Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40164677›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Race and gender biases persist in public perceptions of scientists' credibility.

Dayeon Eom, Amanda L Molder, Helen A Tosteson, Emily L Howell, Meredith DeSalazar, Elliot Kirschner, Sarah S Goodwin, Dietram A Scheufele

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

8 authors.

Dayeon EomDepartment of Life Sciences Communication, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0007-2737-540X
Amanda L MolderDepartment of Life Sciences Communication, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8429-7339
Helen A TostesonDepartment of Life Sciences Communication, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3223-6221
Emily L HowellScience Communication Lab, Berkeley, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6021-0235
Meredith DeSalazarScience Communication Lab, Berkeley, CA, USA.
Elliot KirschnerScience Communication Lab, Berkeley, CA, USA.
Sarah S GoodwinScience Communication Lab, Berkeley, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4686-0914
Dietram A ScheufeleDepartment of Life Sciences Communication, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA. dietram.scheufele@wisc.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9914-5407

Funding

National Science Foundation 2006034
6 · The paper itself

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

Public OpinionRacial GroupsRacismResearch PersonnelSexismAdultBlack or African AmericanFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedStereotypingSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited StatesWhite

Identifiers

PMID40164677
PMCPMC11958661

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.