Media disagreements about science can blur distinctions between experts and non-experts, potentially eroding public trust in scientific claims. We explore how trust in scientific claims and experts is affected by the expertise and vested interests of dissenting voices, and scientific literacy’s role. In an experiment, participants (N = 105) read science news articles featuring disagreement between experts. The dissenting expert’s expertise and potential conflicts of interest were varied. Results show scientists were deemed more trustworthy when disagreeing experts had vested interests or lacked domain expertise. Furthermore, those with higher scientific literacy better assessed claims and trustworthiness based on these factors.
Professor at George Washington University
I am a Professor with Human-Technology Collaboration and Educational Technology programs at George Washington University in Washington DC. I have written 12 books and more than 100 articles, and I co-host of the Parsing Science podcast where scientists tell the stories behind their research. I am also the developer of the WeShareScience.com online platform for sharing research videos, and SciencePods.com where researchers can create free podcasts about their science. My research interests include human interactions with intelligent machines, needs, needs assessments, and instructional design.
Latest posts by Ryan Watkins (see all)
- Limitations of the LLM-as-a-Judge Approach for Evaluating LLM Outputs in Expert Knowledge Tasks - June 7, 2025
- Neural and Cognitive Impacts of AI: The Influence of Task Subjectivity on Human-LLM Collaboration - June 5, 2025
- From Lived Experience to Insight: Unpacking the Psychological Risks of Using AI Conversational Agents - May 30, 2025