The credibility cost of political expression on social media

Social media is an influential platform which many scientists use to share their research. But do they also use it to engage in political discourse? And how does this reflect on their credibility with the public?

A new study by Eleonora Alabrese, Francesco Capozza and Prashant Garg explores the reputational cost to academic experts by displaying political affiliations on social media. It highlights the erosion of public trust driven by the perception of political bias within the scientific community.

In the “post-truth” era, public trust in science is indispensable. Trust ensures support for evidence-based policies (as seen during the Covid-19 pandemic), drives climate action and underpins technological and social progress.

Analysing the public Twitter accounts of 98,000 US based scientists between 2016 and 2022 the research team assessed whether and how they openly expressed their views on issues such as abortion, racial equality, and climate.

Using publicly available timelines of scientists through social media, the team were able to study the ideological polarisation of academics across a wide range of disciplines and an array of salient issues, offering a comprehensive view and insights beyond the traditional left or right political spectrum.

The study found that 44% of the academics observed openly shared non-neutral views on at least one of the topics of abortion, immigration, redistribution, climate change, and racial equity, with only moderate differences across disciplines. This was in direct contrast to average Twitter users, where only 7% engaged in similar political expression. Of these academic salient social media posts, 29% were research related – demonstrating a notable overlap between research and political discourse.

To understand the impact of scientists’ political expressions on their perceived credibility, the researchers carried out an online experiment with a representative sample of 1700 US residents. Participants were asked to evaluate hypothetical scientist profiles based on gender, discipline, university, seniority and their Twitter profiles reflecting different political positions.

The results of the experiment showed that politically neutral scientists and their research were consistently rated as the most credible. However, as scientists’ political opinions became more explicit, both their perceived credibility and the public’s willingness to engage with their content declined significantly.

Eleonora Alabrese, CAGE Research Associate and Assistant Professor at the University of Bath said:

“Our study highlights a critical trade-off for academics. Expressing political views can influence policy and enhance the visibility of their work but it also carries significant reputational risks. While choosing not to express a political opinion safeguards credibility, it limits the positive impact social media can have on academic careers. More importantly, it reduces the presence of scientific perspectives in political debates.

“While we highlighted some of the risks of political engagement for academics, a comprehensive evaluation of both the costs and benefits remains a crucial direction for future research. As the social media landscape continues to evolve, and users migrate to different networks, more can also be done to evaluate whether this will lead to increased polarisation and reduce the opportunity for diverse and meaningful dialogue."

• Read the full research paper: Politicized Scientists: Credibility Cost of Political Expression on Twitter
• Risks of Academics’ Political Engagement on Social Media blog by Eleonora Alabrese