Accountability-embracing science communication increases public engagement with scientists post-COVID-19.

Résumé

The COVID-19 pandemic marked a significant turning point in public engagement with science, with conservatives exhibiting a more pronounced decline than liberals. Just as the pandemic intensified polarization, we reasoned that post-crisis reflection could offer an opportunity to repair these divides by shaping future public engagement with scientists. Drawing on boundary work theory and classic research on one-sided versus two-sided messaging, we contrasted two widely observed public health communication styles to assess the legitimacy of pandemic-related information. Across four experiment-based studies conducted in 2025 (N = 1441), participants read about a scientist reflecting on lessons from COVID-19, with messaging framed as either authoritative (defending institutions, dismissing dissent, minimizing error, and selectively attributing misinformation) or accountability-embracing (acknowledging mistakes, engaging critics, and recognizing cross-ideological misinformation). Participants evaluated the scientist on: (a) immediate, attitude-based indicators of engagement, including generalized trust in scientists, prestige, and conspiracy beliefs, and (b) deliberate, actionable indicators, including funding support and willingness to provide the scientist with a public platform. Across studies, accountability-embracing approaches elicited greater engagement on most metrics, with especially clear benefits among political conservatives in several conditions. In polarized contexts following uncertainty-laden crises, reflexivity and accountability across ideological lines may offer a more promising path to restoring public engagement with science.