Fiske and Dupree did acknowledge in their paper that “scientists whose job involves teaching and communicating may seem warmer and more trustworthy.” But how exactly does science communication relate to U.S. adults’ perceptions of scientists’ warmth, morality or honesty?

A study published in Studies in Communication Sciences in late 2016, titled "Disclose your flaws! Admission positively affects the perceived trustworthiness of an expert science blogger," offers some insights related to scientists’ perceived trustworthiness when they practice science communication online. The “online” piece is important, because the internet is now Americans’ top source of science news and information.

Psychology researchers at the University of Muenster in Germany (Hendriks, Kienhues and Bromme, 2016) investigated laypersons’ perceptions of the trustworthiness of a scientist who blogged about his* research findings. They specifically explored how roughly 100 high school students judged the expertise, integrity (related to honesty and openness in communication), and benevolence of a scientist who blogged about his research and admitted a flaw or limitation. They compared this to a case in which the scientist did not admit the flaw, but instead another expert pointed out the same flaw or limitation in a comment on the scientist’s own blog post.

*Note: My first issue with this paper is that the made-up scientist in the study was male, and that the authors did not account for potential gender differences. In other words, could a female scientist be judged more critically for admitting a study flaw or limitation? Based on some previous research, I wouldn't be surprised if this were the case.