Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2026-4
When Scientists Share Their Struggles: How Scientists’ Self-Presentation on Social Media Influences Public Perceptions,Support for Science,and Information-Seeking Intentions
Casual recommendations for scientists to “be human” and to “bring the public alongside the scientific process” have generated plethora of such interactions on social media. This study explores different self-presentation tactics, like sharing their research successes and failures, or contextualizing their research process, on how scientists and science issues are perceived by the public. In an online between-subjects experiment (N = 1,843), participants rated scientists who shared their failures as more benevolent and open, and as having more integrity, than those who only shared their successes. These perceptions further increased support for science and information-seeking intentions. The findings highlight how scientists’ self-presentation on social media can influence important science communication outcomes.
AbitbolA.LeeN. M.VanDykeM. S. (2022). Examining the perceived transparency of DTC genetic testing company communication and its impact on consumer trust, attitude and behavioral intentions. Journal of Communication Management, 26(3), 315–330. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-01-2022-0006
2.
AfifiW. A.MettsS. (1998). Characteristics and consequences of expectation violations in close relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15(3), 365–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407598153004
3.
Balog-WayD.McComasK.BesleyJ. (2020). The evolving field of risk communication. Risk Analysis, 40(S1), 2240–2262. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13615
4.
BesleyJ. C.LeeN. M.PressgroveG. (2021). Reassessing the variables used to measure public perceptions of scientists. Science Communication, 43(1), 3–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547020949547
5.
BryantC. (2003). Does Australia need a more effective policy of science communication?International Journal for Parasitology, 33(4), 357–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7519(03)00004-3
BurgoonJ. K. (1993). Interpersonal expectations, expectancy violations, and emotional communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 12(1–2), 30–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X93121003
8.
BurgoonJ. K. (2015). Expectancy violations theory. In The International encyclopedia of interpersonal communication (pp. 1–9). American Cancer Society. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118540190.wbeic102
9.
CaliandroA. (2018). Digital Methods for Ethnography: Analytical Concepts for Ethnographers Exploring Social Media Environments. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 47(5), 551–578. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891241617702960
10.
CheplyginaV.HermansF.AlbersC.BielczykN.SmeetsI. (2020). Ten simple rules for getting started on Twitter as a scientist. PLOS Computational Biology, 16(2), e1007513. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007513
11.
ChinnS.HasellA.RodenJ.ZichettellaB. (2023). Threatening experts: Correlates of viewing scientists as a social threat. Public Understanding of Science, 9636625231183116. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625231183115
12.
CohenJ. (2001). Defining identification: A theoretical look at the identification of audiences with media characters. Mass Communication and Society, 4(3), 245–264. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327825MCS0403_01
13.
CoulehanJ. (2011). “A gentle and humane temper”: Humility in medicine. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 54(2), 206–216. https://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.2011.0017
14.
CuddyA. J. C.KohutM.NeffingerJ. (2013). Connect, then lead. Harvard Business Review, 91(7–8), 54–61, 132.
15.
De GraafA.HoekenH.SandersJ.BeentjesJ. W. J. (2012). Identification as a mechanism of narrative persuasion. Communication Research, 39(6), 802–823. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211408594
16.
D’ErricoF. (2020). Humility-based persuasion: Individual differences in elicited emotions and politician evaluation. International Journal of Communication, 14, Article 20.
FahyD.LewensteinB. (2021). Scientists in popular culture: The making of celebrities. In Routledge handbook of public communication of science and technology (3rd ed.). Routledge.
19.
FiskeS. T.CuddyA. J. C.GlickP. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(2), 77–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.005
20.
FiskeS. T.DupreeC. (2014). Gaining trust as well as respect in communicating to motivated audiences about science topics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(supplement_4), 13593–13597. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1317505111
21.
FiskeS. T.NeubergS. L. (1990). A Continuum of impression formation, from category-based to individuating processes: Influences of information and motivation on attention and interpretation. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 1–74). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60317-2
22.
GoffmanE. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Anchor.
23.
GoodellR. (1977). The visible scientists. Little Brown.
24.
GreszkiR.MeyerM.SchoenH. (2015). Exploring the Effects of removing “too fast” responses and respondents from web surveys. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 79(2), 471–503.
25.
HayesA. F. (2018). Partial, conditional, and moderated moderated mediation: Quantification, inference, and interpretation. Communication Monographs, 85(1), 4–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2017.1352100
26.
HongH.-Y.Lin-SieglerX. (2012). How learning about scientists’ struggles influences students’ interest and learning in physics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 469–484. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026224
27.
HuberB.BarnidgeM.GildeZúñigaH.LiuJ. (2019). Fostering public trust in science: The role of social media. Public Understanding of Science, 28(7), 759–777. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662519869097
28.
JamiesonK. H. (2018). Crisis or self-correction: Rethinking media narratives about the well-being of science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(11), 2620–2627. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1708276114
JarreauP. B.CancellareI. A.CarmichaelB. J.PorterL.TokerD.YammineS. Z. (2019). Using selfies to challenge public stereotypes of scientists. PLOS ONE, 14(5), e0216625. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216625
31.
JonesE. E.PittmanT. S. (1982). Toward a general theory of strategic self-presentation. In SulsJ. (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self (Vol. 1, pp. 231–262). Hillsdale.
32.
JüngerJ.FähnrichB. (2020). Does really no one care? Analyzing the public engagement of communication scientists on Twitter. New Media & Society, 22(3), 387–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819863413
33.
KimN.SkurkaC.MaddenS. (2024). The effects of self-disclosure and gender on a climate scientist’s credibility and likability on social media. Public Understanding of Science, 09636625231225073. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625231225073
34.
KreuterM. W.GreenM. C.CappellaJ. N.SlaterM. D.WiseM. E.StoreyD.ClarkE. M.O’KeefeD. J.ErwinD. O.HolmesK.HinyardL. J.HoustonT.WoolleyS. (2007). Narrative communication in cancer prevention and control: A framework to guide research and application. Annals of Behavioral Medicine: A Publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine, 33(3), 221–235. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02879904
35.
Lin-SieglerX.AhnJ. N.ChenJ.FangF.-F. A.Luna-LuceroM. (2016). Even Einstein struggled: Effects of learning about great scientists’ struggles on high school students’ motivation to learn science. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108, 314–328. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000092
36.
MaccobyE. E.WilsonW. C. (1957). Identification and observational learning from films. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 55(1), 76–87. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043015
NisbetM. C.BrossardD.KroepschA. (2003). Framing science: The stem cell controversy in an age of press/politics. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 8(2), 36–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/1081180X02251047
39.
NisbetE. C.CooperK. E.GarrettR. K. (2015). The Partisan Brain: How Dissonant Science Messages Lead Conservatives and Liberals to (Dis)Trust Science. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 658(1), 36–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716214555474
40.
OphirY.JamiesonK. H. (2021). The effects of media narratives about failures and discoveries in science on beliefs about and support for science. Public Understanding of Science, 30(8), 1008–1023. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625211012630
PahariaN.KeinanA.AveryJ.SchorJ. B. (2011). The underdog effect: The marketing of disadvantage and determination through brand biography. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(5), 775–790. https://doi.org/10.1086/656219
43.
PettyR.WegenerD. (1999). The elaboration likelihood model: Current status and controversies. In Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 41–72).
44.
PettyR. E.PriesterJ. R.BriñolP. (2002). Mass media attitude change: Implications of the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In Media effects: Advances in theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 155–198). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
45.
PornpitakpanC. (2004). The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of five decades’ evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(2), 243–281. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02547.x
RoussinC. J.WebberS. S. (2012). Impact of Organizational Identification and Psychological Safety on Initial Perceptions of Coworker Trustworthiness. Journal of Business and Psychology, 27(3), 317–329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-011-9245-2
48.
SatterwhiteA. K.LuchnerA. F. (2016). Exploring the relationship among perceived resilience, dependency, and self-criticism: The role of culture and social support. North American Journal of Psychology, 18(1), 71–84.
WolfJ. M. (2017). The multipurpose tool of social media: Applications for scientists, science communicators, and educators. Clinical Microbiology Newsletter, 39(10), 75–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinmicnews.2017.04.003
51.
ZhangA. L.LuH. (2022). Behind the lab coat: How scientists’ self-disclosure on Twitter influences source perceptions, tweet engagement, and scientific attitudes through social presence. New Media & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221141681
52.
ZhangA. L.LuH. (2023). Scientists as influencers: The role of source identity, self-disclosure, and anti-intellectualism in science communication on social media. Social Media + Society, 9(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051231180623
53.
ZhaoX.SalehiN.NaranjitS.AlwaalanS.VoidaS.CosleyD. (2013). The many faces of Facebook: Experiencing social media as performance, exhibition, and personal archive. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2470656
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
