![[Adobe Stock]](https://sp-ao.shortpixel.ai/client/to_webp,q_glossy,ret_img,w_750,h_375/https://www.psypost.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/scientist-750x375.jpg)
A new study published in Public Understanding of Science suggests that attributing scientific claims to specific experts can modestly increase how accurate those claims are perceived to be — especially among politically conservative individuals. Conducted in the United States, the study also indicates that while liberals tend to trust experts more than conservatives across the board, conservatives may still respond more positively when claims come from experts whose research is associated with production and economic growth.
Rodrigo Reyes Cordova, a doctoral researcher at the médialab at Sciences Po Paris, conducted the study. He wanted to better understand how political ideology affects public trust in scientific experts and their claims. Rather than relying on broad labels like “pro-science” or “anti-science,” the study focuses on whether people’s beliefs align with the type of expert making a claim.
Previous research has shown a long-term trend in the U.S.: conservatives have become more skeptical of scientific institutions over time, while liberals have grown more trusting. However, Reyes Cordova aimed to go deeper by examining how the alignment between a person’s political beliefs and the field of expertise influences their perception of trust and credibility.
“My main motivation was a feeling of discomfort with the narrative that ‘liberals/left-wing people are pro-science and conservatives/right-wing people are anti-science,'” Reyes Cordova told PsyPost. “I do not think that captures the reality. My view is that everyone is biased, regardless of political beliefs, and we are all prone to dismissing information that seemingly conflicts with them.”
The study draws on the idea of cultural cognition — a framework that suggests people are more likely to trust claims that align with their values and worldview. According to this view, political ideology shapes how people evaluate expert information, not necessarily because they reject science itself, but because they interpret scientific claims through a social and political lens.
To explore these questions, Reyes Cordova designed an online experiment involving 1,054 adults living in the U.S. Participants were presented with four different claims, each tied to current public debates: immigration and crime, taxation and government revenue, genetically modified foods, and climate change. Each participant was randomly assigned to one of four conditions. In some cases, the claim was attributed to an expert from a specific field (like a sociologist or economist), in other cases to a general “scientist,” and in the control condition, the claim had no named source.
The study categorized experts into two broad groups. One group, labeled as impact experts, included sociologists and environmental scientists. These fields tend to focus on the societal and environmental consequences of industry and policy. The second group, called production experts, included economists and agricultural scientists, who typically work in fields tied to industrial output and economic performance.
Participants were asked to rate how accurate they believed each claim was, as well as how much they trusted various kinds of experts. They also reported their political ideology, identifying themselves as either liberal or conservative.
Across all expert types, liberals expressed more trust than conservatives. However, the difference was smaller for production experts. This suggests that while conservatives are generally less trusting of experts, they may be relatively more comfortable with experts whose work aligns with economic or industrial goals.
“Conservatives trust all experts less, regardless of whether that expert is from what I define as a ‘production’ or ‘impact’ field,” Reyes Cordova explained. “That said, they do favor production over impact experts.”
When it came to judging the accuracy of specific claims, political ideology again played a role. Liberals tended to rate all four claims as more accurate than conservatives did — except for the taxation claim. Conservatives rated that claim (which said taxing the rich and corporations reduces government income) as more accurate than liberals. This finding aligns with previous research showing that people’s political beliefs often influence how they evaluate individual claims.
Despite these ideological differences, the expert’s field — whether impact or production — did not have a consistent effect on how accurate a claim was perceived to be. In other words, attributing a claim to an economist versus an environmental scientist did not significantly change how participants rated its accuracy. This result held regardless of the participant’s political orientation.
“Overall, experts are seen as a source of credibility for scientific information,” Reyes Cordova told PsyPost.
However, some subtle effects did emerge. Overall, attributing a claim to any kind of expert, whether from a specific field or just a general “scientist,” increased its perceived accuracy compared to when no expert was mentioned. This effect appeared most strongly in two of the four claims: the one about taxation and the one about climate change.
For the taxation claim, both liberals and conservatives rated the claim as more accurate when it was linked to a specific expert, compared to when it had no source. For the climate change claim, conservatives in particular viewed the claim as more accurate when it was attributed to an environmental or agricultural scientist, rather than left without a named source. Liberals, by contrast, rated the claim’s accuracy the same regardless of whether an expert source was included.
“On the anthropogenic nature of climate change, conservatives rated the claim as more accurate when attributed to an expert, even if this is a claim they usually reject,” Reyes Cordova said.
These findings suggest that including an expert attribution — simply mentioning that a claim comes from a named expert — can increase credibility. For claims that are typically contested or politicized, like climate change, this strategy may be especially helpful in bridging ideological divides.
The study has some limitations. The sample was balanced in terms of political ideology, gender, and education, but it was not nationally representative. This limits the generalizability of the findings. The claims used in the study were drawn from earlier research and may not reflect topics that are most relevant or salient to participants today. Some of the claims, such as those about genetically modified organisms, may also be more contested within scientific communities than the study assumed.
“The experiment was administered to a very special sample, and participants evaluated only a small number of claims,” Reyes Cordova noted. “Additionally, I did not measure whether people have ‘wrong’ or ‘correct’ views on scientific information; I only measured their perception of expert information. Nevertheless, the results are robust, since the design was experimental and controlled for demographic variables.”
Future research might explore how different expert fields are viewed across the political spectrum, and whether certain claims are more persuasive when accompanied by experts with particular reputations or qualifications. Studies could also test whether similar effects are seen in other countries or cultural contexts. Another promising direction would be to include a wider range of claims and examine how the perceived political orientation of an expert — not just their field — influences credibility.
“I aim to understand the conditions under which the public is willing to accept expert information,” Reyes Cordova said. “For a functioning democracy, it is essential that experts are heard.”
The study, “Political ideology-driven perceptions of experts and their claims,” was published online on September 19, 2025.
