“`html

In a time where faith in science often appears to be precarious, new findings from the University of Michigan present a straightforward yet impactful revelation: When researchers disclose their challenges—particularly their setbacks—they might actually gain greater public trust.

The U-M investigation discovered that when scientists discuss their setbacks on social media, they are seen as more truthful, compassionate, and relatable compared to those who exclusively highlight their achievements. Consequently, these perceptions affect the likelihood of individuals seeking additional science-related information and supporting science policies and funding.

“We frequently hear that scientists ought to ‘be human’ online,” stated co-author Annie Li Zhang, a doctoral student at U-M specializing in communication and media. “This research illustrates what that truly looks like in practice and how it can cultivate genuine connections with the public.”

The study examined how varying self-presentation methods on social media platforms like X impact public sentiments. Specifically, the researchers analyzed how posts that accentuate either research triumphs or setbacks—paired with or without personal storytelling—transform audience views of the scientist’s competence, integrity, transparency, and kindness.

In a trial involving 1,843 U.S. adults, participants viewed simulated social media discussions from a fictitious scientist. Some observed posts regarding a successful research endeavor (self-promotion), while others encountered a post about an unsuccessful experiment (supplication). A third aspect varied whether the post included a narrative about the scientist’s personal challenges during the research journey.

The findings were compelling. Scientists who divulged failures were deemed to possess considerably more integrity, kindness, and transparency than those who merely shared their accomplishments. While discussing failures did not enhance perceptions of competence, it also did not diminish it—contradicting a common concern among professionals that vulnerability may weaken their credibility.

“Our results indicate that people don’t uniformly view failure as a sign of incompetence,” Zhang remarked. “Rather, they interpret candidness about failure as honesty and even strength.”

Interestingly, incorporating a personal narrative about the research journey—termed “narrative contextualization”—did not consistently yield positive outcomes. When scientists shared tales of ongoing difficulties, particularly external obstacles like funding challenges and data collection, participants rated them as somewhat less benevolent. The researchers believe this may be due to unresolved challenges feeling perplexing or frustrating to readers, in contrast to definitive failures with clear resolutions.

The research also delved into why these self-presentation strategies are effective. Two psychological mechanisms played a role: expectancy violation and identification. Participants typically expect scientists to appear polished and formal online. When those expectations were positively contradicted—such as witnessing a scientist admit to failure—they often reacted with warmth. However, more critically, readers were more inclined to relate to scientists who exhibited vulnerability and approachability, which enhanced favorable impressions.

Those favorable impressions were vital. Participants who viewed the scientist as open, kind, and competent expressed increased likelihood of supporting science funding, trusting scientists’ policy recommendations, and seeking further information about the discussed topic.

The ramifications are significant in a period marked by public skepticism towards expertise.

Scientists are increasingly urged to leverage social media to connect with non-expert audiences, yet many remain uncertain about how personal is “too personal.” This study provides evidence-based recommendations: Articulating setbacks can genuinely enhance credibility—if executed thoughtfully.

Nonetheless, the researchers caution that context is crucial. The study was conducted with a U.S. demographic, and cultural attitudes towards failure and humility vary globally. What resonates with American readers may be perceived differently in other contexts.

Moreover, not all storytelling holds equal weight. Posts that portray scientists as actively navigating challenges—rather than merely enduring them—may elicit more favorable public responses, the authors suggest.

Ultimately, the study indicates that scientists aiming to engage with the general public could gain from re-evaluating their online persona.

“Individuals don’t merely seek information—they desire connection,” asserted co-author Hang Lu, U-M associate professor of media psychology. “When scientists demonstrate their humanity, the public pays attention.”

“`