Bridging the Divide. An Interdisciplinary Analysis of Trust in Science

Zeybek Kabakci, Gökçe; Ka a, Umu Yene ; Bayda Ça da , Gökçe; To os, Em e
A icle — Published Ve sion
B idging he Di ide. An In e disciplina y Analysis o T us
in Science
Sage Open
P o ided in Coope a ion wi h:
WZB Be lin Social Science Cen e
Sugges ed Ci a ion: Zeybek Kabakci, Gökçe; Ka a, Umu Yene ; Bayda Ça da , Gökçe; To os, Em e
(2025) : B idging he Di ide. An In e disciplina y Analysis o T us in Science, Sage Open, ISSN
2158-2440, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, Vol. 15, Iss. 3, pp. 1-23,
h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/21582440251352376
This Ve sion is a ailable a :
h ps://hdl.handle.ne /10419/329652
S anda d-Nu zungsbedingungen:
Die Dokumen e au EconS o dü en zu eigenen wissenscha lichen
Zwecken und zum P i a geb auch gespeiche und kopie we den.
Sie dü en die Dokumen e nich ü ö en liche ode komme zielle
Zwecke e iel äl igen, ö en lich auss ellen, ö en lich zugänglich
machen, e eiben ode ande wei ig nu zen.
So e n die Ve asse die Dokumen e un e Open-Con en -Lizenzen
(insbesonde e CC-Lizenzen) zu Ve ügung ges ell haben soll en,
gel en abweichend on diesen Nu zungsbedingungen die in de do
genann en Lizenz gewäh en Nu zungs ech e.
Te ms o use:
Documen s in EconS o may be sa ed and copied o you pe sonal
and schola ly pu poses.
You a e no o copy documen s o public o comme cial pu poses, o
exhibi he documen s publicly, o make hem publicly a ailable on he
in e ne , o o dis ibu e o o he wise use he documen s in public.
I he documen s ha e been made a ailable unde an Open Con en
Licence (especially C ea i e Commons Licences), you may exe cise
u he usage igh s as speci ied in he indica ed licence.
h ps://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/
O iginal Resea ch
SAGE Open
July-Sep embe 2025: 1–23
ÓThe Au ho (s) 2025
DOI: 10.1177/21582440251352376
jou nals.sagepub.com/home/sgo
B idging he Di ide: An In e disciplina y
Analysis o T us in Science
Go
¨kcxe Zeybek Kabakci
1
, Umu Yene Ka a
1,2
,Go
¨kcxe Bayda Cxa da
1
,
and Em e To os
3
Abs ac
Fo se e al easons, us in science in ecen yea s has e oded, h owing se ious doub s on once- eliable scien i ic
esou ces. Al hough mul iple scien i ic disciplines y o explain he causes and consequences o his wo ying decline, we
ha e only scan knowledge abou hese disciplines’ in e connec ed a gumen s. Focusing on his niche, his s udy aims o
b idge he li e a u e om di e se academic disciplines and iden i y dominan hemes by u ilising a cu ing-edge me hodology.
This a emp is c ucial since we need a comp ehensi e unde s anding o he complex ac o s in luencing public us in sci-
ence, allowing us o app oach he p oblem om mul iple angles and enabling he c a ing o e idence-based policies ha be -
e esona e wi h he public and a e mo e likely o be e ec i e in es o ing us . Hence, his s udy con ibu es o he
exis ing li e a u e bo h subs an ially and me hodologically. Subs an ially, we show ha he e a e dominan ecu ing esea ch
hemes ac oss he disciplines, such as science communica ion, compliance wi h scien i ic ad ice, and public engagemen .
Me hodologically, we con end ha iden i ying hese i al c osscu ing hemes can only be possible by combining s a e-o - he-
a compu a ional echniques wi h con en ional quali a i e con en analysis.
Plain language summa y
How do di e en scien i ic disciplines de ine us in science?
In ecen yea s, us in science conside ably luc ua ed, aising conce ns abou he eliabili y o scien i ic
in o ma ion. While di e en scien i ic ields ha e ied o explo e why his is happening and wha i means, he e
is limi ed unde s anding o how hei ideas a e connec ed. This s udy aims o b ing oge he esea ch om
a ious academic a eas o iden i y common hemes ela ed o public us in science. By doing so, we hope o
o e a clea e unde s anding o he many ac o s ha in luence us . This app oach will help c ea e be e ,
e idence-based policies ha esona e wi h he public and can e ec i ely ebuild us . Ou esea ch highligh s key
hemes, such as science communica ion, public engagemen , and how people ollow scien i ic ad ice. We also
in oduce a new me hod ha combines ad anced compu a ional ools wi h adi ional con en analysis o unco e
hese impo an hemes.
Keywo ds
communica ion s udies, communica ion, social sciences, us , science, us in science, in e disciplina y, ex mining, ne wo k
analysis
1
Hace epe Uni e si y, Anka a, Tu key
2
WZB Be lin Social Science Cen e
3
Bilken Uni e si y, Anka a, Tu key
Co esponding Au ho :
Em e To os, Bilken Uni e si y, Depa men o Communica ion and Design, FC 206 Bilken -Cxankaya, Anka a 06800, Tu key.
Email: em e o os@bilken .edu.
C ea i e Commons CC BY: This a icle is dis ibu ed unde he e ms o he C ea i e Commons A ibu ion 4.0 License
(h ps://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/) which pe mi s any use, ep oduc ion and dis ibu ion o
he wo k wi hou u he pe mission p o ided he o iginal wo k is a ibu ed as speci ied on he SAGE and Open Access pages
(h ps://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-a -sage).
I I lis ened o ally o he scien is s,
we would igh now ha e a coun y
ha would be in a massi e dep ession ins ead
—we’ e like a ocke ship.
Take a look a he numbe s.
D. T ump, Oc obe 18, 2020
In oduc ion
E en hough he abo e epig aph belongs o Donald
T ump, un o una ely, i esembles a dominan and wo -
ying unde s anding o science and scien is s in he e a
ha we li e in. Al hough echnical ad ancemen and sci-
en i ic knowledge a e en wined wi h p ac ically all o ou
daily p ac ices, we, a he same ime, obse e absu d
ac i i ies, such as he la -Ea h o an i- accine mo e-
men s, which became componen s o he poli ical dis-
cou ses o se e al coun ies and global public deba es.
Mo eo e , he conspi acy-based belie s ha scien i ic
ins i u ions a e engaged in sec e plo s o co e -ups, he
sp ead o alse in o ma ion o misleading claims abou
scien i ic opics h ough social media and o he channels,
conce ns abou gene ically modi ied o ganisms and bio-
echnology, ins ances o scien i ic misconduc o une hi-
cal beha iou by esea che s o scien i ic ins i u ions and
scep icism owa ds public heal h measu es and accine
de elopmen , con inuously uel his wo ying endency.
Signi ican ly, he COVID-19 pandemic has boos ed his
p ocess and e ealed dispu es among scien is s, poli i-
cians and he gene al public. Acco dingly, he demise o
public us in science is now ecognised as one o he
mos p essing conce ns con on ing mode n socie ies,
which poses signi ican dange s o heal h and he long-
e m iabili y o ci ilisa ion i sel . A ising body o li e a-
u e exposes he causes and consequences o his e osion
in domains as di e se as immunisa ions, obacco sick-
ness, and clima e science, highligh ing he limi s o many
con empo a y me hods and ins i u ions ha appea
inadequa e in he ace o eno mous complexi y.
Despi e he ex ensi e body o wo k in es iga ing he
e osion o public us in science, esea ch in his a ea
o en emains siloed wi hin dis inc academic disciplines.
Al hough speci ic e iews (Goldenbe g, 2023) ocus on
public us in science, hey a e no sys ema ic, and s ud-
ies in eg a ing insigh s om di e en esea ch s ands
and disciplines by iden i ying dominan hemes and blind
spo s and limi a ions a e needed. Schola s in ields such
as communica ion s udies, sociology, poli ical science,
philosophy, public heal h, and en i onmen al sciences
ha e each o e ed aluable insigh s in o why us in sci-
ence declines o luc ua es and how hese dynamics man-
i es hemsel es. Ye mos o hese in es iga ions p oceed
independen ly, ocusing on discipline-speci ic heo ies,
me hodologies, and ques ions. As a esul , we a e le
wi h ich bu disjoin ed unde s andings ha ail o cap-
u e he ull complexi y o how and why us in science
e odes ac oss mul iple con ex s. While each o hese dis-
ciplina y sub- ields cap u es c ucial pieces o he b oade
‘‘ us in science’’ puzzle, he e is a no iceable lack o
in eg a i e e o s ha sys ema ically connec hei ind-
ings which limi s ou abili y o unde s and he deepe ,
c oss-cu ing mechanisms ha e ode o des abilise us
in science. Wi hou syn hesising commonali ies ac oss
disciplines, we isk o e looking signi ican o e laps in
ac o s con ibu ing o mis us —such as pe cei ed con-
lic s o in e es , poli icisa ion, misin o ma ion, socio-
demog aphic dispa i ies, and scep icism o ins i u ional
au ho i y. Fu he mo e, he siloed na u e o exis ing
esea ch may p e en us om ecognising how hese ac-
o s in e sec o ein o ce one ano he in ways ha ans-
cend indi idual disciplines. In an e a when challenges
like public heal h c ises and clima e change inc easingly
demand collabo a i e esponses, ailing o see he en i e
pic u e hampe s ou capaci y o design e ec i e and con-
sis en in e en ions.
Ou s udy aims o map and syn hesise esea ch on
us in science ac oss mul iple ields, he eby e ealing
sha ed hema ic pa e ns and neglec ed in e sec ions. By
employing bo h compu a ional ex -mining echniques
and quali a i e con en analysis, we seek o unea h no
only he dis inc app oaches each discipline b ings o he
able bu also he h eads ha bind hem oge he . This
in eg a ed pe spec i e allows us o demons a e how se -
e al domains— anging om philosophy and communi-
ca ion s udies o sociology and heal h sciences—can
collec i ely con ibu e o a mo e holis ic unde s anding
o us in science, and gaps in he ield.
Acco dingly, his wo k has wo main objec i es. The
i s objec i e is o p esen a conc e e pic u e o esea ch
hemes ac oss he a ious scien i ic disciplines abou
e oding us in science. Gi en ha dis us in science o
ou igh science denial has po en ially d as ic e ec s, we
depic he body o esea ch om di e en ields ha
explici ly o implici ly elimina e dis us and os e us
in science, such as sociology, psychology, en i onmen al
sciences, poli ical science, and da a sciences. By doing so,
we hope o demons a e he simila i ies among a ious
scien i ic disciplines and p o ide a join base o possible
policy agendas. Ou second objec i e is o o e a no el
me hodological app oach o he subjec . Al hough he e
a e some li e a u e e iews on e oding us , we b oaden
he scope by including se e al scien i ic disciplines by
employing a esh app oach. As we p esen in he ela ed
pa , we show ha iden i ying hese i al c osscu ing
hemes can only be possible by combining s a e-o - he-a
compu a ional echniques wi h con en ional quali a i e
2SAGE Open
con en analysis. Las ly, based on he s udy’s indings, we
b ie ly e isi ou es o policy plans o es o ing us in
science.
The pape is s uc u ed as ollows: Fi s , in he ollow-
ing pa , we p esen a b oade a ionale o s udying us
in science in an in e disciplina y manne . Followingly,
we p esen ou me hodology, da a and indings. Thi d,
we discuss ou esul s, ou line how o conside possible
policy sugges ions as u u e wo k and conclude.
Why Is I Impo an o S udy T us in
Science in an In e disciplina y Manne ?
T us in science is a undamen al componen o mode n
socie y, shaping public a i udes owa d scien i ic expe -
ise, policy decisions, and echnological ad ancemen s.
A i s co e, us in science implies ha he public has
con idence in scien is s’ abili y o p oduce eliable,
e idence-based knowledge while simul aneously ensu ing
ha such knowledge se es he b oade socie al good
(Gunde sen & Hols , 2022, I zik & Ku ulmus, 2021).
Hence, us is a mul i ace ed concep ha in ol es key
dimensions such as compe ence, in eg i y, and bene o-
lence (O’Neill, 2002; Rolin, 2020). Consequen ly, us in
science is no a monoli hic o s a ic quali y; a he , i is a
ela ional phenomenon oo ed in he pe cei ed epis emic
eliabili y, e hical commi men , and communica i e
openness o scien i ic ins i u ions, and i mus be unde -
s ood wi hin a b oade in e disciplina y con ex ha
spans philosophy, poli ical science, and sociology
(O’Dohe y, 2022; Resnik, 2011).
In ha sense, es ablishing us in science is c i ical in
os e ing coope a ion and acili a ing he exchange o
in o ma ion, yielding subs an ial ad an ages o ad an-
cing scien i ic p og ess among a ious disciplines.
Acco dingly, es ablishing and main aining us wi hin
he scien i ic communi y is an indispensable p e equisi e
o ad ancing and p og essing knowledge. Th ough us ,
scien is s can only e ec i ely collabo a e, build upon one
ano he ’s indings, and collec i ely con ibu e o he
g ow h and de elopmen o scien i ic inqui y (Rolin,
2020). Wi hou his undamen al elemen , he scien i ic
en e p ise would ace signi ican impedimen s, po en ially
esul ing in a s agna ion o scien i ic p og ess and a hin-
d ance o he o e all scien i ic endea ou . So, he es ab-
lishmen and main enance o us hold pa amoun
signi icance in os e ing a symbio ic ela ionship be ween
he ealms o science and socie y. Indeed, as Hend iks
e al. (2016b) s a e us is bo h essen ial o scien is s in
conduc ing esea ch and o he gene al public as hey
na iga e science- ela ed issues in hei daily li es.
I is c ucial o acknowledge ha mos indi iduals lack
he expe ise o independen ly assess scien i ic asse ions,
he eby necessi a ing hei eliance on he compe ence
and in eg i y o scien is s. Ne e heless, i is impe a i e
o acknowledge ha he us placed in he scien i ic com-
muni y is a delica e cons uc ha can be easily e oded
and des abilised. In line wi h his pe spec i e, Smi h
(2022) a gues ha he ounda ion o scien i ic endea ou s
lies in es ablishing public con idence in he me hodolo-
gies and es ablishmen s o science a he han solely ely-
ing on he c edibili y o indi idual scien is s. Gunde sen
e al. (2022) also no e ha empi ical e idence in en i on-
men al science demons a es how dis us in science is
linked o dis us in he ins i u ions ha implemen i in o
policy.
Howe e , i is also c i ical o admi ha hese pa icu-
la p ac ices exhibi a ce ain le el o opaci y when
obse ed by ex e nal en i ies, necessi a ing a undamen al
eliance on in e pe sonal us in he scien i ic commu-
ni y o elucida e and illus a e hem. The suscep ibili y o
science o con es a ion in manne s ha ha e he po en ial
o unde mine us is a ma e o conce n. Acco ding o
Why e and C ease (2010), o example, i is impe a i e
o philosophe s o science o ac i ely con ibu e o he
es ablishmen o us by o mula ing comp ehensi e a-
mewo ks o expe ise ha elucida e he a ionale behind
placing us in di e se o ms o knowledge wi hin dis-
inc con ex s. In his ein, Me zen (2024) a gues ha he
na u e o us in science should be g ounded in bo h
objec i i y and sha ed alues.
Ano he poin abou he na u e o us in science is
i s con ingency upon a ious ac o s encompassing indi-
idual and socie al dimensions. A he indi idual le el,
ac o s such as educa ion and pe sonal belie s a e he
pi o al de e minan s ha e ol e a ound he pe cei ed
le el o expe ise, in eg i y, and bene olence exhibi ed by
he sou ce (Hend iks e al., 2016b). Howe e , i is also
c i ical o no e ha us judgemen s a e con ingen upon
a ious con ex ual ac o s. In ha manne , i is plausible
o asse ha indi iduals may exhibi a ce ain le el o
scep icism owa ds scien i ic indings ha po en ially
challenge hei pe sonal in e es s o deeply ing ained
belie s. I is also impe a i e o no e ha he ealm o sci-
ence has his o ically encoun e ed esis ance (O eskes,
2019). Ye , he p e ailing sen imen o scep icism appea s
o be in ensi ying in ligh o he escala ing u gency su -
ounding ma e s such as clima e change. Some schola s
(Gaucha , 2012; Hamil on e al., 2015) highligh ha his
scep icism is pa icula ly high among conse a i es on
ce ain issues, including en i onmen al egula ions and
public heal h in e en ions, along wi h clima e change.
Based on he abo e a gumen s, i is possible o a gue
ha o achie e he desi ed le els o us in science, scien-
is s mus possess an in e disciplina y unde s anding o
he unde lying mechanisms o he e osion o us in sci-
en i ic inqui y. This is mainly because pa icula
imp o emen s wi hin speci ic scien i ic disciplines a e
Kabakcxi e al. 3
insu icien o build us in science, as we ha e clea ly
seen du ing he COVID-19 pandemic: al hough he
scien is s managed o p oduce he accines in a e y
sho ime, due o he global an i- accine mo emen ,
he e we e delays in accina ion which hinde ed he com-
ba agains he i us se iously. As shown in a scoping
e iew (Majid e al., 2022) accine hesi ancy is in luenced
by a ious ac o s, including isk pe cep ion and us in
heal h au ho i ies, which a e deeply oo ed in socio-
cul u al con ex s. Emphasising he plu ali y o us ,
Me zen (2024) uses he case o MMR accine (measles,
mumps, and ubella) hesi ancy o a gue ha add essing
accine hesi ancy equi es no only p esen ing objec i e
da a, bu also acknowledging and engaging wi h he al-
ues unde lying pa en s’ conce ns. Hence, o os e mo e
obus compliance wi h scien i ic knowledge, i was
impe a i e o ad oca e o he cul i a ion o discu si e
p ac ices such as explana ion and a gumen a ion, which
a e wi hin he domains o o he scien i ic disciplines, like
sociology, psychology, and poli ical science, han medi-
cine. Fo ins ance ‘‘Building B idges, Ea ning T us : The
WHY and he HOW o Public T us in Science’’ Repo
o he Aspen Ins i u e’s Science and Socie y P og am
(Goud e al., 2023, pp. 19–20) highligh s he impo ance
o ac i e and ongoing collabo a ion wi h ields including
sociology, poli ical science, communica ion, an h opol-
ogy, his o y, psychology, heology, business in o de o
ask he igh ques ions and communica e he indings in
meaning ul ways.
Only such p ac ices se e as e ec i e ools in acili a -
ing comp ehension o scien i ic concep s and enhancing
indi iduals’ awa eness o he bounda ies o hei own
knowledge. In essence, he dynamics o us in science
a e inhe en ly in ica e and desi ed us is con ingen
upon he in e play be ween he pe cei ed c edibili y o
a ious scien i ic disciplines and he populace’s comp e-
hension o he unde lying mechanisms go e ning scien-
i ic inqui y. Acco dingly, cul i a ing us wi hin science
and socie y is c ucial, albei no wi hou i s inhe en com-
plexi ies and obs acles.
U ilising he abo e-explained logic and explana ions
o he p essing need o an in e disciplina y app oach, we
o mula ed he ollowing esea ch ques ions:
1. How is us in science s udied, and h ough
which me hods and echniques?
2. Wha is he disciplina y p o ile and s uc u e o
us in science esea ch?
3. Wha a e he dominan esea ch hemes and con-
ex s/cases o us in science esea ch among a -
ious disciplines, and how/i did hey change o e
ime?
Al hough ou in es iga ion p ima ily employs a desc ip-
i e and explo a o y me hodology, we in eg a e a cen al
hypo hesis o guide he amewo k and u u e esea ch
di ec ions. Speci ically, we hypo hesise ha mul iple dis-
ciplines ecognise he impo ance o he declining us in
science and examine us in science wi hin hei espec-
i e domains, ye hei pe spec i es con e ge a ound
c osscu ing hemes ha unde sco e he b ead h and
complexi y o his phenomenon.
To elabo a e, each discipline— anging om communi-
ca ion s udies and sociology o en i onmen al sciences and
public heal h—add esses us in science h ough i s own
lenses and specialised me hodologies. Communica ion
schola s, o ins ance, equen ly ocus on how media na -
a i es and in o ma ion sou ces in luence public a i udes.
Sociologis s and poli ical scien is s end o highligh socie-
al powe s uc u es, belie sys ems, and ins i u ional c ed-
ibili y, while heal h sciences a e mo e inclined o
in es iga e compliance and public adhe ence o scien i ic
guidelines. Despi e hese dis inc angles, ou s udy e eals
ecu ing poin s o con e gence, such as he signi icance o
anspa en communica ion, he in e play be ween social
and poli ical con ex s, and he impo ance o engaging
di e se s akeholde s in scien i ic p ocesses.
By posi ing his o e a ching hypo hesis, we acknowl-
edge ha an in e disciplina y syn hesis is no only easi-
ble bu also essen ial o comp ehensi ely unde s anding
he e osion o us in science. Fu he mo e, while he
p esen s udy does no engage in o mal hypo hesis
es ing—gi en i s desc ip i e o ien a ion—i lays a oun-
da ion o subsequen , mo e a ge ed empi ical in es iga-
ions. Resea che s can build upon ou indings o design
compa a i e s udies, me a-analyses, o c oss-disciplina y
amewo ks ha di ec ly es he impac o hese iden i-
ied hemes on public us le els. Ul ima ely, a icula -
ing a uni ying hypo hesis helps in eg a e ou desc ip i e
conclusions in o b oade heo e ical and p ac ical discus-
sions abou es o ing and main aining us in science
ac oss a ied social, poli ical, and cul u al con ex s.
Da a and Me hods
To answe ou esea ch ques ions and achie e ou
esea ch objec i es, we pe o med a da abase sea ch con-
aining he au ho keywo ds ‘‘ us ,’’ ‘‘mis us ,’’ ‘‘dis-
us ,’’ and ‘‘scienc*’’ on he Web o Science. We il e ed
only English publica ions indexed in SSCI, SCI-E, ESCI,
and AHCI. Sea ch esul s we e no limi ed o any speci ic
pe iod. Ou sea ch yielded 436 esul s, wi h publica ion
yea s a ying be ween 1999 and 2022. A e excluding
edi o ials, le e s and book e iews, we manually
sc eened all publica ions o inclusion acco ding o
4SAGE Open

c i e ia ha publica ions mus in es iga e o ocus on
public us owa d science, scien is s o scien i ic ins i u-
ions. We emo ed inaccessible and non-English a icles,
esul ing in 238 eligible publica ions (Figu e 1).
In e ms o me hodology, we op ed o a semi-
compu a ional o hyb id app oach in line wi h ou sec-
ond objec i e. While manual and compu a ional me h-
ods may some imes be seen as mu ually exclusi e, we
ag ee wi h schola s a guing ha hey wo k bes oge he
and can balance each o he ’s s eng hs and weaknesses
(Boumans & T illing, 2015; G imme e al., 2022; Lewis
e al., 2013). Consequen ly, his design le e ages compu-
a ional echniques’ capabili ies o pa e n ecogni ion
and isualisa ion while ensu ing nuanced analysis
h ough human in e p e a ion, allowing o a mo e com-
p ehensi e and alida ed unde s anding o he da a.
As he ini ial s ep, we employed a opic modelling
s a egy o analyse he con en o he selec ed a icles.
Topic modelling is a powe ul ool o iden i ying and
ex apola ing signi ican pa e ns om la ge amoun s o
uno ganised da a. Iden i ying la en hemes o opics in
a da ase is especially impo an when dealing wi h
uns uc u ed ex ual da a as we ha e o unco e ing clus-
e s o in e connec ed in o ma ion ha may no be ead-
ily appa en o human analys s by de e mining he co-
occu ence o wo ds and ph ases.
Al hough opic modelling has demons a ed i s e i-
cacy as a echnique o doing explo a o y analysis on a
subs an ial olume o publica ions, i s use in an explo a-
o y li e a u e e iew has been in equen . Acco dingly,
we ha e chosen s uc u al opic model (STM) app oach,
a la en Di ichle alloca ion (LDA) a ian , implemen ed
as an R package wi h enhanced unc ionali y and op ions
(Robe s e al., 2019). This app oach is widely u ilised,
conside ed s a e-o - he-a , and known o i s simplici y
(DiMaggio e al., 2013; Elgesem e al., 2015; G imme ,
2010; Kol so a & Kol co , 2013). Al hough al e na i e
opic modelling app oaches may exis , he implemen a-
ion and unde s anding o STM a e s aigh o wa d. I is
an unsupe ised p obabilis ic modelling echnique o
iden i y and ex ac hemes om a gi en co pus o con-
en . In his amewo k, a opic is a p obabili y dis ibu-
ion o e a p ede e mined se o wo ds. Acco dingly, his
ini ial s ep o ou analysis conduc s a comp ehensi e
examina ion o he wo ds in each a icle and compu es
he combined p obabili y dis ibu ion be ween he obse -
able wo ds in he pape and he unobse ed unde lying
subjec s. I is p esumed ha he mos common e ms
associa ed wi h a opic will indica e he essence o subjec
ma e o he issue. When de e mining he numbe o
opics (K), we u ilised measu es o seman ic cohe ence
and exclusi i y and asked o 10 opics o g asp a com-
p ehensi e pic u e o he ield, as seen in Supplemen al
Appendix 1A.
A e conduc ing he opic modelling, he esea ch
eam alida ed and labelled he opics based on op and
ex e ms as well as eading mos ep esen a i e docu-
men s o indi idual opics. This se ed as an ini ial he-
ma ic ca ego isa ion scheme o la e manual coding
consis ing o se en dimensions: A icle ype (empi ical
a icle, essay, heo e ical a icle, li e a u e e iew), me h-
odology (quali a i e, quan i a i e, mixed), me hod (su -
ey, expe imen , e c.), scien i ic case/con ex , esea ch
heme, a iable ope a ionalisa ion, and discipline.
Discipline is coded based on a ilia ions o i s au ho s
as eco ded by WoS. Using his coding scheme, h ee
esea che s manually coded he publica ions, dis ibu ing
hem equally among hemsel es, and made join deci-
sions on unce ain cases.
Fo ne wo k analysis o ela ionships be ween disci-
plines and esea ch hemes, we op ed o bibliog aphic
coupling echnique o map he s uc u e o he esea ch
ield. Bibliog aphic coupling wo ks on he assump ion
ha wo publica ions sha ing common e e ences a e
in ellec ually ela ed in e ms o esea ch subjec and sci-
en i ic app oach (Don hu e al., 2021). This echnique
has been demons a ed o be one o he mos e ec i e
clus e ing me hods o science mapping (Boyack &
Kla ans, 2010). Fo his, we c ea ed a co-occu ence
ma ix in R, se a minimum co-occu ence h eshold o
3, and isualised he esul s using Gephi (0.10), a ne -
wo k analysis and isualisa ion so wa e. To isualise
he ne wo k s uc u e o he ield we u ilised Fo ceA las
2 algo i hm, a popula layou algo i hm in ne wo k anal-
ysis, using a physics-based app oach o posi ion nodes
(publica ions) in a way ha e lec s hei ela ionships,
wi h nodes (publica ions) sha ing e e ences being placed
nea e o each o he . Finally, we me ged hese ne wo ks
wi h ou manually coded da a.
Figu e 1. Li e a u e iden i ica ion and sc eening p ocess.
Kabakcxi e al. 5
Resul s
Gene al P o ile o he Field. Based on he g aph o yea ly
dis ibu ion o published a icles (Figu e 2), we can see a
sha p inc ease a ound 2020, coinciding wi h he begin-
ning o COVID-19 pandemic. So much ha numbe o
published a icles in he las 3 yea s accoun o 62% o
all a icles published. Admi edly, inc ease in o e all
esea ch ou pu (Bo nman e al., 2021) migh also ha e
played a ole in he esul s bu inc easing academic a en-
ion owa ds us in science in he con ex o COVID-19
pandemic is likely o be he bigges con ibu o .
Disciplina y P o ile and Jou nals. Ou s udy shows ha
us in science is a highly in e -disciplina y o e en
ans-disciplina y esea ch ield. In addi ion o social
science disciplines, we also see con ibu ions om
humani ies, en i onmen al sciences and heal h sciences.
Acco ding o Web o Science classi ica ion o jou nals,
mos common ca ego ies on jou nal le el we e ‘‘His o y
& Philosophy o Science’’ (11.8%), ‘‘Communica ion’’
(10.8%), and ‘‘Public, En i onmen al & Occupa ional
Heal h (9.3%). ‘‘En i onmen al S udies’’ and
‘‘En i onmen al Sciences’’ ca ego ies oge he accoun ed
o 7.1% o all publica ions. The es we e highly a ied,
and ca ego ies spanned om ‘‘Me eo ology &
A mosphe ic Sciences’’ o ‘‘Cul u al S udies.’’
The majo i y o i s au ho s we e a ilia ed wi h
depa men s in he Social Sciences, accoun ing o
58.5% o all i s au ho s, ollowed by hose in he
Humani ies a 11.2%, Heal h Sciences a 10.4%, and
En i onmen al Sciences a 8.7%. In e ms o coun ies, a
o al o 623 au ho s con ibu ed o he s udies in ou
sample and mos o hem we e a ilia ed wi h esea ch
ins i u ions om ‘‘Wes e n’’ coun ies (Figu e 3). Among
hese coun ies, Uni ed S a es was leading wi h 37% o
all au ho s a ilia ed o an ins i u ion in he Uni ed
S a es. Au ho s a ilia ed o non-Wes e n ins i u ions
we e qui e a e, mos equen we e People’s Republic o
China (0.8%), Sou h A ica (0.6%), India (0.5%), and
Indonesia (0.5%). These indings indica e ha he ield is
hea ily biased owa ds he Wes .
Me hodological-Empi ical P o ile. In e ms o me hodology,
he majo i y o empi ical a icles employed quan i a i e
designs (78.3%), while a smalle p opo ion u ilised qua-
li a i e me hods (12%) o combined bo h quali a i e and
quan i a i e app oaches (9.6%). Re lec ing he di e se
disciplines and adi ions con ibu ing o esea ch on
us in science, me hods we e highly di e se, bu su eys
we e mos popula , u ilised by mo e han hal o he
empi ical s udies (57.1%). Expe imen s we e also ela-
i ely common (24.9%) gene ally applied ia su eys.
Figu e 2. Numbe o s udies published by yea .
6SAGE Open
Mos common quali a i e me hod was in-dep h in e -
iew, u ilised by 60% o he quali a i e s udies and 12%
o mixed me hodology s udies.
In e ms o how us in science and ela ed a iables
a e ope a ionalised in quan i a i e and mixed me hodol-
ogy s udies, 39.7% o s udies u ilised hem as a dependen
a iable while 32.2% o s udies as independen a iable,
ha is, ga e he concep an explana o y ole. Due o he
na u e o hei analysis me hods we we en’ able o asce -
ain a iable ope a ionalisa ion o ce ain s udies (O he
ca ego y) (See Table 1).
Con ex s and Cases o S udies. Mos s udies ha e aken one
o wo app oaches when esea ching us in science: hey
ei he ocused on us in science in a gene al manne o
hey analysed us in science wi h a pa icula ocus on
speci ic cases and con ex s. The majo i y o he s udies
chose he la e app oach (71.1%). Among s udies wi h a
speci ic ocus, mos o hem ocused on COVID-19 pan-
demic (33%), ollowed by o he heal h- ela ed cases
(17.0%) such as Ebola (Gesse -Edelsbu g e al., 2015),
human immunode iciency i us (HIV; Jaspal e al.,
2022), and non-COVID accines (Ho nsey e al., 2020).
Second majo con ex was en i onmen al opics, speci i-
cally clima e change (9.89%) and o he en i onmen al
issues (12.1%), including di e se cases anging om
ishe ies o lead pollu ion and na u al esou ce manage-
men (G ay e al., 2012) (See Figu e 4).
Ne wo k Analysis
The esul s o opic modelling and manual coding p o-
ided i e dominan esea ch hemeson us in science
among a ious disciplines. Be o e going in o he de ailed
analysis o hese hemes, i would be wo hwhile o depic
he analysis isually based on he in e ac ions be ween
umb ella disciplines, sub-disciplines, and hemes. Figu e 5
below shows he bibliog aphic coupling ne wo k o publi-
ca ions in a ious scien i ic disciplines based on hei
umb ella disciplines.
The abo e igu e shows ha wo ks om social
sciences domina e he e ain o esea ch on us . I is
also no iceable ha he domain o social sciences is in
in e ac ion wi h o he umb ella disciplines in sepa a e
ne wo ks. We also obse e ha humani ies and heal h
sciences cons i u e wo isible sub-ne wo ks o na u al
and heal h sciences, espec i ely, as shown in he igu e’s
uppe le and lowe igh pa s, ha only loosely in e -
ac wi h o he main disciplines. I is also obse able ha
hei link as disciplines is handled ia he wo ks in social
sciences. Figu e 6 b eaks down he abo e ne wo k in o
u he sub-disciplines.
Figu e 3. A ilia ed coun ies o au ho s.
Kabakcxi e al. 7
Figu e 6 shows essen ial e idence o he in e disciplin-
a y na u e o he phenomenon. The igu e depic s psy-
chology, philosophy and communica ion s udies as
dominan sub-disciplines, ollowed by sociology, busi-
ness, and heal h sciences. Las ly, Figu e 7 p o ides a g a-
phical illus a ion o his s udy’s hemes, which a e
discussed in he ollowing sec ion. The simila ne wo k
maps showing he names and co esponding jou nals o
he a icles can be ound in Supplemen al Appendix 1B.
Resea ch Themes
Theme 1: T us in Science/Theo e ical Concep ualisa ions. A
unning heme among many s udies in his ca ego y is
ela ed o ways o os e ing o es o ing public us in
science and scien i ic ad ice in he con ex o changing
scien i ic ins i u ions, esea ch ecosys ems and socie al
condi ions. We also see ha hese wo ks dominan ly
appea unde he humani ies and co e he a eas o phi-
losophy, poli ical science and sociology disciplines
ega ding se e al c osscu ing issues. Fo ins ance,
Ca ie (2022) discusses he limi a ions o he adi ional
model o us wo hy science associa ed wi h alue ee-
ness and objec i i y and sugges s an al e na i e s a egy
based on being mo e anspa en abou non-epis emic
alues in scien i ic ad ice. Simila ly, Sz ompka (2007)
a gues ha Robe K. Me on’s model o science, cha -
ac e ised by ou ins i u ional no ms, is inadequa e in
Table 1. Me hodology and Me hods o Empi ical S udies
(n= 166) in Addi ion o Va iable Ope a ionalisa ion o
Quan i a i e and Mixed Me hod S udies (n= 146).
Me hodological-Empi ical P o ile F equency (%)
Me hodology
Quan i a i e 130 (78.3)
Quali a i e 20 (12)
Mixed 16 (9.6)
Me hods (no exclusi ely coded)
Su ey 108 (57.1)
Expe imen 47 (24.9)
In-dep h in e iew 20 (10.6)
Focus g oup 4 (2.1)
Wo kshop 2 (1.1)
Thema ic analysis 1 (0.5)
Con en analysis (manual) 2 (1.1)
Ne wo k analysis 1 (0.5)
E hnog aphy 1 (0.5)
Concep mapping 1 (0.5)
O he 1 (0.5)
Ope a ionalisa ion ( o quan i a i e
and mixed s udies only)
Dependen a iable 58 (39.7)
Independen a iable 47 (32.2)
No applicable 10 (6.8)
Media o 10 (6.8)
O he 8 (5.5)
Mul iple 6 (4.1)
Mode a o 4 (2.7)
Co a ia e 3 (2.1)
Figu e 4. Resea ch con ex s and cases o publica ions o e he yea s.
8SAGE Open
s udies on social sciences and humani ies can be heo e i-
cally in o ma i e, pa icula ly in he con ex o wide-
sp ead conce ns abou poli icisa ion o science, as he
knowledge p oduced in hese ields has been adi ionally
mo e embedded in social and poli ical con ex s.
In e ms o esea ch hemes, beside he concep ual
and heo e ical esea ch, he ocus o empi ical esea ch
was e enly dis ibu ed ac oss science communica ion,
ac o s ela ed o us in science, compliance wi h scien-
i ic ad ice and public engagemen . The e we e some
possible gaps o speci ic esea ch hemes; o example,
s udies on eligion we e a e, while we expec ed o ind
mo e s udies on social media in he heme o science
communica ion and mo e compliance s udies ou side o
he con ex o he COVID-19 pandemic.
Conce ning he indings and esul s o he e iewed
s udies,
1
s udies in he i s heme emphasise he need o
e hink and econcep ualise basic concep s such as sci-
ence, public, and us , alongside adi ional models o
us wo hy science, in he con ex o changing scien i ic
ins i u ions, esea ch ecosys ems, and socie al condi ions.
The second heme demons a es how socio-demog aphic
and ideological ac o s in luence public a i udes owa ds
bo h science, and i s ins i u ions and scien is s. Resea ch
conduc ed unde he hi d esea ch heme, which exam-
ines he ole o us in science in compliance o scien i ic
ad ice, pa icula ly in con ex s such as he COVID-19
pandemic, e eals ha us in science is a key ac o in
adhe ence o scien i ic guidance and ad ice. The ou h
and i h hemes unde sco e he impo ance o ailo ed
science communica ion s a egies and ac i e public
engagemen o b idge gaps in us and acili a e
in o med decision-making amid complex scien i ic issues.
Collec i ely, hese insigh s poin owa ds a need o a
mo e nuanced and in eg a ed unde s anding o public
us dynamics in science.
I would be a uism o a gue ha public us in sci-
ence is c ucial o in o med decision-making and policy
o ma ion in an e a o scien i ic p og ess. Howe e , as
discussed abo e, building policies o es ablish us in sci-
ence in mul iple scien i ic domains is c ucial o unde ly-
ing he commonali ies among hese disciplines. Al hough
policy ecommenda ions we e pu o h h ough se e al
academic wo k ocusing on he in e aces o science and
socie y, and he schola ly ield o science communica ion
ha e deal wi h he communica ion be ween specialis
and non specialis s, he new con ex s (such as COVID-
19) on a global scale will equi e conside ing science
communica ion models adop ed in imes o c isis and
hei down alls, such as s epping back o a de ici -model
(see Scheu ele, 2022). Fu he mo e, us in science and
hei de e minan s a y cul u ally, ac oss con ex s and
coun ies, depending on he coun ies’ engagemen wi h
science, ins i u ional s uc u es and o he socially and
cul u ally signi ican a iables (Bicchie i e al., 2021;
Cologna e al., 2025; T. L. O’B ien & Noy, 2018; Sulik
e al., 2021). Thus any policy ecommenda ion should
also be con ex ually in o med and ake in o accoun he
poli ical con ex s in which science communica ion occu s
(Scheu ele, 2014).
Acco dingly, u u e wo k on possible policy ecom-
menda ions a leas conside speci ic aspec s: we hink i
is c ucial o encou age esea ch ini ia i es and collabo a-
ions among specialis s om mul iple domains o scien-
i ic esea ch (Va da e al., 2025). By o e ing a holis ic
pe spec i e, in e disciplina y collabo a ion will
s eng hen he legi imacy o scien i ic disco e ies, leading
o success ul a emp s o sol e complica ed social p ob-
lems ha need ideas om se e al ields. Such a colla-
bo a ion will encou age anspa ency in esea ch by
equi ing esea che s o eely and ho oughly e eal
hei echniques, da a, and ou comes. E en ually, ans-
pa ency in scien i ic domains will os e us by pe mi -
ing inspec ion o esea ch p ocedu es and ou comes,
and as s a ed be o e, open da a dissemina ion will pe mi
independen e i ica ion and p omo e us in scien i ic
disco e ies (Rosman e al., 2022).
Las ly, u u e wo k on possible policy ecommenda-
ions should also conside p omo ing di e si y and inclu-
si eness in esea ch eams and scien i ic o ganisa ions.
Since inclusion s imula es inno a ion and c ea i i y,
when scien is s om a ious backg ounds collabo a e,
hey o en app oach p oblems and challenges in di e en
ways, c ea ing a a ie y o p oblem-sol ing s a egies
ha can esul in mo e e ec i e and unique answe s o
scien i ic conce ns. Mo eo e , di e se esea ch eams a e
mo e likely o ep esen he popula ions be e , especially
his o ically unde ep esen ed g oups in science. This
imp o ed ep esen a ion no only encompasses consid-
e a ions o ai ness bu also gua an ees he applicabili y
o esea ch indings o a b oade spec um o pe sons
and g oups. Fu he mo e, he c edibili y and us wo hi-
ness o esea ch a e equen ly pe cei ed o be enhanced
when done by a ied eams. When he scien i ic commu-
ni y exhibi s inclusi i y, i se es as a symbolic ep esen-
a ion o he gene al public ha science is a domain
cha ac e ised by openness and ai ness, hence s eng hen-
ing he no ion ha scien i ic in es iga ions a e pu sued
o he be e men o socie y as a whole a he han o
he exclusi e ad an age o a p i ileged ew.
As wi h all esea ch, his s udy has ce ain limi a ions.
The main limi a ion o his s udy lies in i s da a collec-
ion p ocedu e, which is es ic ed o Web o Science
and au ho keywo ds. We migh ha e missed esea ch
on us in science, no including ou sea ch keywo ds o
co e ed in o he da abases. Thus, al hough we belie e
ha ou da a collec ion p ocedu e gi es us he co e o
he ield, his s udy may ail o ep esen he ield as a
Kabakcxi e al. 15

whole. In addi ion, gi en he ela i ely b oad scope, we
had o balance dep h and b ead h o e eal he ield’s
leading ends and signi ican esea ch hemes. Fu u e
s udies may adop a mo e comp ehensi e da a collec ion
p ocedu e, ocus on heo y o conduc in-dep h e iews
o speci ic esea ch hemes o con ex s we discussed.
ORCID iDs
Go
¨kcxe Zeybek Kabakci h ps://o cid.o g/0000-0001-8666-
3179
Umu Yene Ka a h ps://o cid.o g/0000-0002-0556-4863
Go
¨kcxe Bayda Cxa da h ps://o cid.o g/0000-0001-9712-
2597
Em e To os h ps://o cid.o g/0000-0002-7550-3185
E hical Conside a ions
Hace epe Uni e si y’s E hics Commi ee app o ed he esea ch
on he e hical basis wi h he documen numbe E-35853172-
102.01-00002140032, da ed 18.04.2024.
Funding
The au ho (s) disclosed eceip o he ollowing inancial sup-
po o he esea ch, au ho ship, and/o publica ion o his
a icle: This p ojec is unded by TUBITAK (Scien i ic and
Technological Resea ch Council o Tu key) unde he p ojec
scheme 1001 wi h he p ojec numbe 122K368 ‘‘Tu key T us
Resea ch.’’
Decla a ion o Con lic ing In e es s
The au ho (s) decla ed no po en ial con lic s o in e es wi h
espec o he esea ch, au ho ship, and/o publica ion o his
a icle.
Da a A ailabili y S a emen
The unde lying da ase con ains po en ially iden i ying in o -
ma ion and is cu en ly unde ins i u ional emba go. In line
wi h ou e hical app o als and da a-p o ec ion obliga ions, he
ull da a canno be made publicly a ailable a his ime. We
will, howe e , sha e de-iden i ied da a ex ac s su icien o
ep oduce he analyses, oge he wi h all analysis code and doc-
umen a ion ( a iable lis , ecodes, and model speci ica ions),
upon easonable eques o he co esponding au ho . Reques s
will be e iewed in consul a ion wi h he ele an e hics/da a
access body and may equi e a simple da a-use ag eemen .
Upon expi y o he emba go, he da ase will be deposi ed in
an app op ia e public eposi o y wi h accompanying me ada a
and code.
Supplemen al Ma e ial
Supplemen al ma e ial o his a icle is a ailable online.
No e
1. Fo he speci ic indings o he e iewed empi ical s udies,
see he Supplemen al Appendix 2.
Re e ences
Ach e be g, P., de Kos e , W., & an de Waal, J. (2017). A sci-
ence con idence gap: Educa ion, us in scien i ic me hods,
and us in scien i ic ins i u ions in he Uni ed S a es, 2014.
Public Unde s anding o Science,26(6), 704–720. h ps://doi.
o g/10.1177/0963662515617367
Agley, J., Xiao, Y., Thompson, E. E., Chen, X., & Golza i-
A oyo, L. (2021). In e ening on us in science o educe
belie in COVID-19 misin o ma ion and inc ease COVID-
19 p e en i e beha io al in en ions: Randomized con olled
ial. Jou nal o Medical In e ne Resea ch,23(10), e32425.
h ps://doi.o g/10.2196/32425
Agley, J., Xiao, Y., Thompson, E. E., & Golza i-A oyo, L.
(2021a). Fac o s associa ed wi h epo ed likelihood o ge
accina ed o COVID-19 in a na ionally ep esen a i e US
su ey. Public Heal h,196, 91–94. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.
puhe.2021.05.009
Agley, J., Xiao, Y., Thompson, E. E., & Golza i-A oyo, L.
(2021b). Using in og aphics o imp o e us in science: A
andomized pilo es . BMC Resea ch No es,14(1), 210.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1186/s13104-021-05626-4
Algan, Y., Cohen, D., Da oine, E., Foucaul , M., & S an ch-
e a, S. (2021). T us in scien is s in imes o pandemic: Panel
e idence om 12 coun ies. P oc. Na l. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1073/pnas.2108576118
Alpe , S., Yelbuz, B. E., Akku , S. B., & Yilmaz, O. (2022).
The posi i e associa ion o educa ion wi h he us in sci-
ence and scien is s is weake in highly co up coun ies.
Public Unde s anding o Science,33(1), 2–19.
Al enmulle , M. S., Nuding, S., & Gollwi ze , M. (2021). No
ha m in being sel -co ec i e: Sel -c i icism and e o m
in en ions inc ease esea che s’ epis emic us wo hiness
and c edibili y in he eyes o he public. Public Unde s and-
ing o Science,30(8), 962–976. h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/
09636625211022181
Ami Aha on, A., Ruban, A., & Dubo i, I. (2021). Knowledge
and in o ma ion c edibili y e alua ion s a egies ega ding
COVID-19: A c oss-sec ional s udy. Nu sing Ou look,69(1),
22–31. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.ou look.2020.09.001
Aze edo, F., & Jos , J. T. (2021). The ideological basis o an i-
scien i ic a i udes: E ec s o au ho i a ianism, conse a-
ism, eligiosi y, social dominance, and sys em jus i ica ion.
G oup P ocesses and In e g oup Rela ions,24(4), 518–549.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/1368430221990104
Bagas a, A. B., Doan, S., & Allen, C. T. (2021). Racial di e -
ences in ins i u ional us and COVID-19 accine hesi ancy
and e usal. BMC Public Heal h,21(1), 2104. h ps://doi.
o g/10.1186/s12889-021-12195-5
Bailey, J. L., Liu, Y., & Da idsen, J. G. (2017). B idging he
gap be ween ishe ies science and socie y: Explo ing ishe ies
science as a social ac i i y. ICES Jou nal o MA ine Science,
74(2), 598–611. h ps://doi.o g/10.1093/icesjms/ sw203
16 SAGE Open
Bajos, N., Spi e, A., Silbe zan, L., Si eyjol, A., Juso , F.,
Meye , L., F anck, J. E., & Wa szawski, J. (2022). When
lack o us in he go e nmen and in scien is s ein o ces
social inequali ies in accina ion agains COVID-19. F on-
ie s in Public Heal h,10, 908152. h ps://doi.o g/10.3389/
pubh.2022.908152
Ba moen, M., Bae um, K. M., Johansson, M., & Ma hiesen, K.
E. (2021). T us in la ge ca ni o e science in No way. Eu -
opean Jou nal o Wildli e Resea ch,67(6), A icle 98. h ps://
doi.o g/10.1007/s10344-021-01538-7
Ba ne , J., Coope , H., & Senio , V. (2007). Belie in public
e icacy, us , and a i udes owa d mode n gene ic science.
Risk Analysis,27(4), 921–933. h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/j.
1539-6924.2007.00932.x
Bedessem, B., Gaw onska-No ak, B., & Lis, P. (2021). Can
ci izen science inc ease us in esea ch? A case s udy o
delinea ing polish me opoli an a eas. Jou nal o Con empo-
a y Eu opean Resea ch,17(2), 304–325. h ps://doi.o g/10.
30950/jce . 17i2.1185
Benson-G eenwald, T. M., T ujillo, A., Whi e, A. D., & Diek-
man, A. B. (2022). Science o O he s o he Sel ? P esumed
Mo i es o Science Shape Public T us in Science. Pe sonal-
i y and Social Psychology Bulle in,49(3), 344–360. h ps://
doi.o g/10.1177/01461672211064456
Besley, J. C., & Ti any, L. A. (2023). Wha a e you assessing
when you measu e ‘‘ us ’’ in scien is s wi h a di ec mea-
su e? Public Unde s anding o Science,32(6), 709–726.
Bicchie i, C., Fa as, E., Aldama, A., Casas, A., Deshpande, I.,
Lau o, M., Pa illi, C., Spohn, M., Pe ei a, P., & Wen, R.
(2021). In science we (should) us : Expec a ions and com-
pliance ac oss nine coun ies du ing he COVID-19 pan-
demic. PLoS ONE 16(6), e0252892. h ps://doi.o g/10.1371/
jou nal.pone.0252892
Blankenship, B. T., & S ewa , A. J. (2019). Th ea , us , and
T ump: Iden i y and o ing in he 2016 p esiden ial elec ion.
Poli ics, G oups, and Iden i ies,7(3), 724–736. h ps://doi.
o g/10.1080/21565503.2019.1633932
Boumans, J. W., & T illing, D. (2015). Taking s ock o he
oolki : An o e iew o ele an au oma ed con en analysis
app oaches and echniques o digi al jou nalism schola s.
Digi al Jou nalism,4(1), 8–23.
Bo nman, L., Haunschild, R. & Mu z, R. (2021). G ow h a es
o mode n science: a la en piecewise g ow h cu e app oach
o model numbe s om es ablished and new li e a u e da a-
bases. Humani ies and Social Sciences Communica ions,8(1),
1–15. h ps://doi.o g/10.1057/s41599-021-00903-w
Boyack, K. W., & Kla ans, R. (2010). Co-ci a ion analysis,
bibliog aphic coupling, and di ec ci a ion: Which ci a ion
app oach ep esen s he esea ch on mos accu a ely?
Jou nal o he Ame ican Socie y o In o ma ion Science and
Technology,61(12), 2389–2404.
B eakwell, G. M., Fino, E., & Jaspal, R. (2022). COVID-19
p e en i e beha iou s in Whi e B i ish and Black, Asian
and Mino i y E hnic (BAME) people in he UK. Jou nal o
Heal h Psychology,27(6), 1301–1317. h ps://doi.o g/10.
1177/13591053211017208
B own, R. C. H., de Ba a, M., & Ea p, B. D. (2022). B oad
medical unce ain y and he e hical obliga ion o openness.
Syn hese,200(2), 121. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s11229-022-
03666-2
Bucchi, M., Fa o ini, E., & Sa acino, B. (2022). Public pe cep ion
o COVID-19 accina ion in I aly: The ole o us and
expe s’ communica ion. In e na ional Jou nal o Public Heal h,
67, 1604222. h ps://doi.o g/10.3389/ijph.2022.1604222
Cadeddu, C., Daugbje g, S., Riccia di, W., & Rosano, A.
(2020). Belie s owa ds accina ion and us in he scien i ic
communi y in I aly. Vaccine,38(42), 6609–6617. h ps://doi.
o g/10.1016/j. accine.2020.07.076
Cadeddu, C., Sapienza, M., Cas agna, C., Regazzi, L., Paladini,
A., Riccia di, W., & Rosano, A. (2021). Vaccine hesi ancy
and us in he scien i ic communi y in I aly: Compa a i e
analysis om wo ecen su eys. Vaccines,9(10), 1206.
h ps://doi.o g/10.3390/VACCINES9101206
Camic, C., G oss, N., & Lamon , M. (2011). In oduc ion. The
s udy o social knowledge making. In C. Camic, N. G oss,
& M. Lamon (Eds.), Social knowledge in he making (pp. 1–
40). Uni e si y o Chicago P ess.
Capasso, M., Caso, D., & Zime , G. D. (2022). The media ing
oles o a i ude owa d COVID-19 accina ion, us in sci-
ence and us in go e nmen in he ela ionship be ween
an i- accine conspi acy belie s and accina ion in en ion.
F on ie s in Psychology,13, 936917. h ps://doi.o g/10.3389/
psyg.2022.936917
Ca ie , M. (2022). Wha does good science-based ad ice o
poli ics look like? Jou nal o Gene al Philosophy o Science,
53(1), 5–21. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s10838-021-09574-2
Chinn, S., & Sol Ha , P. (2022). Can’ you all jus ge along?
E ec s o scien i ic disag eemen and inci ili y on a en ion
o and us in science. Science Communica ion,44(1),
108–129. h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/10755470211054446
Cologna, V., Mede, N. G., Be ge , S., Besley, J., B ick, C., Jou-
be , M., Maibach, E. W., Mihelj, S., O eskes, N., Scha
¨ e ,
M. S., an de Linden, S., Aziz, I. A., Abdulsalam, S.,
Shamsi, N. A., Aczel, B., Adinug oho, I., Alab ese, E.,
Aldoh, A., Al ano, M., & .Zwaan, R. A. (2025). T us in
scien is s and hei ole in socie y ac oss 68 coun ies. Na u e
Human Beha iou ,9(4), 713–730. h ps://doi.o g/10.1038/
s41562-024-02090-5
Co co an, K. E., Schei le, C. P., & DiG ego io, B. D. (2023).
Pa ano mal belie s, accine con idence, and COVID-19 ac-
cine up ake. Sociology o Religion,84(2), 111–143. h ps://
doi.o g/10.1093/soc el/s ac024
C i chley, C., Nicol, D., & O lowski, M. (2015). The impac o
comme cialisa ion and gene ic da a sha ing a angemen s
on public us and he in en ion o pa icipa e in biobank
esea ch. Public Heal h Genomics,18(3), 160–172. h ps://
doi.o g/10.1159/000375441
C i chley, C. R., B uce, G., & Fa ugia, M. (2013). The impac
o comme cialisa ion on public pe cep ions o s em cell
esea ch: Explo ing di e ences ac oss he use o induced
plu ipo en cells, human and animal emb yos. S em Cell
Re iews and Repo s,9(5), 541–554. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/
s12015-013-9445-4
Cunningham-Bu ley, S. (2006). Public knowledge and public
us . Communi y Gene ics,9(3), 204–210. h ps://doi.o g/10.
1159/000092658
Kabakcxi e al. 17
C i ano ic, C., Ma shall, N. A., Wilson, S. K., Dobbs, K., &
Hobday, A. J. (2014). Pe cep ions o Aus alian ma ine p o-
ec ed a ea manage s ega ding he ole, impo ance, and
achie abili y o adap a ion o managing he isks o clima e
change. Ecology and Socie y,19(4), 33–42. h ps://doi.o g/
10.5751/ES-07019-190433
Den on, G., Chi, H., & Gu soy, D. (2022). An examina ion o
c i ical de e minan s o ca bon o se ing a i udes: The ole
o gende . Jou nal o Sus ainable Tou ism,30(7), 1539–1561.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/09669582.2021.1920966
De elaki, M. (2022). T us wo hiness o science in deba e:
Challenges, esponses, and implica ions. Science & Educa-
ion,31(5 Suppl), 1181–1208. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/
s11191-021-00300-4
Die z, T. (2013). B inging alues and delibe a ion o science
communica ion. P oceedings o he Na ional Academy o
Sciences o he Uni ed S a es o Ame ica,110(3),
14081–14087. h ps://doi.o g/10.1073/pnas.1212740110
DiMaggio, P., Nag, M., & Blei, D. (2013). Exploi ing a ini ies
be ween opic modeling and he sociological pe spec i e on
cul u e: Applica ion o newspape co e age o U.S. go e n-
men a s unding. Poe ics,41(6), 570–606. h ps://doi.o g/
10.1016/j.poe ic.2013.08.004
Don hu, N., Kuma , S., Mukhe jee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim,
W. M. (2021). How o conduc a bibliome ic analysis: An
o e iew and guidelines. Jou nal o Business Resea ch,133,
285–296.
D ummond, C., & Fischho , B. (2017). Indi iduals wi h
g ea e science li e acy and educa ion ha e mo e pola ized
belie s on con o e sial science opics. P oceedings o he
Na ional Academy o Sciences o he Uni ed S a es o Ame -
ica,114(36), 9587–9592. h ps://doi.o g/10.1073/pnas.
1704882114
Eicheng een, B., Aksoy, C. G., & Saka, O. (2021). Re enge o
he expe s: Will COVID-19 enew o diminish public us
in science? Jou nal o Public Economics,193, 104343. h ps://
doi.o g/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2020.104343
Elgesem, D., S eskal, L., & Diakopoulos, N. (2015). S uc u e
and con en o he discou se on clima e change in he blogo-
sphe e: The big pic u e. En i onmen al Communica ion,9(2),
169–188. h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/17524032.2014.983536
Engdahl, E., & Lidskog, R. (2014). Risk, communica ion and
us : Towa ds an emo ional unde s anding o us . Public
Unde s anding o Science,23(6), 703–717. h ps://doi.o g/10.
1177/0963662512460953
Falade, B. A., & Baue , M. W. (2018). ‘‘I ha e ai h in sci-
ence and in God’’: Common sense, cogni i e polyphasia
and a i udes o science in Nige ia. Public Unde s anding
o Science,27(1), 29–46. h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/
0963662517690293
Fensham, P. J. (2014). Scep icism and us : Two coun e poin
essen ials in science educa ion o complex socio-scien i ic
issues. Cul u al S udies o Science Educa ion,9(3), 649–661.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s11422-013-9560-1
Flynn, R., Ricci, M., & Bellaby, P. (2011). The mi age o ci izen
engagemen in unce ain science: Public a i udes owa ds
hyd ogen ene gy. In e na ional Jou nal o Science Educa ion
Pa B Communica ion and Public Engagemen ,1(2), 97–114.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/21548455.2011.585810
Fu man, K. (2020). Emo ions and dis us in science. In e na-
ional Jou nal o Philosophical S udies,28(5 Suppl), 713–730.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/09672559.2020.1846281
Gabel, M., Goobla , J., Roe, C. M., Selso , N. J., & Mo is, J.
C. (2018). Poli ical ideology, con idence in science, and pa -
icipa ion in Alzheime disease esea ch s udies. Alzheime
Disease & Associa ed Diso de s,32(3), 179–184. h ps://doi.
o g/10.1097/WAD.0000000000000244
Gaucha , G. (2012). Poli iciza ion o science in he public
sphe e: A s udy o public us in he Uni ed S a es, 1974 o
2010. Ame ican Sociological Re iew,77(2), 167–187. h ps://
doi.o g/10.1177/0003122412438225
Gesse -Edelsbu g, A., Shi -Raz, Y., Hayek, S., & Le , O. S.-B.
(2015). Wha does he public know abou Ebola? The pub-
lic’s isk pe cep ions ega ding he cu en Ebola ou b eak
in an as-ye una ec ed coun y. Ame ican Con ol o In ec-
ion Con ol,43(7), 669–675. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.ajic.
2015.03.005
Gie h, L., & B omme, R. (2020). A acking science on social
media: How use commen s a ec pe cei ed us wo hiness
and c edibili y. Public Unde s anding o Science,29(2),
230–247. h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/0963662519889275
Gil edde , M., Robinson, C. J., Wa son, J. E. M., Campbell, T.
G., Sulli an, B. L., & Possingham, H. P. (2019). B oke ing
us in ci izen science. Socie y & Na u al Resou ces,32(3),
292–302. h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/08941920.2018.1518507
Goldenbe g M. J. (2023). Public us in science. In e disciplin-
a y Science Re iews,48(2), 366–378. h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/
03080188.2022.2152243
Gold inch, S., & Taplin, R. (2022). A c oss-sec ional in e na-
ional s udy shows con idence in public heal h scien is s p e-
dic s use o COVID-19 non-pha maceu ical in e en ions.
BMC Public Heal h,22(1), 662. h ps://doi.o g/10.1186/
s12889-022-13074-3
Goud, S., Shea s, J. L., & Me z, A. F. (2023). Building b idges,
ea ning us : The WHY and he HOW o public us in sci-
ence. Aspen Ins i u e Science and Socie y P og am.
G anados Samayoa, J. A., Ruisch, B. C., Moo e, C. A., Boggs,
S. T., Ladanyi, J. T., & Fazio, R. H. (2021). When does
knowing be e mean doing be e ? T us in P esiden T ump
and in scien is s mode a es he ela ion be ween COVID-19
knowledge and social dis ancing. Jou nal o Elec ions, Public
Opinion and Pa ies,31(Suppl 1), 218–231. h ps://doi.o g/
10.1080/17457289.2021.1924744
G aso, M., Henwood, A., Aquino, K., Dolan, P., & Chen, F.
X. (2022). The da k side o belie in Co id-19 scien is s and
scien i ic e idence. Pe sonali y and Indi idual Di e ences,
193, 111594. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.paid.2022.111594
G ay, S., Shwom, R., & Jo dan, R. (2012). Unde s anding ac-
o s ha in luence s akeholde us o Na u al Resou ce
Science and Ins i u ions. En i onmen al Managemen ,49(3),
663–674. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s00267-011-9800-7
G imme , J. (2010). A Bayesian hie a chical opic model o
poli ical ex s: Measu ing exp essed agendas in Sena e P ess
Releases. Poli ical Analysis,18(1), 1–35. h ps://doi.o g/10.
1093/pan/mpp034
G imme , J., Robe s, M. E., & S ewa , B. M. (2022). Tex as
da a: A new amewo k o machine lea ning and he social
sciences. P ince on Uni e si y P ess.
18 SAGE Open
Gunde sen, T., Alinejad, D., B anch, T. Y., Du y, B., Hewle ,
K., Hols , C., Owens, S., Panizza, F., Tellmann, S. M., an
Dijck, J., & Bagh amian, M. (2022). A new da k age? T u h,
us , and en i onmen al science. Annual Re iew o En i on-
men and Resou ces,47, 5–29. h ps://doi.o g/10.1146/
annu e -en i on-120920-015909
Gunde sen, T., & Hols , C. (2022). Science ad ice in an en i-
onmen o us : T us ed, bu no us wo hy? Social Epis-
emology,36(5 Suppl), 629–640. h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/
02691728.2022.2101564
Gus a sson, K., & Lidskog, R. (2012). Acknowledging isk,
us ing expe ise, and coping wi h unce ain y: Ci izens’
delibe a ions on sp aying an insec popula ion. Socie y &
Na u al Resou ces,25(6), 587–601. h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/
08941920.2011.620598
Hamil on, L. C., Ha e , J., & Sai o, K. (2015). T us in scien-
is s on clima e change and accines. Sage Open,5(3).
h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/2158244015602752
Han, H. (2022). T us in he scien i ic esea ch communi y p e-
dic s in en o comply wi h COVID-19 p e en ion measu es:
An analysis o a la ge-scale in e na ional su ey da ase . Epi-
demiology and In ec ion,150, e36. h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/
S0950268822000255
Hegland, A., Zhang, A. L., Ziche ella, B., & Pasek, J. (2022).
A Pa isan pandemic: How COVID-19 was p imed o
pola iza ion. Annals o he Ame ican Academy o Poli ical
and Social Science,700(1), 55–72. h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/
00027162221083686
Hend iks, F., & Jucks, R. (2020). Does scien i ic unce ain y in
news a icles a ec eade s’ us and decision-making?
Media and Communica ion,8(2), 401–412. h ps://doi.o g/
10.17645/mac. 8i2.2824
Hend iks, F., Kienhues, D., & B omme, R. (2016a). E oking
igilance: Would you (dis) us a scien is who discusses e hi-
cal implica ions o esea ch in a science blog? Public Unde -
s anding o Science,25(8 Suppl), 992–1008. h ps://doi.o g/
10.1177/0963662516646048
Hend iks, F., Kienhues, D., & B omme, R. (2016b). T us in
science and he science o us . In B. Blo
¨baum (ed.). T us
and communica ion in a digi ized wo ld: Models and con-
cep s o us esea ch, (pp. 143–159). Sp inge In e na ional
Publishing.
Hend iks, F., Kienhues, D., & B omme, R. (2020). Replica ion
c isis = us c isis? The e ec o success ul s ailed eplica-
ions on laypeople’s us in esea che s and esea ch. Public
Unde s anding o Science,29(3), 270–288. h ps://doi.o g/10.
1177/0963662520902383
Hilga d, J., & Jamieson, K. H. (2017). Does a scien i ic b eak-
h ough inc ease con idence in science? News o a Zika ac-
cine and us in science. Science Communica ion,39(4),
548–560. h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/1075547017719075
Ho nsey, M. J., Lobe a, J., & Dı
´az-Ca ala
´n, C. (2020). Vaccine
hesi ancy is s ongly associa ed wi h dis us o con en ional
medicine, and only weakly associa ed wi h us in al e na-
i e medicine. Social Science and Medicine,255, 113019.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113019
H oma ko, I., Tonko ic
´, M., & V anic, A. (2021). T us in sci-
ence, pe cei ed ulne abili y o disease, and adhe ence o
pha macological and non-pha macological COVID-19
ecommenda ions. F on ie s in Psychology,12, 664554.
h ps://doi.o g/10.3389/ psyg.2021.664554
Huang, Y., & G een, M. C. (2023). Reducing COVID-19 ac-
cine hesi ancy among A ican Ame icans: The e ec s o na -
a i es, cha ac e ’s sel -pe suasion, and us in science.
Jou nal o Beha io al Medicine,46, 290–302. h ps://doi.o g/
10.1007/s10865-022-00303-8
Hube , B., Ba nidge, M., de Zuniga, H., & Liu, J. (2019). Fos-
e ing public us in science: The ole o social media. Pub-
lic Unde s anding o Science,28(7), 759–777. h ps://doi.o g/
10.1177/0963662519869097
In emann, K. (2022). Unde s anding he p oblem o ‘‘Hype’’:
Exagge a ion, alues, and us in science. Canadian Jou nal
o Philosophy,52(3 Suppl), 279–294. h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/
can.2020.45
I zik, G., & Ku ulmus, F. (2021). Well-o de ed science and
public us in science. Syn hese,198(Suppl 19), 4731–4748.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s11229-018-02022-7
I ani, S., & No aes, C. D. (2022). Public engagemen and
a gumen a ion in science. Eu opean Jou nal o Philosophy
o Science,12(3), 54. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s13194-022-
00480-y
Jacob, M., & Hells om, T. (2000). Policy unde s anding o sci-
ence, public us and he BSE-CJD c isis. Jou nal o Haza -
dous Ma e ials,78(1–3 Suppl), 303–317. h ps://doi.o g/10.
1016/S0304-3894(00)00228-4
Jamieson, K. H., McNu , M., Kie me , V., & Se e , R.
(2019). Signaling he us wo hiness o science. P oceed-
ings o he Na ional Academy o Sciences,116(39),
19231–19236.
Janssen, I., Hend iks, F., & Jucks, R. (2021). Face masks migh
p o ec you om COVID-19: The communica ion o scien-
i ic unce ain y by scien is s e sus poli icians in he con ex
o policy in he making. Jou nal o Language and Social Psy-
chology,40(5–6 Suppl), 602–626. h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/
0261927X211044512
Jaspal, R., Ga dne , S., Zwach, P., G een, M., & B eakwell, G.
M. (2022). T us in science, homonega i i y, and HIV
s igma: Expe imen al da a om he Uni ed Kingdom and
Ge many. S igma and Heal h,7(4), 471–480. h ps://doi.o g/
10.1037/sah0000401
Jensen, K. K. (2004). BSE in he UK: Why he isk communi-
ca ion s a egy ailed. Jou nal o Ag icul u al & En i onmen-
al E hics,17(4–5), 405–423. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s10806-
004-5186-3
Kelly, R., Fleming, A., & Pecl, G. T. (2019). Ci izen science and
social licence: Imp o ing pe cep ions and connec ing ma ine
use g oups. Ocean & Coas al Managemen ,178, 104855.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.104855
Ke , J. R., & Wilson, M. S. (2021). Righ -wing au ho i a ian-
ism and social dominance o ien a ion p edic ejec ion o sci-
ence and scien is s. G oup P ocesses and In e g oup Rela ions,
24(4), 550–567. h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/1368430221992126
Ki che , P. (2001). Science, T u h, and Democ acy. Ox o d
Uni e si y P ess.
Koe ke, J., Schumann, K., & Po e , T. (2021). T us in science
inc eases conse a i e suppo o social dis ancing. G oup
P ocesses and In e g oup Rela ions,24(4), 680–697. h ps://
doi.o g/10.1177/1368430220985918
Kabakcxi e al. 19
Kol so a, O., & Kol co , S. (2013). Mapping he public agenda
wi h opic modeling: The case o he Russian li ejou nal.
Policy & In e ne ,5(2), 207–227. h ps://doi.o g/10.1002/
1944-2866.POI331
Ko
¨nig, L., & Jucks, R. (2019a). Ho opics in science communica-
ion: Agg essi e language dec eases us wo hiness and c ed-
ibili y in scien i ic deba es. Public Unde s anding o Science,
28(4), 401–416. h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/0963662519833903
Ko
¨nig, L., & Jucks, R. (2019b). When do in o ma ion seeke s
us scien i ic in o ma ion? Insigh s om ecipien s’ e alua-
ions o online ideo lec u es. In e na ional Jou nal o Educa-
ional Technology in Highe Educa ion,16(1), 1. h ps://doi.
o g/10.1186/s41239-019-0132-7
Kossowska, M., Szwed, P., & Cza nek, G. (2021). Ideology
shapes us in scien is s and a i udes owa ds accines du -
ing he COVID-19 pandemic. G oup P ocesses and In e -
g oup Rela ions,24(5), 720–737. h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/
13684302211001946
Ko che , J. E., Mye s, T. A., V aga, E. K., S enhouse, N., &
Maibach, E. W. (2017). Does engagemen in ad ocacy hu
he c edibili y o scien is s? Resul s om a Randomized
Na ional Su ey Expe imen . En i onmen al Communica-
ion—A Jou nal o Na u e and Cul u e,11(3), 415–429.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/17524032.2016.1275736
Ku oki, M., Yamamo o, K., & Gold inch, S. (2022). Fac o s
in luencing he adop ion o olun a y nonpha maceu ical
in e en ions o con ol COVID-19 in Japan: C oss-sec-
ional s udy. JMIR Fo ma i e Resea ch,6(8), e34268.
h ps://doi.o g/10.2196/34268
Kwon, S. A., Kim, S., & Lee, J. E. (2019). Analyzing he de e -
minan s o indi idual ac ion on clima e change by speci ying
he oles o six alues in Sou h Ko ea. Sus ainabili y (Swi -
ze land),11(7), 1834. h ps://doi.o g/10.3390/su11071834
Lamo , M., Ke man, K., & Ki bis
ˇ, A. (2022). Dis us ul, dis-
sa is ied, and conspi a o ial: A la en p o ile analysis o
COVID-19 accina ion ejec ion. In e na ional Jou nal o
En i onmen al Resea ch and Public Heal h,19(16), 10096.
h ps://doi.o g/10.3390/ije ph191610096
Lei h, P., Ogie , E., & Hawa d, M. (2014). Science and social
license: De ining en i onmen al sus ainabili y o A lan ic
Salmon Aquacul u e in Sou h-Eas e n Tasmania, Aus alia.
Social Epis emology,28(3–4 Suppl), 277–296. h ps://doi.
o g/10.1080/02691728.2014.922641
Lewis, S. C., Zami h, R., & He mida, A. (2013). Con en analy-
sis in an e a o big da a: A hyb id app oach o compu a-
ional and manual me hods. Jou nal o B oadcas ing &
Elec onic Media,57(1), 34–52.
Lo e, B., Macke , M., & Silk, K. (2013). Consume us in in o -
ma ion sou ces: Tes ing an in e disciplina y model. Sage Open,
3(2). h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/2158244013492782
Majid, U., Ahmad, M., Zain, S., Akande, A., & Ikhlaq, F.
(2022). COVID-19 accine hesi ancy and accep ance: A
comp ehensi e scoping e iew o global li e a u e. Heal h
P omo ion In e na ional,37(3), daac078. h ps://doi.o g/10.
1093/heap o/daac078
Ma ques, M. D., C i chley, C. R., & Walshe, J. (2015). A i-
udes o gene ically modi ied ood o e ime: How us in
o ganiza ions and he media cycle p edic suppo . Public
Unde s anding o Science,24(5), 601–618. h ps://doi.o g/10.
1177/0963662514542372
Ma a, S., Rogo a, N., & Luna-Co e
´s, G. (2022). In es iga ing
ole ance o unce ain y, COVID-19 conce n, and compli-
ance wi h ecommended beha io in ou coun ies: The
mode a ing ole o mind ulness, us in scien is s, and
powe dis ance. Pe sonali y and Indi idual Di e ences,186,
111352. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.paid.2021.111352
McC igh , A. M., Den zman, K., Cha e s, M., & Die z, T.
(2013). The in luence o poli ical ideology on us in sci-
ence. En i onmen al Resea ch Le e s,8(4), 4029. h ps://
doi.o g/10.1088/1748-9326/8/4/044029
Mede, N. G., Schae e , M. S., Ziegle , R., & Weisskop , M.
(2021). The ‘‘ eplica ion c isis’’ in he public eye: Ge mans’
awa eness and pe cep ions o he (i ) ep oducibili y o scien-
i ic esea ch. Public Unde s anding o Science,30(1),
91–102. h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/0963662520954370
Me zen, H. (2024). Objec i i y, sha ed alues, and us . Syn h-
ese,203(1), 60. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s11229-024-04493-3
Meye , G. (2006). Jou nalism and science: How o e ode he
idea o knowledge. Jou nal o Ag icul u al & En i onmen al
E hics,19(3), 239–252. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s10806-005-
6163-1
Mheidly, N., & Fa es, J. (2020). Le e aging media and heal h
communica ion s a egies o o e come he COVID-19 in o-
demic. Jou nal o Public Heal h Policy,41, 410–420. h ps://
doi.o g/10.1057/s41271-020-00247-w
Milla , E., Melles, S., Klug, J. L., & Rees, T. (2023). S ewa ding
ela ions o us : Ci izen scien is pe spec i es on os e ing
communi y us in science. En i onmen al Sociology,9(1),
31–50. h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/23251042.2022.2112888
Milos
ˇe ic
´o d

e ic
´, J., Ma i, S., Vdo ic
´, M., & Milos
ˇe ic
´,A.
(2021). Links be ween conspi acy belie s, accine knowl-
edge, and us : An i- accine beha io o Se bian adul s.
Social Science and Medicine,277, 113930. h ps://doi.o g/10.
1016/j.socscimed.2021.113930
Milos
ˇe ic
´-o d

e ic
´, J., Kljajic
´, D., Sladoje ic
´Ma ic
´, J., & u ic
´,
Z
ˇ. (2022). P edic o s and e ec s o scien i ic knowledge. In e -
na ional Jou nal o Sociology and Social Policy,42(9–10),
865–876. h ps://doi.o g/10.1108/IJSSP-06-2021-0159
Mye s, T. A., Ko che , J., S enhouse, N., Ande son, A. A.,
Maibach, E., Beall, L., & Leise owi z, A. (2017). P edic o s
o us in he gene al science and clima e science esea ch o
US ede al agencies. Public Unde s anding o Science,26(7),
843–860. h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/0963662516636040
Myh , A. I., & T aa ik, T. (2003). Gene ically modi ied (GM)
c ops: P ecau iona y science and con lic s o in e es s. Jou -
nal o Ag icul u al & En i onmen al E hics,16(3), 227–247.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1023/A:1023686900879
Ne lich, B. (2013). Mode a ion impossible? On hype, hones y
and us in he con ex o mode n academic li e. Sociologi-
cal Re iew,61(2 Suppl), 43–57. h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/
1467-954X.12099
Neu ei e , A., S uben oll, M., Kaskele iciu e, R., & Ma hes, J.
(2021). T us in science, pe cei ed media exagge a ion abou
COVID-19, and social dis ancing beha io . F on ie s in Pub-
lic Heal h,9, 670485. h ps://doi.o g/10.3389/ pubh.2021.
670485
20 SAGE Open

Nisbe , E. C., Coope , K. E., & Ga e , R. K. (2015). The Pa -
isan b ain: How dissonan science messages lead conse a-
i es and libe als o (dis) us science. Annals o he
Ame ican Academy o Poli ical and Social Science,658(1),
36–66. h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/0002716214555474
O’B ien, T. C., Palme , R., & Alba acin, D. (2021). Misplaced
us : When us in science os e s belie in pseudoscience
and he bene i s o c i ical e alua ion. Jou nal o Expe imen-
al Social Psychology,96, 104184. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.
jesp.2021.104184
O’B ien, T. L., & Noy, S. (2018), Cul u al au ho i y in com-
pa a i e con ex : A mul ile el analysis o us in science
and eligion. Jou nal o he Scien i ic S udy o Religion,57,
495–513. h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/jss .12537
O’Dohe y, K. C. (2022). T us , us wo hiness, and ela ion-
ships: On ological e lec ions on public us in science. Jou -
nal o Responsible Inno a ion,10, 1–22.
O’Neill, O. (2002). A ques ion o us : The BBC ei h lec u es
2002. Camb idge Uni e si y P ess.
Ophi , Y., & Jamieson, K. H. (2021). The e ec s o media
na a i es abou ailu es and disco e ies in science on
belie s abou and suppo o science. Public Unde s and-
ing o Science,30(8), 1008–1023. h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/
09636625211012630
O eskes, N. (2019). Why us science?P ince on Uni e si y
P ess.
Oude G oenige , J., Noo dzij, K., an de Waal, J., & de Kos-
e , W. (2021). Du ch COVID-19 lockdown measu es
inc eased us in go e nmen and us in science: A
di e ence-in-di e ences analysis. Social Science and Medi-
cine,275, 113819. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.
113819
Palamenghi, L., Ba ello, S., Boccia, S., & G a igna, G. (2020).
Mis us in biomedical esea ch and accine hesi ancy: The
o e on challenge in he ba le agains COVID-19 in I aly.
Eu opean Jou nal o Epidemiology,35(8), 785–788. h ps://
doi.o g/10.1007/s10654-020-00675-8
Pa do, R., & Cal o, F. (2008). A i udes owa d emb yo
esea ch, wo ld iews, and he mo al s a us o he emb yo
ame. Science Communica ion,30(1), 8–47. h ps://doi.o g/
10.1177/1075547008319432
Pa wa, P., Sha ma, S., Pykl, S., Gup ha, V., Kuma i, G., Akh-
a , S., Ekbal, A., Das, A., & Chak abo y, T. (2021). Figh -
ing an in odemic: COVID-19 ake news da ase . In T.
Chak abo y, K. Shu, H. R. Be na d, H. Liu, & M. S. Akh-
a (Eds.), Comba ing online hos ile pos s in egional lan-
guages du ing eme gency si ua ion. CONSTRAINT 2021.
Communica ions in Compu e and In o ma ion Science
(Vol. 1402). Sp inge . h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/978-3-030-
73696-5_3
Pecha , E., Be naue , T., & Maye , F. (2018). Beyond poli i-
cal ideology: The impac o a i udes owa ds go e nmen
and co po a ions on us in science. Science Communica-
ion,40(3), 291–313. h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/10755470187
63970
Pi e i, M., Di Ba is a, S., Palea i, F. G., & Hakoko
¨nga
¨s, E.
(2021). Conspi acy belie s and a i udes owa d COVID-19
accina ions: A concep ual eplica ion s udy in Finland.
Jou nal o Paci ic Rim Psychology,15. h ps://doi.o g/10.
1177/18344909211039893
Plohl, N., & Musil, B. (2021). Modeling compliance wi h
COVID-19 p e en ion guidelines: The c i ical ole o us
in science. Psychology, Heal h and Medicine,26(1), 1–12.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/13548506.2020.1772988
Plohl, N., & Musil, B. (2022). Unde s anding, us ing, and
applying scien i ic insigh s o imp o e you heal h: A la en
p o ile analysis app oach. In e na ional Jou nal o En i on-
men al Resea ch and Public Heal h,19(16), 9967. h ps://doi.
o g/10.3390/ije ph19169967
P oc o , J. (2006). Religion as us in au ho i y: Theoc acy and
ecology in he Uni ed S a es. Annals o he Associa ion o
Ame ican Geog aphe s,96(1), 188–196. h ps://doi.o g/10.
1111/j.1467-8306.2006.00508.x
Qiao, S., F iedman, D. B., Tam, C. C., Zeng, C., & Li, X.
(2022). COVID-19 accine accep ance among college s uden s
in Sou h Ca olina: Do in o ma ion sou ces and us in in o -
ma ion ma e ? Jou nal o Ame ican College Heal h,72(3),
859–868. h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/07448481.2022.2059375
Rabino ich, A., Mo on, T. A., & Bi ney, M. E. (2012). Com-
munica ing clima e science: The ole o pe cei ed communi-
ca o ’s mo i es. Jou nal o En i onmen al Psychology,32(1),
11–18. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.jen p.2011.09.002
Rei , A., & Guen he , L. (2021). How ep esen a i e su eys
measu e public (dis) us in science: A sys ema isa ion and
analysis o su ey i ems and open-ended ques ions. Jou nal
o T us Resea ch,11(2), 94–118. h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/
21515581.2022.2075373
Rei , A., Kneisel, T., Schae e , M., & Taddicken, M. (2020).
Why a e scien i ic expe s pe cei ed as us wo hy? Emo-
ional assessmen wi hin TV and YouTube ideos. Media
and Communica ion,8(1), 191–205. h ps://doi.o g/10.17645/
mac. 8i1.2536
Resnik, D. B. (2011). Scien i ic esea ch and he public us .
Science and Enginee ing E hics,17(3), 399–409. h ps://doi.
o g/10.1007/s11948-010-9210-x
Robe s, M. E., S ewa , B. M., & Tingley, D. (2019). S m: An
R package o s uc u al opic models. Jou nal o S a is ical
So wa e,91, 1–40.
Robe s, M. R., Reid, G., Sch oede , M., & No is, S. P.
(2013). Causal o spu ious? The ela ionship o knowledge
and a i udes o us in science and echnology. Public
Unde s anding o Science,22(5), 624–641. h ps://doi.o g/10.
1177/0963662511420511
Rolin, K. H. (2020). T us in science. In J. Simon (ed.), The
Rou ledge Handbook o T us and Philosophy, pp. 354–
366.
Rolin, K. H. (2021). Objec i i y, us and social esponsibili y.
Syn hese,199(1–2), 513–533. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s11229-
020-02669-1
Rosman, T., Bosnjak, M., Silbe , H., Koßmann, J., & Heycke,
T. (2022). Open science and public us in science: Resul s
om wo s udies. Public Unde s anding o Science (B is ol,
England),31(8), 1046–1062. h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/
09636625221100686
Saa inen, A., Koi ula, A., & Keipi, T. (2020). Poli ical us ,
poli ical pa y p e e ence and us in knowledge-based
Kabakcxi e al. 21
ins i u ions. In e na ional Jou nal o Sociology and Social Pol-
icy,40(1–2), 154–168. h ps://doi.o g/10.1108/IJSSP-06-2019-
0113
Sa o d, T. G., Whi mo e, E. H., & Hamil on, L. C. (2020).
Ques ioning scien i ic p ac ice: Linking belie s abou scien-
is s, science agencies, and clima e change. En i onmen al
Sociology,6(2), 194–206. h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/23251042.
2019.1696008
Saile , M., S adle , M., Bo es, E., Fische , F., & G ei , S.
(2022). Science knowledge and us in medicine a ec indi-
iduals’ beha io in pandemic c ises. Eu opean Jou nal o
Psychology o Educa ion,37(1), 279–292. h ps://doi.o g/10.
1007/s10212-021-00529-1
Sanka e, I. C., B oss, R., B own, A. F., del Pino, H. E., Jones,
L. F., Mo is, D. M., Po e , C., Lucas-W igh , A., Va gas,
R., Fo ge, N., No is, K. C., & Kahn, K. L. (2015). S a e-
gies o build us and ec ui A ican Ame ican and La ino
Communi y Residen s o heal h esea ch: A coho s udy.
CTS-Clinical and T ansla ional Science,8(5), 412–420.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/c s.12273
Sanz-Menendez, L., & C uz-Cas o, L. (2019). The c edibili y
o scien i ic communica ion sou ces ega ding clima e
change: A popula ion-based su ey expe imen . Public
Unde s anding o Science,28(5), 534–553. h ps://doi.o g/10.
1177/0963662519840946
Sa a hchand a, D., & Hal inne , K. (2021). A su ey ins u-
men o measu e skep ics’ (Dis) us in clima e science. Cli-
ma e,9(2), 1–11. h ps://doi.o g/10.3390/cli9020018
Sa a hchand a, D., Na in, M. C., La gen , M. A., & McC igh ,
A. M. (2018). A su ey ins umen o measu ing accine
accep ance. P e en i e Medicine,109, 1–7. h ps://doi.o g/
10.1016/j.ypmed.2018.01.006
Scheu ele, D. A. (2014). Science communica ion as poli ical
communica ion. P oceedings o he Na ional Academy o
Sciences o he Uni ed S a es o Ame ica,111 (Suppl 4),
13585–13592, h ps://doi.o g/10.1073/pnas.1317516111
Scheu ele, D. A. (2022). Thi y yea s o science–socie y in e -
aces: Wha ’s nex ? Public Unde s anding o Science,31(3),
297–304. h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/09636625221075947
Schnep , J., Lux, A., Jin, Z., & Fo manowicz, M. (2021). Le
ou - eelings o social exclusion inci e indi iduals wi h high
conspi acy men ali y o ejec complex scien i ic messages.
Jou nal o Language and Social Psychology,40(5–6 Suppl),
627–652. h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/0261927X211044789
Shahani, R., Chu, J., Ru ai, O. H., Zawa , A., Muhideen, S.,
Dilawa , S., & Amosun, T. S. (2022). Unde s anding he
ole o psychosocial ac o s in Pakis ani pa en s’ hesi ancy
o accina e hei kids: The media ing ole o knowledge
and mis us o science abou he COVID-19 accine. Vac-
cines,10(8), 1260. h ps://doi.o g/10.3390/ accines10081260
Sibley, C. G., G ea es, L. M., Sa he ley, N., Wilson, M. S.,
O e all, N. C., Lee, C. H. J., Miloje , P., Bulbulia, J.,
Osbo ne, D., Mil on , T. L., Houkamau, C. A., Duck, I.
M., Vicke s-Jones, R., & Ba low, F. K. (2020). E ec s o
he COVID-19 pandemic and na ionwide lockdown on
us , a i udes owa d go e nmen , and well-being. Ame i-
can Psychologis ,75(5), 618–630. h ps://doi.o g/10.1037/
amp0000662
Sla e , M. H., Schol ield, E. R., & Moo e, J. C. (2021). Repo -
ing on science as an ongoing p ocess (o no ). F on ie s in
Communica ion,5. h ps://doi.o g/10.3389/ comm.2020.
535474
Smi h, D. V. (2022). The p oblem o us wi hou in imacy:
Educa ion o handling expe knowledge in a neolibe al
ma ke place. Science & Educa ion,31(6), 1449–1474.
Solomon, M. (2021). T us : The need o public unde s anding
o how science wo ks. Has ings Cen e Repo ,51(1 Suppl),
S36–S39. h ps://doi.o g/10.1002/has .1227
Song, H, Ma kowi z, D. M., & Taylo , S. H. (2022). T us ing
on he shoulde s o open gian s? Open science inc eases us
in science o he public and academics, Jou nal o Commu-
nica ion,72(4), 497–510. h ps://doi.o g/10.1093/joc/jqac017
S asiuk, K., Polak, M., Dolinski, D., & Maciuszek, J. (2021).
The c edibili y o heal h in o ma ion sou ces as p edic o s
o a i udes owa d accina ion—The esul s om a longi u-
dinal s udy in poland. Vaccines,9(8), 933. h ps://doi.o g/10.
3390/ accines9080933
S eijae , M. J., Schaap, G., & Rie , J. V. (2021). Two-sided sci-
ence: Communica ing scien i ic unce ain y inc eases us in
scien is s and dona ion in en ion by dec easing a ibu ion
o communica o bias. Communica ions,46(2), 297–316.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1515/commun-2019-0123
Sulik, J., De oy, O., Dezecache, G., Newson, M., Zhao, Y., El
Zein, M., & Tuncxgencx, B. (2021). Facing he pandemic wi h
us in science. Humani ies and Social Sciences Communica-
ions,8, 301. h ps://doi.o g/10.1057/s41599-021-00982-9
Sz ompka, P. (2007). T us in science Robe K. Me on’s
inspi a ions. Jou nal o Classical Sociology,7(2), 211–220.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/1468795X07078038
Tho n on, T., & Leahy, J. (2012). T us in ci izen science
esea ch: A case s udy o he g oundwa e educa ion h ough
Wa e E alua ion & Tes ing P og am, Jou nal o he Ame i-
can Wa e Resou ces Associa ion,48(5), 1032–1040. h ps://
doi.o g/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2012.00670.x
Tonko ic
´, M., Dumanc
ˇic
´, F., Jelic
´,M.,&C
ˇo kalo Bi us
ˇki, D.
(2021). Who belie es in COVID-19 conspi acy heo ies in
C oa ia? P e alence and p edic o s o conspi acy belie s.
F on ie s in Psychology,12. h ps://doi.o g/10.3389/ psyg.
2021.643568
an S ekelenbu g, A., Schaap, G., Veling, H., & Buijzen, M.
(2021). In es iga ing and imp o ing he accu acy o US ci i-
zens’ belie s abou he COVID-19 pandemic: Longi udinal
su ey s udy. Jou nal o Medical In e ne Resea ch,23(1),
e24069. h ps://doi.o g/10.2196/24069
Va da, C., Io danou, K., An oniou, J., Ba ios, M. M. Z.,
Yalaz, E., Gu zawska, A., Sz€
udi, G., Ba a , P., & Ha
¨be -
lein, L. (2025). The Role o s ewa ds o us in acili a ing
us in Scsence: A Mul is akeholde View. Jou nal o Aca-
demic E hics.23, 463–483. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s10805-
024-09583-y
Viswana h, K., Bekalu, M., Dhawan, D., Pinnamaneni, R.,
Lang, J., & McLoud, R. (2021). Indi idual and social de e -
minan s o COVID-19 accine up ake. BMC Public Heal h,
21(1), 818. h ps://doi.o g/10.1186/s12889-021-10862-1
V anic, A., H oma ko, I., & Tonko ic
´, M. (2022). ‘‘I did my
own esea ch’’: O e con idence, (dis) us in science, and
22 SAGE Open
endo semen o conspi acy heo ies. F on ie s in Psychology,
13, 931865. h ps://doi.o g/10.3389/ psyg.2022.931865
Wal he , J., Py likZillig, L., De weile , C., & Hous on, A.
(2019). How people make sense o d ones used o a mo-
sphe ic science (and o he pu poses): Hopes, conce ns, and
ecommenda ions. Jou nal o Unmanned Vehicle Sys ems,
7(3), 219–234. h ps://doi.o g/10.1139/ju s-2019-0003
Weinga , P. (2022). T us o a en ion? Medializa ion o sci-
ence e isi ed. Public Unde s anding o Science,31(3 Suppl),
288–296. h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/09636625211070888
Why e, K. P., & C ease, R. P. (2010). T us , expe ise, and he
philosophy o science. Syn hese,177(3), 411–425.
Wiedemann, P. M., Thalmann, A. T., G u sch, M. A., &
Sch€
u z, H. (2006). The impac s o p ecau iona y measu es
and he disclosu e o scien i ic unce ain y on EMF isk pe -
cep ion and us . Jou nal o Risk Resea ch,9(4), 361–372.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/13669870600802111
Wingen, T., Be kessel, J. B., & Englich, B. (2020). No eplica-
ion, no us ? How low eplicabili y in luences us in
psychology. Social Psychological and Pe sonali y Science,
11(4), 454–463. h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/1948550619877412
Win e , T., Rio dan, B. C., Sca , D., & Jose, P. E. (2022). Con-
spi acy belie s and dis us o science p edic s eluc ance o
accine up ake o poli ically igh -wing ci izens. Vaccine,
40(12), 1896–1903. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j. accine.2022.01.
039
Win e lin, F., Hend iks, F., Mede, N. G., B omme, R., Me ag,
J., & Scha
¨ e , M. S. (2021). P edic ing public us in sci-
ence: The ole o basic o ien a ions owa d science, pe -
cei ed us wo hiness o scien is s, and expe iences wi h
science. F on ie s in Communica ion,6. h ps://doi.o g/10.
3389/ comm.2021.822757
Zapp, M. (2022). The legi imacy o science and he populis back-
lash: C oss-na ional and longi udinal ends and de e minan s
o a i udes owa d science. Public Unde s anding o Science,
31(7), 885–902. h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/09636625221093897
Ziman, J. (2002). The con inuing need o disin e es ed
esea ch. Science and Enginee ing E hics,8, 397–399.
Kabakcxi e al. 23