The positive association of education with the trust in science and scientists is weaker in highly corrupt countries

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

One of the most prominent correlates of trust in science and scientists is education level, possibly because educated individuals have higher levels of science knowledge and thinking ability, suggesting that trusting science and scientists relies more on reflective thinking abilities. However, it is relatively more reasonable for highly educated individuals to suspect authority figures in highly corrupt countries. We tested this prediction in two nationally representative and probabilistic cross-cultural data sets (Study 1: 142 countries, N = 40,085; Study 2: 47 countries, N = 69,332), and found that the positive association between education and trust in scientists (Study 1) and science (Study 2) was weaker or non-existent in highly corrupt countries. The results did not change after statistically controlling for age, sex, household income, and residence. We suggest future research to be more considerate of the societal context in understanding how education status correlates with trust in science and scientists.

Related collections

Most cited references 83

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

The weirdest people in the world?

Joseph Henrich, Steven Heine, Ara Norenzayan (2010)

Behavioral scientists routinely publish broad claims about human psychology and behavior in the world's top journals based on samples drawn entirely from Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) societies. Researchers - often implicitly - assume that either there is little variation across human populations, or that these "standard subjects" are as representative of the species as any other population. Are these assumptions justified? Here, our review of the comparative database from across the behavioral sciences suggests both that there is substantial variability in experimental results across populations and that WEIRD subjects are particularly unusual compared with the rest of the species - frequent outliers. The domains reviewed include visual perception, fairness, cooperation, spatial reasoning, categorization and inferential induction, moral reasoning, reasoning styles, self-concepts and related motivations, and the heritability of IQ. The findings suggest that members of WEIRD societies, including young children, are among the least representative populations one could find for generalizing about humans. Many of these findings involve domains that are associated with fundamental aspects of psychology, motivation, and behavior - hence, there are no obvious a priori grounds for claiming that a particular behavioral phenomenon is universal based on sampling from a single subpopulation. Overall, these empirical patterns suggests that we need to be less cavalier in addressing questions of human nature on the basis of data drawn from this particularly thin, and rather unusual, slice of humanity. We close by proposing ways to structurally re-organize the behavioral sciences to best tackle these challenges.