Most of us claim we judge experts by their qualifications: the right degree, years of research, peer respect. But a new study from University of California, Irvine shows that none of it matters once politics come into play.

The research, published in Scientific Reports, put 2,400 Americans through experiments to see how they decide who to trust as an expert. First, they asked participants what signals they use to judge expertise. People ranked relevant degrees, research experience, peer recognition and moral character as the most important factors. Traits like height, appearance, race or sexual orientation barely registered.

That part’s unsurprising — it matches what most of us say we value. But the second experiment revealed a sharp disconnect between what people say and what they do. The team created fictional expert bios with real credentials: a Ph.D., peer-reviewed papers, awards. Then they added one detail: the expert’s stated political views. When participants learned an expert was liberal or conservative, their trust in that person’s knowledge collapsed — even when the credentials stayed identical.

The effect was consistent across topics as different as skincare, nutrition, abortion and police brutality. In one test, a biologist with a Harvard degree and 20 years of research lost credibility the moment they were described as supporting a particular political side. The same happened in reverse: an unknown researcher with fewer credentials gained trust when their politics aligned with the participant’s.

Mertcan Güngör, the UC Irvine Ph.D. candidate who led the study, says the results show how identity politics distort our evaluation of real expertise. “We assume we’re rational about who we trust,” Güngör says. “But when an expert’s politics don’t match ours, we treat their education and experience like it never existed.”

The findings add to a growing body of research showing how tribal loyalty distorts judgment. Earlier studies found that people are more likely to accept evidence when it comes from a source they like — even if the evidence itself is weak. This study pushes further: it shows that political identity can erase the value of actual qualifications.

How politics hijacks our trust in science

The experiments didn’t just measure trust — they tracked how participants justified their choices. Many who rejected an expert after learning their politics still claimed their decision was based on the person’s “lack of credibility.” They pointed to weaker credentials or less impressive experience, even when the bios were identical.

This isn’t just about disagreement over facts. It’s about how we define who’s even allowed to speak as an expert. When politics enter the picture, a Nobel laureate and a blogger can end up with the same level of trust — if their politics align.

The study’s authors warn this isn’t just a quirk of individual judgment. They say it reflects how public trust in science and institutions is eroding under partisan pressure. When people dismiss experts based on politics rather than evidence, the result isn’t just misinformation — it’s a breakdown in how democracy and science are supposed to work together.

Güngör and his co-authors, Nathan Ballantyne and Jared B. Celniker from Arizona State University, say the next step is to test whether these biases change when people are directly confronted with the contradiction: showing them that their trust decisions don’t match their stated values.

For now, the study offers a clear warning: if you want people to listen to your expertise, don’t just show your resume. Show your politics too — because that’s what they’ll actually judge you on.

What You Need to Know

  • Source: Phys.org
  • Published: May 17, 2026 at 21:00 UTC
  • Category: Science
  • Topics: #physics · #science · #research · #most-americans · #scientific-reports · #expert-trust

Read the Full Story

This is a curated summary. For the complete article, original data, quotes and full analysis:

Read the full story on Phys.org →

All reporting rights belong to the respective author(s) at Phys.org. GlobalBR News summarizes publicly available content to help readers discover the most relevant global news.

Curated by GlobalBR News · May 17, 2026

🇧🇷 Resumo em Português

Um estudo recente da Universidade da Califórnia em Irvine revelou um paradoxo preocupante nos Estados Unidos: mesmo em tempos de polarização política, a credibilidade de especialistas é questionada quando suas posições conflitam com as crenças ideológicas do público. A pesquisa mostrou que, em muitos casos, a afinidade política pesa mais do que diplomas ou experiência profissional na hora de validar informações — um fenômeno que pode ter reflexos globais, inclusive no Brasil.

No contexto brasileiro, onde a desinformação e a polarização política já corroem o debate público, o estudo acende um alerta sobre como a sociedade consome e legitima informações científicas e técnicas. Em um país onde figuras públicas frequentemente se apresentam como “especialistas” sem formação adequada, a tendência de validar argumentos com base em afinidade política — em vez de embasamento teórico — pode agravar a crise de confiança nas instituições e na ciência. Além disso, a pesquisa reforça a necessidade de as universidades e centros de pesquisa brasileiros reforçarem sua comunicação com a sociedade, combatendo a desinformação com transparência e clareza.

O próximo passo, segundo os pesquisadores, é investigar como esse fenômeno se comporta em outros países, como o Brasil, onde a relação entre política e credibilidade científica já é tensa — e quais estratégias podem ser adotadas para mitigar seus efeitos.

🇪🇸 Resumen en Español

Un estudio reciente de la Universidad de California en Irvine ha demostrado que, en Estados Unidos, la credibilidad de los expertos se mide por sus títulos y experiencia… hasta que se descubre su afiliación política. La investigación revela cómo el sesgo partidista puede eclipsar incluso los currículos más prestigiosos, cuestionando la objetividad en la percepción pública del conocimiento.

La relevancia de este hallazgo trasciende fronteras, especialmente en contextos hispanohablantes donde la polarización política y la desinformación ganan terreno. Si los ciudadanos priorizan la afinidad ideológica sobre la formación académica a la hora de validar fuentes, se resiente la confianza en instituciones científicas y la toma de decisiones basada en evidencia. Este fenómeno subraya la necesidad de promover un pensamiento crítico que distinga entre ideología y rigor, una lección clave en sociedades cada vez más divididas.