Moral values and trust in science

Article


Joyner, L. 2026. Moral values and trust in science. Current Opinion in Psychology. 67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102212
TypeArticle
TitleMoral values and trust in science
AuthorsJoyner, L.
Abstract

Mistrust in science can arise from the belief that science or scientists act in ways that undermines our wellbeing or go against our best interests (Jaiswal & Halktis, 2019). Such actions may also constitute a perceived moral violation. Considering how science and scientists are perceived to uphold or undermine moral norms and values may therefore provide helpful insights for understanding relationships of trust. In this review of the trust literature, I explore some of the ways that individuals or communities may perceive different categories of moral values (i.e., Harm, Purity / Sanctity, Authority, Loyalty, and Fairness) as being upheld or undermined by science or scientists. Firstly, examples of harm are discussed (e.g., physical and spiritual harms), followed by research on trust in science and individual differences (i.e., disgust sensitivity, religiosity, and worldviews and ideologies). Research around social identity, and fairness are also examined. Identifying where and why perceived moral violations may arise could be helpful for furthering our understanding relationships of mistrust in science and developing tailored interventions to build and sustain trust. It also provides an opportunity for scientists and researchers to reflect on the moral values that they and any communities they seek to work with hold to ensure any procedures and practices do not inadvertently undermine the trust relationship.

KeywordsTrust in Science; Morality; Moral Foundations; Harm; Purity; Authority; Fairness
Sustainable Development Goals10 Reduced inequalities
Middlesex University ThemeHealth & Wellbeing
PublisherElsevier
JournalCurrent Opinion in Psychology
ISSN2352-250X
Electronic2352-2518
Publication dates
Online14 Nov 2025
PrintFeb 2026
Publication process dates
Submitted06 Oct 2025
Accepted10 Nov 2025
Deposited17 Nov 2025
Output statusPublished
Publisher's version
License
File Access Level
Open
Copyright Statement

© 2025 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102212
PubMed ID41308549
Web of Science identifierWOS:001630567000001
Permalink -

https://repository.mdx.ac.uk/item/2z2yq0

Download files


Publisher's version
1-s2.0-S2352250X25002258-main.pdf
License: CC BY 4.0
File access level: Open

  • 55
    total views
  • 8
    total downloads
  • 3
    views this month
  • 0
    downloads this month

Export as

Related outputs

Environmental risk factors for railway suicide: a nationwide analysis of England's mainline network (2019-2021)
Marzano, L., Brown, S., Spence, R., Joyner, L., Norman, H., Fields, B., Barbin, A., Kruger, I. and Hart, S.M. 2025. Environmental risk factors for railway suicide: a nationwide analysis of England's mainline network (2019-2021). Archives of Suicide Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/13811118.2025.2595428
Using surveillance technologies to prevent suicides in public spaces: ethical, legal, acceptable?
Mackenzie, J., Marsh, I., Cliffe, B., Joyner, L., George, C., Dark, A., Pharoah, R. and Marzano, L. 2025. Using surveillance technologies to prevent suicides in public spaces: ethical, legal, acceptable? George, C., Whitehouse, D. and Duquenoy, P. (ed.) MDX 2025 Health IT Workshop on Emerging Technologies in Healthcare: Legal, Ethical, Social & Governance Aspects. Middlesex University, London, UK 26 - 27 Jun 2025 Middlesex University. pp. 49-52
Suicide prevention measures at high-risk locations: a goal-directed motivation perspective
Joyner, L., Mackenzie, J.M., Willis, A., Phillips, P., Cliffe, B., Marsh, I., Pettersen, E., Hawton, K. and Marzano, L. 2025. Suicide prevention measures at high-risk locations: a goal-directed motivation perspective. Behavioral Sciences. 15 (8). https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15081009
Individual differences in sharing false political information on social media: deliberate and accidental sharing, motivations and positive schizotypy
Buchanan, T., Perach, R., Husbands, D., Tout, A., Kostyuk, E., Kempley, J. and Joyner, L. 2024. Individual differences in sharing false political information on social media: deliberate and accidental sharing, motivations and positive schizotypy. PLoS ONE. 19 (6). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304855
Moral leniency towards belief-consistent disinformation may help explain its spread on social media
Joyner, L., Buchanan, T. and Yetkili, O. 2023. Moral leniency towards belief-consistent disinformation may help explain its spread on social media. PLoS ONE. 18 (3). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281777
Why do people share political information and misinformation online? Developing a bottom-up descriptive framework
Perach, R., Joyner, L., Husbands, D. and Buchanan, T. 2023. Why do people share political information and misinformation online? Developing a bottom-up descriptive framework. Social Media + Society. 9 (3), pp. 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051231192032
The Online Behaviour Taxonomy: a conceptual framework to understand behaviour in computer-mediated communication
Kaye, L., Rousaki, A., Joyner, L., Barrett, L. and Orchard, L. 2022. The Online Behaviour Taxonomy: a conceptual framework to understand behaviour in computer-mediated communication. Computers in Human Behavior. 137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107443