Attacking science on social media: How user comments affect perceived trustworthiness and credibility

Area of Science:

• Social Science
• Science Communication
• Psychology

Background:

• Social media platforms are key arenas for discussing scientific topics, including controversial ones.
• Science communicators face challenges from user comments that may critique scientific claims.
• Understanding the impact of these comments is crucial for effective science communication.

Purpose of the Study:

• To investigate how science-critical user comments on Facebook posts affect perceptions of scientific claims.
• To explore the influence of comment content (thematic complexity, methods, expertise, motivations) and commenter expertise.
• To determine the role of users' prior attitudes in evaluating these comments and claims.

Main Methods:

• Two exploratory studies were conducted using Facebook posts on controversial topics (homeopathy, GMOs, refugee crime, childhood vaccinations).
• User comments attacking scientific claims were categorized by their focus: thematic complexity, research methods, researcher expertise, or motivations.
• Statistical analyses controlled for participants' prior attitudes to assess comment effects.

Main Results:

• Prior attitudes significantly influenced judgments of user comments, scientific claims, and their sources.
• Thematic complexity comments received the most agreement, but only expert-delivered comments affected claim credibility.
• Comments questioning researchers' motivations reduced perceived integrity but did not impact perceived expertise.

Conclusions:

• Pre-existing beliefs strongly mediate responses to online scientific discourse and critiques.
• The source and nature of critical comments interact to influence perceptions of scientific credibility and researcher integrity.
• Effective science communication strategies must account for audience attitudes and the nuanced impact of online critiques.