Science is integral to society because it can inform individual, government, corporate, and civil society decision-making on issues such as public health, new technologies or climate change. Yet, public distrust and populist sentiment challenge the relationship between science and society. To help researchers analyse the science-society nexus across different geographical and cultural contexts, we undertook a cross-sectional population survey resulting in a dataset of 71,922 participants in 68 countries. The data were collected between November 2022 and August 2023 as part of the global Many Labs study "Trust in Science and Science-Related Populism" (TISP). The questionnaire contained comprehensive measures for individuals' trust in scientists, science-related populist attitudes, perceptions of the role of science in society, science media use and communication behaviour, attitudes to climate change and support for environmental policies, personality traits, political and religious views and demographic characteristics. Here, we describe the dataset, survey materials and psychometric properties of key variables. We encourage researchers to use this unique dataset for global comparative analyses on public perceptions of science and its role in society and policy-making.

2i Programme of ICT Division and UNDP Bangladesh Dhaka Bangladesh

Cambridge Zero University of Cambridge Cambridge UK

Center for Integrated Disaster Information Research Interfaculty Initiative in Information Studies University of Tokyo Tokyo Japan

Center for Social and Cultural Psychology Université Libre de Bruxelles Bruxelles Belgium

Center for Sociocultural Research HSE University Moscow Russia

Centre for Climate and Energy Transformation University of Bergen Bergen Norway

Centre for Climate Change Communication George Mason University Fairfax USA

Centre for Language Studies Radboud University Nijmegen Nijmegen The Netherlands

Centre for Research on Evaluation Science and Technology Stellenbosch University Stellenbosch South Africa

Centre for the Politics of Feelings University of London London UK

Centro de Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados del Instituto Politícnico Nacional Mexico City Mexico

Communication Arts Programme Bowen University Ogun Nigeria

Computer Science Department Harvey Mudd College Claremont USA

Departamento de Psicología Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia San Martín de Porres Peru

Département de Sociologie Université Officielle de Bukavu Bukavu Democratic Republic of the Congo

Department of Advertising Public Relations Michigan State University East Lansing USA

Department of Architecture University of Cambridge Cambridge Cambridge UK

Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology University of Buea Buea Cameroon

Department of Biochemistry Faculty of Science University of Dschang Cameroun Cameroon

Department of Biomedical Sciences University of Botswana Gaborone Botswana

Department of Business Administration Instituto Técnológico Autónomo de México Ciudad de México Mexico

Department of Civil Law University of Tirana Tirana Albania

Department of Clinical and Health Psychology University of Vienna Vienna Austria

Department of Clinical Neuroscience Karolinska Institutet Solna Sweden

Department of Cognition Emotion and Methods in Psychology University of Vienna Vienna Austria

Department of Cognitive Psychology Universität Hamburg Hamburg Germany

Department of Communication and Internet Studies Cyprus University of Technology Limassol Cyprus

Department of Communication and Media Loughborough University Loughborough UK

Department of Communication and Media Research University of Zurich Zurich Switzerland

Department of Communication George Mason University Fairfax USA

Department of Communication Science and Political Science Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Amsterdam The Netherlands

Department of Communication University of Münster Münster Germany

Department of Computer Science and Engineering University of Notre Dame Notre Dame USA

Department of Economics Harvard University Cambridge USA

Department of Economics University of Bath Claverton Down UK

Department of Economics University of Birmingham Birmingham UK

Department of Environmental Systems Science ETH Zurich Switzerland

Department of Geography University of Bergen Bergen Norway

Department of Government and Politics Jahangirnagar University Savar Bangladesh

Department of Health Law Policy and Management Boston University School of Public Health Boston USA

Department of Implementation Research Bernhard Nocht Institute for Tropical Medicine Hamburg Germany

Department of Information Science and Media Studies University of Bergen Bergen Norway

Department of Interdisciplinary Social Science University of Utrecht Utrecht The Netherlands

Department of International and Political Sciences University of Genoa Genoa Italy

Department of Journalism and Mass Communication Lviv Polytechnic National University Lviv Ukraine

Department of Labor and Social Policy University of Lodz Lodz Poland

Department of Management Aarhus University Aarhus Denmark

Department of Management and Engineering Linköping University Linköping Sweden

Department of Management and Supply Chain Studies Nkumba University Entebbe Uganda

Department of Management University of Adger Kristiansand Norway

Department of Media and Communication City University of Hong Kong Hong Kong Hong Kong

Department of Media and Communication LMU Munich Munich Germany

Department of Medical Laboratory Science College of Medicine University of Nigeria Nsukka Nsukka Nigeria

Department of Nutritional Sciences University of Vienna Vienna Austria

Department of Philosophy Macquarie University Macquarie Park Australia

Department of Physics Egerton University Njoro Kenya

Department of Political Science Aarhus University Aarhus Denmark

Department of Political Science and Annenberg School for Communication University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia USA

Department of Political Science and International Relations Carleton College Northfield USA

Department of Political Science and International Relations KIMEP University Almaty Kazakhstan

Department of Political Science and International Relations Nazarbayev University Astana Kazakhstan

Department of Political Science and International Relations University of Delaware Newark USA

Department of Psychobiology and Methodology Faculty of Psychology Universidad Complutense de Madrid Madrid Spain

Department of Psychological Science Pomona College Claremont USA

Department of Psychology and Neuroscience Boston College Boston USA

Department of Psychology and Psychotherapy Witten Herdecke University Witten Germany

Department of Psychology Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen Tübingen Germany

Department of Psychology Education and Child Studies Erasmus University Rotterdam Rotterdam The Netherlands

Department of Psychology Erzurum Technical University Erzurum Türkiye

Department of Psychology Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences Lillehammer Norway

Department of Psychology KU Leuven Leuven Belgium

Department of Psychology LMU Munich Munich Germany

Department of Psychology Nantes Université Nantes France

Department of Psychology New York University New York USA

Department of Psychology Royal Holloway University of London London UK

Department of Psychology Saarland University Saarbrücken Germany

Department of Psychology Universidad de Concepción Concepción Chile

Department of Psychology Universitas Islam Negeri Sunan Kalijaga Yogyakarta Indonesia

Department of Psychology University of Amsterdam Amsterdam The Netherlands

Department of Psychology University of Cambridge Cambridge UK

Department of Psychology University of Crete Iraklio Greece

Department of Psychology University of Minnesota Minneapolis USA

Department of Psychology University of the Philippines Diliman Quezon City Philippines

Department of Psychology University of Victoria Victoria Canada

Department of Psychology Ural Federal University Sverdlovsk Russia

Department of Public Health University of Otago Dunedin New Zealand

Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology University of Alberta Edmonton Canada

Department of Science and Technology Studies Faculty of Science Universiti Malaya Kuala Lumpur Malaysia

Department of Social Research University of Turku Turku Finland

Department of Social Sciences University of Hamburg Hamburg 20144 Hamburg Germany

Department of Sociology University of the Philippines Diliman Quezon City Philippines

Department of the History of Science Harvard University Cambridge USA

Division of Public Policy The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology Hong Kong Hong Kong

ELTE Institute of Psychology Eotvos Lorand University Budapest Hungary

Faculté des Sciences Sociales Université Catholique de Bukavu Bukavu Democratic Republic of the Congo

Faculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences University of Groningen Groningen The Netherlands

Faculty of Data and Decision Sciences Technion Israel Institute of Technology Haifa Israel

Faculty of Health Sciences University of Bristol Bristol UK

Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences Trinity Western University Langley Twp Canada

Faculty of Life Sciences Food Nutrition and Health University of Bayreuth Bayreuth Germany

Faculty of Management and Economics Ruhr University Bochum Bochum Germany

Faculty of Management University of Warsaw Warsaw Poland

Faculty of Philosophy and Social Science Nicolaus Copernicus University Toruń Poland

Faculty of Polish and Classical Philology University of Adam Mickiewicz Poznań Poland

Faculty of Political Science and Economics Waseda University Shinjuku City Japan

Faculty of Psychology Atma Jaya Catholic University of Indonesia Jakarta Indonesia

Faculty of Psychology University of Warsaw Warsaw Poland

Faculty of Technology and Bionics Rhine Waal University Kleve Germany

Graduate Institute of Journalism National Taiwan University Taipei City Taiwan

Harding Center for Risk Literacy University of Potsdam Potsdam Germany

Harvard Kennedy School's Shorenstein Center Harvard University Cambridge USA

Hixon Center for Climate and the Environment Harvey Mudd College Claremont USA

INCT SANI National Institute of Science and Technology on Social and Affective Neuroscience São Paulo Brazil

Independent Researcher Cairo Egypt

Institut des Géosciences de l'Environnement University Grenoble Alpes CNRS IRD Grenoble INP Saint Martin d'Hères France

Institut Jean Nicod Département d'Études cognitives ENS EHESS PSL University CNRS Paris France

Institut Langage et Communication University of Louvain Louvain Belgium

Institute for Data Systems and Society Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge USA

Institute for Management and Organization Leuphana University Lüneburg Germany

Institute for Multimedia and Interactive Systems University of Lübeck Lübeck Germany

Institute for Planetary Health Behaviour University of Erfurt Erfurt Germany

Institute for Sociology Slovak Academy of Sciences Staré Mesto Slovakia

Institute of Communication NOVA University of Lisbon Lisbon Portugal

Institute of Communication Studies and Journalism Charles University Staré Město Czech Republic

Institute of Environmental Health Lisbon School of Medicine University of Lisbon Lisbon Portugal

Institute of General Practice and Family Medicine University of Bonn University Hospital Bonn Bonn Germany

Institute of Malaysian and International Studies National University of Malaysia Bangi Malaysia

Institute of Medical Psychology University of Tuebingen Tuebingen Germany

Institute of Political Science and Sociology University of Bonn Bonn Germany

Institute of Political Science University of Bamberg Bamberg Germany

Institute of Political Science University of St Gallen Gallen Switzerland

Institute of Psychology Jagiellonian University Kraków Poland

Institute of Psychology Nicolaus Copernicus University Toruń Poland

Institute of Psychology SWPS University Warszawa Poland

Institute of Psychology University of Silesia in Katowice Katowice Poland

Institute of Sociology University Bern Bern Switzerland

Laboratoire Parisien de Psychologie Sociale Université Paris Nanterre Nanterre France

Laboratory for Research of Individual Differences University of Belgrade Beograd Serbia

Leibniz Institut für Wissensmedien Tübingen Germany

Leibniz Institute for Psychology Trier Germany

Linde Center for Science Society and Policy Division of Humanities and Social Science California Institute of Technology California Institute of Technology Pasadena USA

LMU Munich School of Management LMU Munich Munich Germany

LP3C Université Rennes 2 Rennes France

Max Planck Institute for Human Development Berlin Germany

Melbourne Centre for Behaviour Change University of Melbourne Parkville Australia

Museum of Natural Sciences Sabiha Kasimati University of Tirana Tirana Albania

Network for Economic and Social Trends Western University London Canada

Network Science Institute Northeastern University Boston USA

Office for Quality Assurance Analyses and Reporting Project EUTOPIA University of Ljubljana Ljubljana Slovenia

Penn Center for Neuroaesthetics University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia USA

Research Institute for Responsible Innovation School of Management University of St Gallen St Gallen Switzerland

School of Arts Media and Communiation UCLan Cyprus Pyla Cyprus

School of Collective Intelligence Mohammed 6 Polytechnic University Ben Guerir Morocco

School of Communication and Culture Aarhus University Aarhus Denmark

School of Economics and Management Tongji University Shanghai China

School of Education Trinity College Dublin Dublin Ireland

School of Environment Tsinghua University Beijing China

School of Geography Planning and Spatial Sciences University of Tasmania Hobart Australia

School of Medicine and Psychology Australian National University Canberra Australia

School of Politics and International Relations Australian National University Canberra Australia

School of Psychological and Social Sciences University of Waikato Hamilton New Zealand

School of Psychological Science and Public Policy Institute University of Western Australia Crawley Australia

School of Psychology and Public Health La Trobe University Bundoora Australia

School of Psychology Aston University Birmingham UK

School of Psychology University of Birmingham Birmingham UK

School of Psychology University of Kent Kent UK

School of Psychology University of New South Wales Sydney Australia

School of Psychology University of Sheffield Sheffield UK

School of Psychology University of Sussex Falmer UK

School of Psychology Victoria University of Wellington Wellington New Zealand

School of Social Work Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts Luzern Switzerland

Science Studies Laboratory University of Warsaw Warsaw Poland

Sloan School of Management Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge USA

Social and Cognitive Neuroscience Laboratory Mackenzie Presbyterian University São Paulo Brazil

Sociology Department Vrije Universiteit Brussel Brussel Belgium

Spanish Foundation for Science and Technology Madrid Spain

TED University Ankara Turkey

TRANSOC Complutense University of Madrid Madrid Spain

Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics University of Oxford Oxford UK

UNSW Institute for Climate Risk and Response University of New South Wales Sydney Australia

Zobrazit více v PubMed

Owen, R., Macnaghten, P. & Stilgoe, J. Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Sci Public Policy39, 751–760, 10.1093/scipol/scs093 (2012).

Oreskes, N. (ed.) Why trust science? (Princeton University Press, 2019).

Schäfer, M. S. Mediated trust in science: concept, measurement and perspectives for the ‘science of science communication’. J Sci Commun15; 10.22323/2.15050302 (2016).

Gauchat, G. W. The legitimacy of science. Annu. Rev. Sociol.49, 263–279, 10.1146/annurev-soc-030320-035037 (2023).

Kraft, P. W., Lodge, M. & Taber, C. S. Why people “don’t trust the evidence”. Motivated reasoning and scientific beliefs. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci658, 121–133, 10.1177/0002716214554758 (2015).

Rekker, R. The nature and origins of political polarization over science. Public Underst Sci30, 352–368, 10.1177/0963662521989193 (2021). PubMed PMC

Chinn, S., Hasell, A., Roden, J. & Zichettella, B. Threatening experts: Correlates of viewing scientists as a social threat. Public Underst Sci; 10.1177/09636625231183115 (2023). PubMed

Batelaan, K. ‘It’s not the science we distrust; it’s the scientists’: Reframing the anti-vaccination movement within Black communities. Global Public Health17, 1099–1112, 10.1080/17441692.2021.1912809 (2022). PubMed

Mede, N. G. & Schäfer, M. S. Science-related populism: Conceptualizing populist demands toward science. Public Underst Sci29, 473–491, 10.1177/0963662520924259 (2020). PubMed PMC

Eberl, J.-M., Huber, R. A. & Greussing, E. From populism to the “plandemic”: Why populists believe in COVID-19 conspiracies. J Elect Public Opin Parties31, 272–284, 10.1080/17457289.2021.1924730 (2021).

Mede, N. G., Schäfer, M. S. & Metag, J. Cognitio populi – Vox populi: Implications of science-related populism for communication behavior. Communications; 10.1515/commun-2022-0059 (2023).

West, J. D. & Bergstrom, C. T. Misinformation in and about science. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA118; 10.1073/pnas.1912444117 (2021). PubMed PMC

Sarathchandra, D., Haltinner, K. & Grindal, M. Climate skeptics’ identity construction and (dis)trust in science in the United States. Environmental Sociology8, 25–40, 10.1080/23251042.2021.1970436 (2022).

Fage-Butler, A., Ledderer, L. & Nielsen, K. H. Public trust and mistrust of climate science: A meta-narrative review. Public Underst Sci31, 832–846, 10.1177/09636625221110028 (2022). PubMed PMC

Cologna, V. et al. Trust in climate science and climate scientists: A narrative review. PLOS Clim 3, e0000400, 10.1371/journal.pclm.0000400 (2024).

Horton, R. Offline: Science and the breakdown of trust. Lancet, 945; 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32064-X (2020). PubMed PMC

Dommett, K. & Pearce, W. What do we know about public attitudes towards experts? Reviewing survey data in the United Kingdom and European Union. Public Underst Sci; 10.1177/0963662519852038 (2019). PubMed

Algan, Y., Cohen, D., Davoine, E., Foucault, M. & Stantcheva, S. Trust in scientists in times of pandemic: Panel evidence from 12 countries. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA118; 10.1073/pnas.2108576118 (2021). PubMed PMC

Bromme, R., Mede, N. G., Thomm, E., Kremer, B. & Ziegler, R. An anchor in troubled times: Trust in science before and within the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany. PLoS One17; 10.1371/journal.pone.0262823 (2022). PubMed PMC

Jensen, E. A., Jensen, A., Pfleger, A., Kennedy, E. B. & Greenwood, E. Has the pandemic changed public attitudes about science? Available at https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2021/03/12/has-the-pandemic-changed-public-attitudes-about-science/ (2021).

Reif, A. & Guenther, L. How representative surveys measure public (dis)trust in science: A systematisation and analysis of survey items and open-ended questions. Journal of Trust Research; 10.1080/21515581.2022.2075373 (2022).

Besley, J. C. & Tiffany, L. A. What are you assessing when you measure “trust” in scientists with a direct measure? Public Underst Sci; 10.1177/09636625231161302 (2023). PubMed

Besley, J. C., Lee, N. M. & Pressgrove, G. Reassessing the variables used to measure public perceptions of scientists. Sci Commun43, 3–32, 10.1177/1075547020949547 (2021).

Mede, N. G., Schäfer, M. S. & Füchslin, T. The SciPop Scale for measuring science-related populist attitudes in surveys. Development, test, and validation. Int J Public Opin Res33, 273–293, 10.1093/ijpor/edaa026 (2021).

McKeever, R., McKeever, B. W. & Li, J.-Y. Speaking up online: Exploring hostile media perception, health behavior, and other antecedents of communication. Journal Mass Commun Q94, 812–832, 10.1177/1077699016670121 (2017).

Pratto, F. et al. Social dominance in context and in individuals. Contextual moderation of robust effects of social dominanceorientation in 15 languages and 20 countries. Soc Psychol Personal Sci4, 587–599, 10.1177/1948550612473663 (2013).

Mede, N. G. Legacy media as inhibitors and drivers of public reservations against science. Global survey evidence on the link between media use and anti-science attitudes. Humanit Soc Sci Commun; 10.1057/s41599-022-01058-y (2022).

McPhetres, J. & Zuckerman, M. Religiosity predicts negative attitudes towards science and lower levels of science literacy. PLoS One13, e0207125, 10.1371/journal.pone.0207125 (2018). PubMed PMC

Chan, E. Are the religious suspicious of science? Investigating religiosity, religious context, and orientations towards science. Public Underst Sci27, 967–984, 10.1177/0963662518781231 (2018). PubMed

Watson, C. Parachute science falls to earth. Nature Index (2021).

Cologna, V. et al. Trust in scientists and their role in society across 68 countries. Nat Hum Behav, 10.1038/s41562-024-02090-5 (2025). PubMed PMC

Wilkinson, M. D. et al. The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific Data3, 160018, 10.1038/sdata.2016.18 (2016). PubMed PMC

Oliveira et al. Towards an inclusive agenda of Open Science for communication research: A Latin American approach. J Commun71, 785–802, 10.1093/joc/jqab025 (2021).

Azevedo, F. et al. Social and moral psychology of COVID-19 across 69 countries. Scientific Data10, 272, 10.1038/s41597-023-02080-8 (2023). PubMed PMC

Wellcome Trust. Wellcome Global Monitor 2018. How does the world feel about science and health? Available at https://wellcome.org/reports/wellcome-global-monitor/2018 (2019).

Pownall, M. et al. Embedding open and reproducible science into teaching: A bank of lesson plans and resources. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology; 10.1037/stl0000307 (2021).

Vazire, S. Implications of the Credibility Revolution for Productivity, Creativity, and Progress. Perspectives on Psychological Science13, 411–417, 10.1177/1745691617751884 (2018). PubMed

Nosek, B. A., Ebersole, C. R., DeHaven, A. C. & Mellor, D. T. The preregistration revolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA115, 2600–2606, 10.1073/pnas.1708274114 (2018). PubMed PMC

Bowman, S. D. et al. OSF Prereg Template (2020).

Lakens, D. Sample size justification. Collabra: Psychology8; 10.1525/collabra.33267 (2022).

Green, P. & MacLeod, C. J. SIMR: An R package for power analysis of generalized linear mixed models by simulation. Methods Ecol Evol7, 493–498, 10.1111/2041-210X.12504 (2016).

World Bank. World Bank country and lending groups. Available at https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-world-bank-country-and-lending-groups (2023).

Berinsky, A. J., Margolis, M. F. & Sances, M. W. Separating the shirkers from the workers? Making sure respondents pay attention on self-administered surveys. Am J Pol Sci58, 739–753, 10.1111/ajps.12081 (2014).

Cologna, V., Knutti, R., Oreskes, N. & Siegrist, M. Majority of German citizens, US citizens and climate scientists support policy advocacy by climate researchers and expect greater political engagement. Environ. Res. Lett.16, 24011, 10.1088/1748-9326/abd4ac (2021).

Hendriks, F., Kienhues, D. & Bromme, R. Measuring laypeople’s trust in experts in a digital age: The Muenster Epistemic Trustworthiness Inventory (METI). PLoS One10, e0139309, 10.1371/journal.pone.0139309 (2015). PubMed PMC

Achterberg, P., Koster, Wde & van der Waal, J. A science confidence gap: Education, trust in scientific methods, and trust in scientific institutions in the United States, 2014. Public Underst Sci26, 704–720, 10.1177/0963662515617367 (2017). PubMed

Funk, C., Hefferon, M., Kennedy, B. & Johnson, C. Trust and mistrust in Americans’ views of scientific experts. Available at https://pewrsr.ch/3APd0hN (2019).

Hogg, T. L., Stanley, S. K., O’Brien, L. V., Wilson, M. S. & Watsford, C. R. The Hogg Eco-Anxiety Scale: Development and validation of a multidimensional scale. Glob Environ Change71, 102391, 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102391 (2021).

Searle, K. & Gow, K. Do concerns about climate change lead to distress? International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management2, 362–379, 10.1108/17568691011089891 (2010).

Hickman, C. et al. Climate anxiety in children and young people and their beliefs about government responses to climate change: a global survey. The Lancet. Planetary health5, e863–e873, 10.1016/S2542-5196(21)00278-3 (2021). PubMed

Mede, N. G. et al. Perceptions of science, science communication, and climate change attitudes in 68 countries: The TISP dataset [Dataset]. OSF10.17605/OSF.IO/5C3QD (2024). PubMed PMC

Dawson, R. How significant is a boxplot outlier? Journal of Statistics Education19; 10.1080/10691898.2011.11889610 (2011).

Paul, S. R. & Zhang, X. Testing for normality in linear regression models. Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation80, 1101–1113, 10.1080/00949650902964275 (2010).

Lumley, T. Package ‘survey’. Analysis of complex survey samples. R package version 4.4-2. Available at https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/survey/index.html (2024).

Battaglia, M. P., Hoaglin, D. C. & Frankel, M. R. Practical Considerations in Raking Survey Data. Surv Pract2, 1–10, 10.29115/SP-2009-0019 (2009).

UN. World Population Prospects 2022. Available at https://population.un.org/wpp/ (2022).

Barro, R. J. & Lee, J. W. A new data set of educational attainment in the world, 1950–2010. Journal of Development Economics104, 184–198, 10.1016/j.jdeveco.2012.10.001 (2013).

Barro, R. J. & Lee, J. W. Educational Attainment for Total Population, 1950-2015. Dataset v3.0. Available at https://barrolee.github.io/BarroLeeDataSet/BLData/BL_v3_MF1564.xls (2021).

UNECE. Educational attainment by level of education, age, sex, measurement, country and year. Georgia. Available at https://w3.unece.org/PXWeb2015/sq/3290abae-0120-418f-a681-132d4da8f088 (2023).

UIS. SDG Global and Thematic Indicators. Available at https://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/bdds/022024/SDG.zip (2024).

Bates, D. et al. lme4: Linear Mixed-Effects Models using ‘Eigen’ and S4. R package version 1.1-35.3. Available at https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lme4/ (2024).

Patil, I. et al. Package ‘datawizard’. Easy data wrangling and statistical transformations. R package version 0.10.0. Available at https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/datawizard/index.html (2024).

Asparouhov, T. General multi-level modeling with sampling weights. Communications in Statistics - Theory and Methods35, 439–460, 10.1080/03610920500476598 (2006).

Carle, A. C. Fitting multilevel models in complex survey data with design weights: Recommendations. BMC medical research methodology9, 49, 10.1186/1471-2288-9-49 (2009). PubMed PMC

Valliant, R., Dever, J. A. & Kreuter, F. Practical tools for designing and weighting survey samples (Springer, Cham, 2018).

Royal, K. Survey research methods: A guide for creating post-stratification weights to correct for sample bias. Educ Health Prof2, 48, 10.4103/EHP.EHP_8_19 (2019).

Franco, A., Malhotra, N., Simonovits, G. & Zigerell, L. J. Developing standards for post-hoc weighting in population-based survey experiments. J Exp Polit Sci4, 161–172, 10.1017/XPS.2017.2 (2017).

de Leeuw, E. D., Hox, J. & Dillman, D. (eds.). International handbook of survey methodology. 1st ed. (Routledge, New York, 2008).

Rosseel, Y. lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling. J. Stat. Soft. 48; 10.18637/jss.v048.i02 (2012).

Zhang, C. & Conrad, F. Speeding in web surveys: The tendency to answer very fast and its association with straightlining. Survey Research Methods8, 127–135, 10.18148/srm/2014.v8i2.5453 (2014).

Marsh, H. W., Liem, G. A. D., Martin, A. J., Morin, A. J. S. & Nagengast, B. Methodological measurement fruitfulness of exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM): New approaches to key substantive issues in motivation and engagement. J Psychoeduc Assess29, 322–346, 10.1177/0734282911406657 (2011).

Zimmermann, M. & Jucks, R. With a view to the side: YouTube’s sidebar and YouTuber’s linguistic style as hints for trust-related evaluations. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction35, 1279–1291, 10.1080/10447318.2018.1519165 (2019).

Altenmüller, M. S., Lange, L. L. & Gollwitzer, M. When research is me-search: How researchers’ motivation to pursue a topic affects laypeople’s trust in science. PLoS One16, e0253911, 10.1371/journal.pone.0253911 (2021). PubMed PMC

Tavakol, M. & Dennick, R. Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International journal of medical education2, 53–55, 10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd (2011). PubMed PMC

Watkins, M. W. Exploratory factor analysis: A guide to best practice. Journal of Black Psychology44, 219–246, 10.1177/0095798418771807 (2018).

Gauchat, G. The cultural authority of science. Public trust and acceptance of organized science. Public Underst Sci20, 751–770, 10.1177/0963662510365246 (2011). PubMed

Benson-Greenwald, T. M., Trujillo, A., White, A. D. & Diekman, A. B. Science for others or the self? Presumed motives for science shape public trust in science. Pers Soc Psychol Bull49, 344–360, 10.1177/01461672211064456 (2023). PubMed

Bundi, P. & Pattyn, V. Trust, but verify? Understanding citizen attitudes toward evidence‐informed policy making. Public Administration101, 1227–1246, 10.1111/padm.12852 (2023).

Mede, N. G., Schäfer, M. S., Metag, J. & Klinger, K. Who supports science-related populism? A nationally representative survey on the prevalence and explanatory factors of populist attitudes toward science in Switzerland. PLoS One17; 10.1371/journal.pone.0271204 (2022). PubMed PMC

Wuttke, A., Schimpf, C. & Schoen, H. When the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. On the conceptualization and measurement of populist attitudes and other multidimensional constructs. Am Polit Sci Rev114, 356–374, 10.1017/S0003055419000807 (2020).

Mede, N. G., Rauchfleisch, A., Metag, J. & Schäfer, M. S. The interplay of knowledge overestimation, social media use, and populist ideas: Cross-sectional and experimental evidence from Germany and Taiwan. Communic Res;10.1177/00936502241230203 (2024).

Erisen, C. et al. Psychological correlates of populist attitudes. Polit Psychol42, 149–171, 10.1111/pops.12768 (2021).

Stier, S., Kirkizh, N., Froio, C. & Schroeder, R. Populist attitudes and selective exposure to online news. A cross-country analysis combining web tracking and surveys. Int J Press Polit25, 426–446, 10.1177/1940161220907018 (2020).

Mede, N. G. Variations of science-related populism in comparative perspective: A multilevel segmentation analysis of supporters and opponents of populist demands toward science. International Journal of Comparative Sociology10.1177/00207152231200188 (2023).

Reif, A., Taddicken, M., Guenther, L., Schröder, J. T. & Weingart, P. The Public Trust in Science Scale (PuTS): A multilevel and multidimensional approach,https://osf.io/preprints/osf/bp8s6 (2024).

Remsö, A. & Renström, E. A. Ideological predictors of anti-science attitudes: exploring the impact of group-based dominance and populism in North America and Western Europe. Front. Soc. Psychol. 1; 10.3389/frsps.2023.1303157 (2023).

Nekmat, E. & Gonzenbach, W. J. Multiple opinion climates in online forums. Role of website source reference and within-forum opinion congruency. Journal Mass Commun Q90, 736–756, 10.1177/1077699013503162 (2013).

Hu, L. & Bentler, P. M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis. Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling6, 1–55, 10.1080/10705519909540118 (1999).

Liu, X. & Fahmy, S. Exploring the spiral of silence in the virtual world. Individuals’ willingness to express personal opinions in online versus offline settings. Journal of Media and Communication Studies3, 45–57, 10.5897/JMCS.9000031 (2011).

Aichholzer, J. & Lechner, C. M. Refining the Short Social Dominance Orientation scale (SSDO): A validation in seven European countries. J. Soc. Polit. Psych.9, 475–489, 10.5964/jspp.6919 (2021).

Kaiser, H. F. The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis. Psychometrika23, 187–200, 10.1007/bf02289233 (1958).

Dueber, D. M. et al. To reverse item orientation or not to reverse item orientation, that is the question. Assessment29, 1422–1440, 10.1177/10731911211017635 (2022). PubMed

Chen, F., Bollen, K. A., Paxton, P., Curran, P. J. & Kirby, J. B. Improper solutions in structural equation models. Sociological Methods & Research29, 468–508, 10.1177/0049124101029004003 (2001).

Wilson, M. S. & Sibley, C. G. Social dominance orientation and right‐wing authoritarianism: Additive and interactive effects on political conservatism. Polit Psychol34, 277–284, 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2012.00929.x (2013).

Pratto, F., Stallworth, L. M. & Sidanius, J. The gender gap: differences in political attitudes and social dominance orientation. British Journal of Social Psychology36(Pt 1), 49–68, 10.1111/j.2044-8309.1997.tb01118.x (1997). PubMed

Azevedo, F., Jost, J. T., Rothmund, T. & Sterling, J. Neoliberal ideology and the justification of inequality in capitalist societies: Why social and economic dimensions of ideology are intertwined. Journal of Social Issues75, 49–88, 10.1111/josi.12310 (2019).

2023). RStudio. Shiny. Easy web applications in R. Available at rstudio.com/products/shiny.

Extreme weather event attribution predicts climate policy support across the world

Trust in scientists and their role in society across 68 countries

Perceptions of science, science communication, and climate change attitudes in 68 countries - the TISP dataset