Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/302739 
Year of Publication: 
2024
Series/Report no.: 
CESifo Working Paper No. 11254
Publisher: 
CESifo GmbH, Munich
Abstract: 
The study measures scientists' polarization on social media and its impact on public perceptions of their credibility. Analyzing 98,000 scientists on Twitter from 2016 to 2022 reveals significant divergence in expressed political opinions. An experiment assesses the impact of online political expression on a representative sample of 1,700 U.S. respondents, who rated vignettes with synthetic academic profiles varying scientists' political affiliations based on real tweets. Politically neutral scientists are viewed as the most credible. Strikingly, on both the 'left' and 'right' sides of politically neutral, there is a monotonic penalty for scientists displaying political affiliations: the stronger their posts, the less credible their profile and research are perceived, and the lower the public's willingness to read their content. The penalty varies with respondents' political leanings.
Subjects: 
Twitter
trust in science
ideological polarization
affective polarization
online experiment
JEL: 
A11
C93
D72
D83
D91
I23
Z10
Z13
Document Type: 
Working Paper
Appears in Collections:

Files in This Item:
File
Size





Items in EconStor are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.