ArticleScientific reports2025
Race and gender biases persist in public perceptions of scientists' credibility.
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.
- Information Source-Message Effect on Consumers' Intentions to Adhere to Food Safety Practices When Handling and Preparing Raw Chicken.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Politics matter more than credentials in laypeople's judgments of expertise.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- When Matilda shows up: The double-edged impact of women researchers' media visibility in management science.PloS one · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study examines how race and gender stereotypes affect scientists' ability to communicate with diverse US public audiences. Through a unique collaboration between researchers and filmmakers, we conducted an online survey experiment with a nationally representative U.S. quota sample, including an oversample of Black respondents (N = 1637). We found that Black female scientists face challenges in being perceived as warm and competent compared to their peers. Our findings revealed significant intersectional biases: Black female scientists received the lowest ratings in both warmth and competence, with ratings dropping further when introducing a story about a White patient. Black male scientists received consistently high ratings across experimental conditions, particularly showing elevated warmth scores when discussing a Black protagonist with sickle cell anemia. They also maintained high competence ratings whether working with Black or White protagonists. This pattern suggests that while Black scientists generally faced discrimination, Black men's gender afforded them certain privileges that were not extended to Black women in scientific fields. Our findings highlight persistent, intersectional biases and emphasize the need for comprehensive approaches to diversity and inclusion in scientific communication, which includes addressing the prejudices faced by female scientists and scientists of color.
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.