ArticleScientific reports2025
The role of worldviews, radicalization risk factors, and personality in harassment of scientists.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- More Biased, Yet More Informed? Documenting Me-Search Stigma Primarily Linked to Researchers' Own Group Memberships.Personality & social psychology bulletin · 2026Article
- Psychological Distance to Science: Psychometric Evaluation of the Swedish PSYDISC-Scale and as a Predictor of Science Skepticism.Scandinavian journal of psychology · 2025Article
- Editorial: Violence and mental health. focus on schizophrenia spectrum and psychotic disorders.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Anti-science movements brought more than public distrust in science. Perhaps even more worryingly, these movements are also associated with instances of harassment of-and violence against-scientists. However, virtually nothing is known about individuals likely to harass or harm scientists. Across two pre-registered studies (total N = 749), we investigated the role of worldviews (e.g., political ideology, conspiracy mentality, science cynicism), radicalization risk factors (relative deprivation and threat), and personality traits and how these relate to harassment of scientists (both attitudes and behavior). We found that science cynicism-the perception that scientists are incompetent and corrupt-drives approval of scientists' harassment (attitudes), as well as harmful behavior (e.g., refusing to donate money, not signing a petition). Additionally, perceiving scientists as threatening, as well as dark personality traits (psychopathy and narcissism), contributed to approving scientists' harassment. Overall, the present research takes a first step in identifying predictors of the willingness to harm scientists.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.