The positive association of education with the trust in science and scientists is weaker in highly corrupt countries
Loading...

Date
2024
Authors
Sinan Alper
Busra Elif Yelbuz
Sumeyra Bengisu Akkurt
Onurcan Yilmaz
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
Open Access Color
Green Open Access
No
OpenAIRE Downloads
OpenAIRE Views
Publicly Funded
No
Abstract
One of the most prominent correlates of trust in science and scientists is education level possibly because educated individuals have higher levels of science knowledge and thinking ability suggesting that trusting science and scientists relies more on reflective thinking abilities. However it is relatively more reasonable for highly educated individuals to suspect authority figures in highly corrupt countries. We tested this prediction in two nationally representative and probabilistic cross-cultural data sets (Study 1: 142 countries N = 40085, Study 2: 47 countries N = 69332) and found that the positive association between education and trust in scientists (Study 1) and science (Study 2) was weaker or non-existent in highly corrupt countries. The results did not change after statistically controlling for age sex household income and residence. We suggest future research to be more considerate of the societal context in understanding how education status correlates with trust in science and scientists.
Description
Keywords
corruption, education, science, scientist, trust, PUBLIC TRUST, UNITED-STATES, GENDER-DIFFERENCES, POLITICAL TRUST, DEFICIT MODEL, ATTITUDES, KNOWLEDGE, GOVERNMENT, MEDIA, INSTITUTIONS, TRUST, Education, Corruption, Scientist, Science, Media, education, Science, Public Trust, Political Trust, corruption, trust, United-States, Institutions, Trust, Knowledge, Gender-Differences, Attitudes, Government, Deficit Model, Humans, Educational Status, science, scientist
Fields of Science
Citation
WoS Q
Scopus Q

OpenCitations Citation Count
8
Source
Public Understanding of Science
Volume
33
Issue
1
Start Page
2
End Page
19
PlumX Metrics
Citations
CrossRef : 15
Scopus : 16
Captures
Mendeley Readers : 34
Google Scholar™


