Politicized Scientists: Credibility Cost of Political Expression on Twitter
When scientists tweet about politics, does the public trust them less? In experiments where 6,000 Americans and 135 journalists rated realistic academic profiles, politically neutral scientists were judged most credible — and the stronger the political expression, the bigger the credibility penalty, for the scientist and their research alike. Surveys show scientists are well aware of the trade-off.
Read the full abstract
As social media becomes prominent within academia, we examine its reputational costs for academics. Analyzing Twitter posts from 98,000 scientists (2016–22), we uncover substantial political expression. Online experiments with 6,000 U.S. respondents and 135 journalists, rating synthetic academic profiles with different political affiliations, reveal that politically neutral scientists are seen as the most credible. Strikingly, political expressions result in monotonic penalties: Stronger posts reduce perceived credibility of scientists and their research and audience engagement more, particularly among oppositely aligned respondents. Two surveys with scientists highlight their awareness to penalties, their perceived benefits, and a consensus on limiting political expression outside their expertise.
Presented at
- 11 Nov 2025 — Imperial Finance Seminar, London
- 7 Nov 2025 — Oxford Behavioural Group Seminar, Oxford
- 28 Oct 2025 — University of Cologne Seminar, Cologne
- 5–6 Sep 2024 — Advances with Field Experiments (AFE), London
- 16–17 May 2024 — QPE Early Career Workshop, London