Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36952552›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Both trust in, and polarization of trust in, relevant sciences have increased through the COVID-19 pandemic.

Sofia Radrizzani, Cristina Fonseca, Alison Woollard, Jonathan Pettitt, Laurence D Hurst

Open access · goldFull text read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
7.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Sofia RadrizzaniThe Milner Centre for Evolution, Department of Life Sciences, University of Bath, Bath, Somerset, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-0834-8151
Cristina FonsecaThe Genetics Society, London, United Kingdom.
Alison WoollardBiochemistry Department, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Jonathan PettittSchool of Medicine, Medical Sciences and Nutrition, University of Aberdeen, Institute of Medical Sciences, Aberdeen, United Kingdom.
Laurence D HurstThe Milner Centre for Evolution, Department of Life Sciences, University of Bath, Bath, Somerset, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-1002-1054
University of Bath · GBGenetics SocietyUniversity of Aberdeen · GBUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While attempts to promote acceptance of well-evidenced science have historically focused on increasing scientific knowledge, it is now thought that for acceptance of science, trust in, rather than simply knowledge of, science is foundational. Here we employ the COVID-19 pandemic as a natural experiment on trust modulation as it has enabled unprecedented exposure of science. We ask whether trust in science has on the average altered, whether trust has changed the same way for all and, if people have responded differently, what predicts these differences? We 1) categorize the nature of self-reported change in trust in "scientists" in a random sample of over 2000 UK adults after the introduction of the first COVID vaccines, 2) ask whether any reported change is likely to be real through consideration of both a negative control and through experiment, and 3) address what predicts change in trust considering sex, educational attainment, religiosity, political attitude, age and pre-pandemic reported trust. We find that many more (33%) report increased trust towards "scientists" than report decreased trust (7%), effects of this magnitude not being seen in negative controls. Only age and prior degree of trust predict change in trust, the older population increasing trust more. The prior degree of trust effect is such that those who say they did not trust science prior to the pandemic are more likely to report becoming less trusting, indicative of both trust polarization and a backfire effect. Since change in trust is predictive of willingness to have a COVID-19 vaccine, it is likely that these changes have public health consequences.

Indexed as

Academic SuccessCOVID-19AdultCOVID-19 VaccinesHumansPandemicsSelf ReportCOVID-19 Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID36952552
PMCPMC10035814
OpenAlexW4360608673

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read13
identifiers read9
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.