A recent study published in Scientific Reports provides insight into why some individuals engage in harassment of scientists. The research identifies science cynicism as a significant driver of harassment. The study also highlights that individuals with dark personality traits, including narcissism and psychopathy, and those who perceive scientists as threatening, are more likely to approve of harassment.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, many scientists faced harassment. Reports indicated that a significant number of scientists working on pandemic-related research experienced verbal abuse, threats, and even physical attacks. For instance, one Dutch virologist narrowly escaped a mob attack in a high-profile incident in Amsterdam.
While public mistrust of science is well-documented, the specific factors contributing to harassment had not been thoroughly explored. The new research aimed to identify which worldviews, risk factors, and personality traits might predict approval of or engagement in harmful behaviors toward scientists.
“The harassment of scientists is an alarming yet under-researched phenomenon,” said study author Vukašin Gligorić, a PhD candidate in social psychology at the University of Amsterdam. “My interest in this topic grew after reading a report on a survey in Science, which revealed that 38% of scientists surveyed had experienced some form of attack. This number was shocking and highlighted how widespread the issue is.
“However, harassment is not limited to COVID-19 researchers but extends to scientists across various fields. Personally, I have also experienced harassment, which further motivated me to explore the systemic and individual factors driving this troubling behavior.”
The researchers conducted two studies to explore the factors that predict harassment of scientists. In the first study, they recruited 413 participants through social media platforms, aiming to capture a diverse sample in terms of age, education, and nationality. The participants, predominantly from the United States and the Netherlands, completed a series of questionnaires assessing their worldviews, such as religiosity, spirituality, political ideology, conspiracy beliefs, and science cynicism. They also measured radicalization risk factors, including perceptions of threat (symbolic and realistic) and feelings of relative deprivation.
To gauge participants’ attitudes toward harassment, the researchers presented ten scenarios involving harmful behaviors against scientists, such as insults and death threats, and asked participants to rate their approval. Additionally, participants engaged in a behavioral task, the Voodoo Doll Task, where they could express aggression by inserting pins into a doll representing a stereotypical scientist.
The researchers found that specific worldviews and perceptions were closely tied to the approval of harassment toward scientists. Science cynicism—the belief that scientists are incompetent, self-serving, and untrustworthy—was a significant factor. Conspiracy beliefs, which involve the conviction that events are secretly orchestrated by powerful and malevolent groups, were also linked to harassment approval. Science populism, a perspective that pits ordinary people against what is perceived as a corrupt and disconnected scientific elite, further contributed to attitudes approving harassment.
Among the studied factors, the perception of threat was the most influential. Participants who viewed scientists as threatening their personal safety, economic well-being, or societal values were significantly more likely to approve of harassment. This included both realistic threats, such as concerns about physical harm or financial stability, and symbolic threats, like the belief that scientists undermine cultural traditions or individual freedoms.
The behavioral measure, which involved participants inserting pins into a voodoo doll representing a scientist, provided a way to observe aggression indirectly. However, this measure showed only a weak correlation with the predictors mentioned above. This suggests that while attitudes toward harassment and the underlying worldviews are strongly linked, they do not necessarily translate into direct expressions of aggression.
The second study aimed to expand on these findings by including measures of personality traits, specifically the dark triad: narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Gligorić and his colleagues recruited 336 participants through an online platform, focusing again on diverse demographics. Participants completed the same worldview and radicalization measures as in Study 1, along with additional assessments for the dark triad. Behavioral measures were modified to include two new tasks: participants could donate money to a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting scientists or sign a petition advocating against harassment of scientists. These tasks provided an opportunity to observe participants’ support for scientists in real-world contexts.
The findings from Study 2 reinforced the role of science cynicism and threat perception in shaping harassment-related attitudes. In addition, personality traits played a significant role, with psychopathy and narcissism associated with greater approval of harassment.
However, the behavioral measures presented a more nuanced picture. While science cynicism was consistently linked to less supportive behavior, such as refusing to donate or sign the petition, the overall relationship between attitudes and behaviors remained weak. This suggested that while attitudes might reflect underlying tendencies, situational and social factors could influence whether individuals act on these attitudes.
Together, the two studies demonstrated that mistrust of scientists, feelings of threat, and certain personality traits contribute to approval of harassment. However, the researchers also highlighted the gap between attitudes and behaviors, emphasizing the need for future research to better understand the conditions under which these attitudes translate into harmful actions.
“An important takeaway is that most people do not support the harassment of scientists,” Gligorić told PsyPost. “In our study, we found very low levels of approval for such behavior. However, among the minority who do, certain factors stand out. People who are cynical about science—believing scientists to be corrupt and incompetent—are more likely to approve of or engage in harassment. This highlights how societal narratives, particularly those fueled by mistrust and misinformation, can contribute to harmful behaviors. Addressing these misconceptions and fostering trust in science is crucial to mitigating this issue.”
But as with all research, there are limitations to consider.
“One major caveat is that our study focused on Western contexts,” Gligorić noted. “Like most other studies in the field (conducted primarily in Western Europe and the United States), this limits our understanding of how these dynamics play out in other parts of the world. Another limitation is the potential for selection bias. People who strongly dislike or distrust scientists may have been less likely to participate in our research, which means our findings may underestimate the extent of anti-science attitudes and behaviors.”
Looking forward, “I want to delve deeper into the role of political ideology in shaping attitudes toward science and scientists,” Gligorić said. “Our exploratory analyses suggest that individuals on the political right tend to be more cynical about scientists, which drives harassment. We want to explore these ideas further in collaboration with colleagues from NYU (primarily Professor John Jost). This would bring us to a better understanding of how ideological, psychological, and societal factors intersect to influence trust in science and public behavior toward scientists.”
“Finally, it’s important to consider the broader societal factors, such as neoliberal capitalism, which breeds individualism, frustration, and social inequalities. These conditions likely exacerbate the cynicism and mistrust that drive harassment.”
“Harassment of scientists is not just a personal issue but a societal one,” Gligorić added. “It reflects broader cultural and systemic factors, including rising inequality, misinformation, and mistrust possibly fueled by neoliberalism. Addressing this problem requires a multifaceted approach, including better science communication, systemic reforms to reduce inequality, and a focus on societal trust-building. I hope this study inspires more research and action to protect scientists and their essential work.”
The study, “The role of worldviews, radicalization risk factors, and personality in harassment of scientists,” was authored by Vukašin Gligorić, Carlotta Reinhardt, Ella Nieuwenhuijzen, Josha Orobio de Castro, Allard R. Feddes, Gerben A. van Kleef, and Bastiaan T. Rutjens.
