Moral Like Me? Public Moral Affinity with Scientists and Religious Leaders in the United States

• In Event: New Approaches to Measuring Religion and Its Effects

Abstract

How do Americans evaluate scientists and religious leaders as moral actors? Existing research typically examines trust in science or confidence in religious institutions, but these measures conflate assessments of expertise with perceptions of moral alignment. We introduce the concept of moral affinity, the perception that elite actors share one’s sense of what is morally right and wrong, to examine how Americans evaluate scientists and religious leaders along this dimension. Using nationally representative survey data from U.S. adults, we analyze four configurations of moral affinity: affinity with scientists only, affinity with religious leaders only, affinity with both, and affinity with neither. Multinomial logistic regression models show that moral affinity is highly selective and socially patterned. Political ideology and religious tradition are the strongest predictors of moral affinity, structuring whether respondents align morally with scientists, religious leaders, both, or neither. Scientific knowledge plays a more modest role, associated with reduced moral non-alignment rather than polarization between science and religion. Gender and race further shape these patterns in meaningful ways. Overall, the findings demonstrate that moral evaluations of elites operate independently of institutional trust and factual knowledge, and that cultural authority in contemporary America is negotiated through selective moral alignment rather than wholesale acceptance or rejection of science or religion.

Authors

• Shiri Noy, Denison University

• Timothy L. O'Brien, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee