Conservatives less trusting of science compared to liberals in the United States

A new study published in Nature Human Behaviour reveals that in the United States, political conservatives tend to trust scientists less than liberals across a wide range of scientific fields—not just in politically charged areas like climate change or public health. Despite attempts to bridge this ideological trust gap using targeted interventions, researchers found that brief messaging strategies were ineffective at increasing conservatives’ trust in scientists.

Previous studies had established a general ideological divide, with liberals tending to express more trust in scientists than conservatives. However, it was unclear how this gap played out across different scientific occupations—some of which are more tied to hot-button issues like climate change, while others focus on fields like geology or mathematics.

The new study also aimed to address whether targeted interventions could reduce this ideological gap. If distrust in scientists stems not from science literacy but from perceived value conflicts, perhaps interventions could reframe science in ways that resonate with conservatives’ worldview.

“We initially had a dataset that included questions on political ideology and trust in as many as 45 types of scientists,” explained study author Vukašin Gligorić, who recently received a PhD in social psychology from the University of Amsterdam. “When we analyzed it, we noticed consistent gaps in trust between liberals and conservatives in the United States, across most of the 45 different scientific occupations. This granularity gave us a unique opportunity to examine how trust varies by field. From there, we started asking ourselves: How can we bridge this ideological divide? Is it possible to increase trust in scientists among conservatives?”

The study involved 7,800 participants in the United States, recruited to form a large and ideologically diverse sample. Participants were classified as liberal or conservative based on a 10-point political ideology scale. Each person rated their level of trust in scientists from four of 35 different scientific occupations, including climatologists, mathematicians, marine biologists, and petroleum geologists. Trust was measured using two items on a 7-point scale: credibility and trustworthiness.

Liberal and conservative participants both completed the trust ratings. However, only conservatives were randomly assigned to one of six experimental conditions: a control group or one of five intervention strategies. These strategies were designed to align scientific work with conservative values and worldviews. They included framing science in terms of shared values, emphasizing economic co-benefits, showcasing conservative scientists, highlighting the trust of prominent conservatives in science, and presenting conservative social norms in support of science. The goal was to see whether any of these approaches could increase conservatives’ trust in scientists.

The results confirmed earlier findings: liberals, on average, showed significantly higher trust in scientists than conservatives. This trust gap was not limited to a few controversial fields. Liberals expressed more trust across all 35 occupations studied. The difference was most pronounced in fields such as climatology, virology, and environmental science, but it also appeared in less politically charged areas like economics.

Notably, even in scientific disciplines that contribute directly to economic growth—like industrial chemistry or petroleum geology—conservatives still expressed lower trust than liberals. This finding challenges the idea that conservatives are more trusting of scientists whose work aligns with market-based goals.

To test whether trust could be increased, the researchers examined the effects of the five brief interventions. Each strategy was based on theories of science rejection that emphasize the role of ideology, group identity, and perceived values. For example, one strategy presented scientists as sharing core conservative values like tradition and patriotism. Another highlighted how scientific advancements benefit economic prosperity. Despite these efforts, none of the interventions had a significant effect. Conservatives who received the messages did not report greater trust in scientists than those in the control group.

“There are three main takeaways,” Gligorić told PsyPost. “First, liberals tend to trust scientists more than conservatives do. Second—and this is crucial—those differences are not as dramatic as many assume. Even the most conservative participants reported relatively high trust in scientists, with an average score of 4.93 (on a 7-point scale), compared to 5.75 among the most liberal. So overall, most people do trust scientists, which is reassuring. Finally, none of the interventions we tested—designed based on previous literature—actually increased conservatives’ trust. That’s more of a takeaway for researchers, but it shows how challenging this issue really is.”

The team also examined whether political identity strength moderated the effect of the interventions. The idea was that strongly identified conservatives might respond differently to messages tailored to their worldview. But again, the results showed no meaningful differences. The interventions failed across the board, regardless of how strongly participants identified with their political ideology.

“We were somewhat surprised that none of the interventions we tested led to an increase in trust,” Gligorić said. “Given prior findings in the literature, we expected at least some effect. This suggests that researchers working on attitude change and science communication may need to rethink their strategies and explore more robust or long-term approaches.”

These findings suggest that brief, one-shot messaging strategies are unlikely to change deeply rooted attitudes about science and scientists—especially those shaped by political ideology. The study adds to a growing body of evidence that short interventions, such as consensus messaging or value-based appeals, typically have only small and unreliable effects. This is especially true when addressing entrenched beliefs tied to identity and ideology.

“Meaningful attitude change likely requires more sustained engagement, perhaps through dialogue or repeated exposure,” Gligorić told PsyPost. “So it’s possible that different formats or longer-term approaches would yield different results.”

One limitation of the current research is that it focused solely on U.S. participants. The United States is uniquely polarized in terms of political ideology, and it remains to be seen whether similar patterns of ideological trust gaps exist in other countries.

Gligorić emphasized that the findings should not be interpreted as evidence that all conservatives deeply distrust science. On average, trust in scientists was still relatively high across the sample. The issue may lie more in the messaging of conservative elites—such as politicians and media figures—who deliberately cast doubt on scientific findings for their own gain.

“One of my main goals is to better understand the disconnect between the general conservative public and conservative elites when it comes to trust in science,” he said. “Our data shows that conservatives still express relatively high levels of trust in scientists. The issue seems to be less about widespread public distrust and more about how certain conservative elites—politicians, think tanks, and corporate actors—intentionally politicize science to serve their own interests.”

“What we’re seeing in the United States isn’t an isolated phenomenon. In countries like the Netherlands and Serbia (where I’m from), conservative elites are also increasingly targeting academia and the broader scientific community. They present universities and researchers as ideologically biased or out of touch, trying to frame science as part of a ‘liberal agenda.’

“But in my experience, this rhetoric doesn’t reflect the views of many ordinary conservatives,” Gligorić continued. “I have conservative friends who are genuinely appalled by these attacks—they value expertise, evidence, and open inquiry, just like anyone else. This growing hostility toward science is not a grassroots movement; it’s being orchestrated from the top by political and media actors looking to score short-term gains, even if it comes at the expense of long-term trust in democratic institutions and public knowledge.”

“This is especially evident in areas like climate change and public health, where denial and skepticism are often not rooted in grassroots sentiment, but in top-down messaging designed to protect economic and ideological agendas. In many ways, these elites are manufacturing polarization, actively pitting their base against the scientific community. It’s a form of strategic doubt, reminiscent of tactics used by the tobacco industry. I believe future research needs to focus not just on individual attitudes, but on how elite discourse shapes public opinion and undermines collective action on urgent scientific issues.”

The study, “Political ideology and trust in scientists in the USA,” was authored by Vukašin Gligorić , Gerben A. van Kleef, and Bastiaan T. Rutjens.