Despite science shaping nearly every aspect of our lives, from the air we breathe to the phones in our pockets, many people still see it as distant, abstract, and disconnected from their everyday experience. While many express trust in science as a concept, there is growing skepticism toward the institutions and organizations that represent it, especially when scientific findings clash with personal or political identities.
Recent research has demonstrated that this phenomenon can be explained by something called psychological distance to science. It’s the feeling that science is something out there—far away in time (future solutions), in space (far-off labs), in certainty (too complex or tentative), and in identity (done by people “not like me”). When people have this psychological distance to science, there are major consequences.
A recent article describes how people who experience greater psychological distance from science are more likely to reject it outright, especially in domains that are already contentious, like climate change, vaccines, or genetically modified foods. The farther science feels from people’s lives, the less they believe in its relevance, usefulness, or truth. However, this psychological distance is definitely something that can change.
Even small interventions, like presenting scientific research as local, personal, and actionable, can reduce psychological distance and increase trust in science. In experiments, participants who read a brief, relatable description of genetically modified science felt more positively about it and were less likely to reject it, even a week later. These findings go beyond brief survey experiments, as reducing psychological distance to science plays out in the real world, too.
What Happens When People Do the Science Themselves
A 2023 study explored what happened when farmers and residents in the Netherlands participated in a citizen science project where they worked together with local scientists. Their goal? To measure air quality caused by nearby livestock farming, a long-standing source of tension in the community.
While the project didn’t magically erase tension between farmers and nonfarming neighbors, it still did something significant: It increased trust in the scientific process as well as local authorities. Participants trusted the scientific results they measured themselves while working with scientists. Their trust was rooted in personal involvement and direct transparency. In other words, trust flourished when people were invited into the process, when science wasn’t something done to them by outsiders, but something done with them—visible, understandable, local, and relevant.
Participants appreciated the transparency, the direct communication with scientists, and the ability to observe or even challenge the data-gathering process. They didn’t blindly trust the numbers; they trusted the relationship.
The Bigger Picture: Trust Is the Foundation
Misinformation spreads quickly in the vacuum left by eroded trust. When people feel that science doesn’t serve them or is shaped by distant elites with opaque (or malicious) motives, they’re more likely to fall for comforting narratives from people they trust, even when they’re wrong. As I’ve written before, the components of trust are highly social, and we are more likely to trust someone when we believe they have our best interests at heart. You’ll probably feel much closer to your favorite TikTok influencer than an abstract, faceless scientific institution.
That’s why rebuilding trust in science isn’t about better facts alone. It’s about reducing psychological distance and building relational trust, making science feel:
- Local rather than remote
- Present rather than futuristic
- Understandable and personally relevant rather than abstract
- Done by people like us, not for or at us
This also means scientists and institutions must show up—not just with data, but with empathy, transparency, and collaboration.
Citizen science is one promising path. So are better science communication strategies, authentic community engagement, and reimagining how scientific knowledge is shared and co-created. Ideally, we would have many more opportunities for scientists to work directly with their local communities throughout the globe. The findings from recent research also suggest that restoring trust in science requires culturally relevant, community-led communication that’s developed with the people it aims to serve, not just delivered to them.
If we want a future in which science is trusted, then we have to bring it closer. Not just physically, but psychologically. Not just through explanation, but through connection.
A version of this post also appears on Misguided: The Newsletter.