{"title":"How the public evaluates various sources of scientific information: A descriptive examination.","authors":"Austin Y Hubner, Blue Lerner, Hillary C Shulman","doi":"10.1177/09636625261437376","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study examines six types of science, health, and medical sources, focusing on public perceptions of each source's gender, credibility, benevolence, and political affiliation. Results reveal that medical doctors were rated highest in credibility and benevolence. All of the expert sources were more likely to be reported as male, reflecting persistent stereotypes. Public health experts and academic scientists were perceived as more liberal, whereas medical doctors and industry scientists did not have perceived political affiliations. Across all sources, perceptions of political partisanship corresponded with lower credibility perceptions. Implications for science and health communication research and practice are considered.</p>","PeriodicalId":48094,"journal":{"name":"Public Understanding of Science","volume":" ","pages":"9636625261437376"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Understanding of Science","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625261437376","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This study examines six types of science, health, and medical sources, focusing on public perceptions of each source's gender, credibility, benevolence, and political affiliation. Results reveal that medical doctors were rated highest in credibility and benevolence. All of the expert sources were more likely to be reported as male, reflecting persistent stereotypes. Public health experts and academic scientists were perceived as more liberal, whereas medical doctors and industry scientists did not have perceived political affiliations. Across all sources, perceptions of political partisanship corresponded with lower credibility perceptions. Implications for science and health communication research and practice are considered.
期刊介绍:
Public Understanding of Science is a fully peer reviewed international journal covering all aspects of the inter-relationships between science (including technology and medicine) and the public. Public Understanding of Science is the only journal to cover all aspects of the inter-relationships between science (including technology and medicine) and the public. Topics Covered Include... ·surveys of public understanding and attitudes towards science and technology ·perceptions of science ·popular representations of science ·scientific and para-scientific belief systems ·science in schools