Contact and support
Need help, have a question, or want to contact the ResearchHub team?
© 2026 ResearchHub. Built for responsible scholarly connection.
Privacy-aware community infrastructureResearch graph
References from How social evaluations shape trust in 45 types of scientists. Local targets link to admitted publications; unresolved targets remain external evidence.
Trust in scientists in times of pandemic: Panel evidence from 12 countries
10.1073/pnas.2108576118 · 2021 · External reference
Americans’ Trust in Scientists, Other Groups Declines.
2022 · External reference
Wellcome Global Monitor 2018 | Reports
2019 · External reference
The enduring effect of scientific interest on trust in climate scientists in the United States
10.1038/s41558-018-0126-9 · 2018 · External reference
The role of trust for climate change mitigation and adaptation behaviour: A meta-analysis
10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101428 · 2020 · External reference
Social evaluations of scientific occupations.
10.1038/s41598-022-23197-7 · 2022 · External reference
Explaining Polarized Trust in Scientists: A Political Stereotype-Approach
2024 · External reference
Public opinion and trust in scientists: the role of the research context, and the perceived motivation of stem cell researchers
10.1177/0963662506070162 · 2008 · External reference
Not All Skepticism Is Equal: Exploring the Ideological Antecedents of Science Acceptance and Rejection.
10.1177/0146167217741314 · 2018 · External reference
Reassessing the Variables Used to Measure Public Perceptions of Scientists
10.1177/1075547020949547 · 2021 · External reference
Public perceptions of who counts as a scientist for controversial science
10.1177/0963662519856768 · 2019 · External reference
Whatever happened to the ‘mad, bad’ scientist? Overturning the stereotype.
10.1177/0963662514535689 · 2016 · External reference
Gaining trust as well as respect in communicating to motivated audiences about science topics
10.1073/pnas.1317505111 · 2014 · External reference
A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition.
10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878 · 2002 · External reference
Facets of the Fundamental Content Dimensions: Agency with Competence and Assertiveness—Communion with Warmth and Morality.
10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01810 · 2016 · External reference
10.4324/9781315661322
10.4324/9781315661322 · 2017 · External reference
Group virtue: The importance of morality (vs. competence and sociability) in the positive evaluation of in-groups.
10.1037/0022-3514.93.2.234 · 2007 · External reference
The ABC of stereotypes about groups: Agency/socioeconomic success, conservative–progressive beliefs, and communion
10.1037/pspa0000046 · 2016 · External reference
Navigating the social world: Toward an integrated framework for evaluating self, individuals, and groups.
10.1037/rev0000262 · 2021 · External reference
Adversarial alignment enables competing models to engage in cooperative theory building toward cumulative science
10.1073/pnas.1906720117 · 2020 · External reference
Unresolved reference
2021 · External reference
The (im-)moral scientist? Measurement and framing effects shape the association between scientists and immorality
10.1371/journal.pone.0274379 · 2022 · External reference
An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust
10.2307/258792 · 1995 · External reference
Measuring Laypeople’s Trust in Experts in a Digital Age: The Muenster Epistemic Trustworthiness Inventory (METI).
10.1371/journal.pone.0139309 · 2015 · External reference
Unresolved reference
2014 · External reference
At what sample size do correlations stabilize?
10.1016/j.jrp.2013.05.009 · 2013 · External reference
Comparing the facets of the big two in global evaluation of self versus other people.
10.1002/ejsp.2639 · 2020 · External reference
Knowledge, perceived potential and trust as determinants of low- and high-impact pro-environmental behaviours
10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101741 · 2022 · External reference
Trust in the scientific research community predicts intent to comply with COVID-19 prevention measures: An analysis of a large-scale international survey dataset
10.1017/s0950268822000255 · 2022 · External reference
Comparing Single-Item and Multi-Item Trust Scales: Insights for Assessing Trust in Project Leaders.
10.3390/bs13090786 · 2023 · External reference
The influence of political ideology on trust in science
10.1088/1748-9326/8/4/044029 · 2013 · External reference
What are you assessing when you measure “trust” in scientists with a direct measure?
10.1177/09636625231161302 · 2023 · External reference
Not So Different After All: A Cross-Discipline View Of Trust.
10.5465/amr.1998.926617 · 1998 · External reference
An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust: Past, Present, and Future.
10.5465/amr.2007.24348410 · 2007 · External reference
Narcissists’ negative perception of their counterpart’s competence and benevolence and their own reduced trust in a negotiation context.
10.1016/j.paid.2014.10.015 · 2015 · External reference
Trust toward a group of strangers as a function of stereotype-based social identification.
10.1016/j.paid.2017.03.031 · 2018 · External reference
In or out? How the perceived morality (vs. competence) of prospective group members affects acceptance and rejection.
10.1002/ejsp.2269 · 2017 · External reference
Why Facts Are Not Enough: Understanding and Managing the Motivated Rejection of Science.
10.1177/0963721420969364 · 2020 · External reference
Unresolved reference
2018 · External reference
The Political Divide on Climate Change: Partisan Polarization Widens in the U.S. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development.
2016 · External reference
The growing climate divide
10.1038/nclimate1144 · 2011 · External reference
Science and Morality.
10.1126/science.280.5367.1200 · 1998 · External reference
Characterizing polarization in online vaccine discourse—A large-scale study
10.1371/journal.pone.0263746 · 2022 · External reference
