Research is often fueled by researchers’ scientific, but also their personal interests: Sometimes, researchers decide to pursue a specific research question because the answer to that question is idiosyncratically relevant for themselves: Such “me-search” may not only affect the quality of research, but also how it is perceived by the general public. In two studies (N = 621), we investigate the circumstances under which learning about a researcher’s “me-search” increases or decreases laypeople’s ascriptions of trustworthiness and credibility to the respective researcher. Results suggest that participants’ own preexisting attitudes towards the research topic moderate the effects of “me-search” substantially: When participants hold favorable attitudes towards the research topic (i.e., LGBTQ or veganism), “me-searchers” were perceived as more trustworthy and their research was perceived as more credible. This pattern was reversed when participants held unfavorable attitudes towards the research topic. Study 2 furthermore shows that trustworthiness and credibility perceptions generalize to evaluations of the entire field of research. Implications for future research and practice are discussed.

Science should be self-correcting. However, researchers often hesitate to admit errors and to adopt reforms in their own work. In two studies (overall N = 702), we test whether scientific self-criticism and reform intentions expressed by researchers damage or rather improve their reputation in the eyes of the public (i.e. perceivers). Across both studies, such self-correction (compared to no self-correction) increases perceivers’ epistemic trustworthiness ascriptions, credibility perceptions, and willingness to further engage with science. Study 2 revealed that these effects were largely driven by the no self-criticism condition. In addition, researchers’ commitment to implementing reforms had positive effects and rejecting reforms had negative effects on perceptions, irrespective of the extent of these reforms. These findings suggest that researchers’ fear that self-criticism and expressing reform intentions may damage their reputation may be unfounded.

Abstract. In clinical psychology, imagery rescripting (ImRs) is a promising intervention to target negative emotional memories after victimization experiences. The present research tested the effects of ImRs in “minor” cases of experienced injustice. After imagining being the victim of an injustice, participants ( N = 272) were randomly assigned to one of four conditions in a univariate design (treatment: active ImRs, passive ImRs; control: pleasant imagery, imagery rehearsal). Dependent variables were positive and negative affect; mediator variables were justice-related satisfaction and empowerment. Both justice-related satisfaction and empowerment increased positive and decreased negative affect, but empowerment was higher in the active than in the passive ImRs condition (while justice-related satisfaction was increased by both ImRs conditions). These results suggest that ImRs can be beneficial even in minor victimization experiences and that these beneficial effects are mediated by both empowerment and justice-related satisfaction.

No abstract

War photography is not only used illustratively in news media but also displayed as controversial art objects. The ethics and impact of aestheticization in war photography have long been debated. In three studies (N 1 = 243, N 2 = 251, N 3 = 254), we contribute empirically to this debate by testing the impact of aesthetics in war photography (i.e., aesthetic style and context) on emotionalization and behavioral activation. While viewing war photography was, overall, emotionalizing (especially regarding negative affect and moral outrage), we did not find any behavioral activation (i.e., donation intention and behavior or general willingness to act against war). Neither aesthetic style nor aesthetic context made a difference in affective or behavioral responses. However, a salient aesthetic context (Study 3) led to higher aesthetic judgments of war photographs. Overall, these results question whether aesthetics in war photography have a particular power for evoking emotional and behavioral responses.

Public trust in science is polarized along political lines. Conservatives trust scientists and their findings less than do liberals – but why? Here, we show that people across the political spectrum hold stereotypes about scientists' political orientation (e.g., "scientists are liberal"), compare that to their own political orientation, and only trust scientists to the degree that they perceive them to be ideologically similar. Thus, we predict that the link between political orientation and trust in scientists is affected by political stereotypes about scientists. We tested this hypothesis in five studies in Germany and the US and combined a series of highly controlled experimental and correlational studies (total N = 2,859) with a large-scale analysis of Twitter data (N = 3,977,868). We experimentally manipulated scientists' perceived political orientation (study 1) or used naturally occurring variations in political stereotypes about scientific disciplines (e.g., "sociologists are liberal", studies 2 to 5). Across all studies, we consistently observed that stereotypes about scientists explain the link between political orientation and trust in scientists. Results showed that conservatives’ distrust in scientists is substantially reduced for stereotypically moderate disciplines (e.g., economists) and even reversed for scientists perceived as conservative. Confirming the critical consequences of this finding, the effect shaped participants' perceptions of the value of science, their protective behavior intentions during a pandemic, policy support, and information-seeking behavior.

War photography is not only used illustratively in news media but also displayed as controversial art objects. The ethics and impact of aestheticization in war photography have long been debated. In three studies (N1 = 243, N2 = 251, N3 = 254), we contribute empirically to this debate by testing the impact of aesthetics in war photography (i.e., aesthetic style and context) on emotionalization and behavioral activation. While viewing war photography was, overall, emotionalizing (especially regarding negative affect and moral outrage), we did not find any behavioral activation (i.e., donation intention and behavior or general willingness to act against war). Neither aesthetic style nor aesthetic context made a difference for affective or behavioral responses. However, a salient aesthetic context (Study 3) led to higher aesthetic judgments of war photographs. Overall, these results question whether aesthetics in war photography have a particular power for evoking emotional and behavioral responses.

Science museums face the challenge of communicating the inherent uncertainties of science without risking the public’s trust and interest in science. Here, we investigated laypeople’s (N = 466) reception and support for such uncertainty communication by combining an experimental and survey approach as well as quantitative and qualitative data. First, we experimentally manipulated whether historic consensus uncertainty was communicated (a) not at all, (b) incidentally, or (c) explicitly. Uncertainty neither affected visitors’ trust nor interest in the presented information, in a hypothetical exhibition, or in science in general, or their attitudes towards current scientific debates. Second, we asked participants directly about their opinion towards uncertainty communication in science museums, revealing overwhelmingly positive attitudes and 12 times as many statements in support of (vs. against) communicating uncertainty in science exhibitions. These findings suggest that the public does not only tolerate but actively supports uncertainty communication in science museums.