Study: When Scientists Share Their Struggles: How Scientists' Self-Presentation on Social Media Influences Public Perceptions, Support for Science, and Information-Seeking Intentions (DOI: 10.1177/10755470251322902)
In an age where trust in science often feels like it's teetering on a fault line, new research from the University of Michigan offers a simple but powerful insight: When scientists share their struggles-especially their failures-they may actually earn more public trust.
The U-M study found that when scientists open up about their failures on social media, they are perceived as more honest, caring and relatable than those who only promote their successes. In turn, these impressions influence whether people are likely to seek out more science-related information and support science policy and funding.
"We often hear that scientists should 'be human' online," said co-author Annie Li Zhang, U-M doctoral student in communication and media. "This study helps show what that actually looks like in practice and how it can foster real connection with the public."
The study analyzed how different self-presentation strategies on social media platforms like X affect public attitudes. Specifically, the researchers examined how posts that highlight either research successes or failures-paired with or without personal storytelling-alter audience perceptions of the scientist's competence, integrity, openness and benevolence.
In an experiment involving 1,843 U.S. adults, participants viewed simulated social media threads from a fictional scientist. Some saw posts about a research success (self-promotion), while others saw a post about a failed experiment (supplication). A third layer varied whether the post included a narrative about the scientist's personal struggles during the research process.
The results were striking. Scientists who shared failures were perceived as having significantly more integrity, benevolence and openness than those who only shared their achievements. While sharing failures did not boost perceptions of competence, it did not harm them either-defying a common fear among professionals that vulnerability might undermine their credibility.
"Our findings suggest that people don't necessarily see failure as incompetence," Zhang said. "Instead, they interpret openness about failure as honesty and even strength."
Interestingly, adding a personal story about the research process-called "narrative contextualization"-did not always help. When scientists shared stories of ongoing challenges, especially external ones like funding difficulties and data collection, participants rated them as slightly less benevolent. The researchers believe this may be because unresolved struggles can feel frustrating or ambiguous to readers, compared to clear-cut failures with a resolution.
The study also explored why these self-presentation tactics work. Two psychological mechanisms played a role: expectancy violation and identification. Participants tended to expect scientists to be polished and formal online. When those expectations were violated in a positive way-such as seeing a scientist admit to failure-they often responded with warmth. But more importantly, readers were more likely to identify with scientists who seemed vulnerable and relatable, and that emotional connection increased positive impressions.
Those positive impressions mattered. Participants who viewed the scientist as open, benevolent and competent were more likely to say they would support science funding, trust scientists' policy advice, and seek out more information about the topic discussed.
The implications are significant in an era of public skepticism toward expertise.
Scientists are increasingly encouraged to use social media to connect with lay audiences, but many remain unsure how personal is "too personal." This study offers evidence-based guidance: Sharing setbacks can actually build credibility-if done thoughtfully.
Still, the researchers caution that context matters. The study was conducted with a U.S. audience, and cultural norms around failure and humility differ globally. What resonates with American readers might be perceived differently elsewhere.
In addition, not all storytelling is equal. Posts that portray scientists as actively overcoming challenges-rather than simply enduring them-may yield better public reactions, the authors note.
Ultimately, the study suggests that scientists seeking to engage the public might benefit from rethinking their online presence.
"People don't just want information-they want connection," said co-author Hang Lu, U-M associate professor of media psychology. "When scientists show they're human, the public listens."
