher education are being questioned in the United States (Goldfarb and Kriner, 2017; Parker, 2019).”
BackgroundInfluentialA Survey Instrument to Measure Skeptics’ (Dis)Trust in Climate Science
Sarathchandra, D., & Haltinner, K. (2021) · Climate · doi:10.3390/cli9020018 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Mata, F., Santos, D., Cano‐Díaz, C., Jesus, M. S., & Vaz‐Velho, M. (2024) · Environmental Management · doi:10.1007/s00267-024-01961-x · Cited by 10 · see citing works
“In speci fi c circumstances trust in science has become increasingly politicised (Bolsen et al. 2014; Goldfarb and Kriner 2017) with conservatist denying anthropogenic CC and democrats supporting it.”
The Covid-19 Infodemic and the Efficacy of CorrectionsPreprint
Kreps, S. E., & Kriner, D. L. (2020) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3624517 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Self-citationUnderstanding public support for smart meters: media attention, misperceptions, and knowledge
Hmielowski, J. D., Kirkpatrick, A. W., & Boyd, A. D. (2020) · Journal of Risk Research · doi:10.1080/13669877.2020.1863844 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
“Research on the illusory truth effect (Hasher, Goldstein, and Toppino 1977) has shown repeated exposure to a position is associated with perceiving an opinion to be widely held.”
BackgroundScience populism impacts perceptions of credibility across scientific professions
Lerner, B., Hubner, A. Y., & Shulman, H. C. (2025) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-14115-8 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Rekker, R. (2024) · Frontiers in Political Science · doi:10.3389/fpos.2024.1254826 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Roessger, K. M., & Greenleaf, A. (2025) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2025.1556464 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Chaif, R. H., & Etheridge, C. E. (2025) · Social Media + Society · doi:10.1177/20563051251315251 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
“Correcting misperceptions both online and offline has been an area of focus concerning misinformation and disinformation, where exposure to accurate information can slow the spread of falsehoods (Goldfarb & Kriner, 2017; Vraga & Bode, 2017; Walter & Tukachinsky, 2020).”
Angelucci, D., & Vittori, D. (2025) · Contemporary Italian Politics · doi:10.1080/23248823.2025.2499993 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
“On the other, this politicization has led to growing public distrust in both scientific research and governments relying on scientific evidence (Gauchat 2012; Goldfarb & Kriner 2017; Motta 2018).”
The causes and consequences of public misperceptions about the origins of the Russo-Ukrainian war
Justwan, F., Baumgaertner, B., & Berejikian, J. D. (2026) · International Political Science Review · doi:10.1177/01925121251403578
- Authors
- Goldfarb, J. L., & Kriner, D. L.
- Affiliations
- Boston University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Kriner, Douglas L.
- Venue
- Science Communication
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2017-02
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 77-100
- ISSN
- 0164-0259 (ISSN-L)
- 1075-5470
- 1552-8545
- OpenAlex
- W2591199683
- Cited by
- 20
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2
- FWCI
- 7.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Science Communication (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Science and Science Education
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Research, Science, and Academia
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Science Education and Perceptions
- Keywords
- federal research funding, misinformation, motivated reasoning, partisan divide, ideological divisions, science policy
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
