Science is crucial for evidence-based decision-making. Public trust in scientists can help decision makers act on the basis of the best available evidence, especially during crises. However, in recent years the epistemic authority of science has been challenged, causing concerns about low public trust in scientists. We interrogated these concerns with a preregistered 68-country survey of 71,922 respondents and found that in most countries, most people trust scientists and agree that scientists should engage more in society and policymaking. We found variations between and within countries, which we explain with individual- and country-level variables, including political orientation. While there is no widespread lack of trust in scientists, we cannot discount the concern that lack of trust in scientists by even a small minority may affect considerations of scientific evidence in policymaking. These findings have implications for scientists and policymakers seeking to maintain and increase trust in scientists.

The emergence of large-scale replication projects yielding successful rates substantially lower than expected caused the behavioural, cognitive, and social sciences to experience a so-called ‘replication crisis’. In this Perspective, we reframe this ‘crisis’ through the lens of a credibility revolution, focusing on positive structural, procedural and community-driven changes. Second, we outline a path to expand ongoing advances and improvements. The credibility revolution has been an impetus to several substantive changes which will have a positive, long-term impact on our research environment.

Extreme weather events are becoming more frequent and intense due to climate change. Yet, little is known about the relationship between exposure to extreme events, subjective attribution of these events to climate change, and climate policy support, especially in the Global South. Combining large-scale natural and social science data from 68 countries (N = 71,922), we develop a measure of exposed population to extreme weather events and investigate whether exposure to extreme weather and subjective attribution of extreme weather to climate change predict climate policy support. We find that most people support climate policies and link extreme weather events to climate change. Subjective attribution of extreme weather was positively associated with policy support for five widely discussed climate policies. However, exposure to most types of extreme weather event did not predict policy support. Overall, these results suggest that subjective attribution could facilitate climate policy support.

The Five Facets Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ) is a popular tool in mindfulness research. However, its psychometric qualities and its replicability have caused controversy. This study carried out a psychometric review and a conceptual replication of the FFMQ latent structure. The review showed that previous validation studies of the FFMQ used nonoptimal methods. In addition, this conceptual replication study tested the structure of the FFMQ using frequentist and Bayesian techniques. The original structure did not provide a good fit with both techniques, while the proposed alternative provided mixed results. We also found systematic fit improvements in both techniques when the Observe facet was excluded and method factors were included. With these findings, we conclude that the conceptual replication of the FFMQ’s structure failed. Alternatively, we propose a new provisional FFMQ model with a set of recommendations regarding its application. Future research proposals on improving techniques and models toward mindfulness assessment are also presented and discussed.

Objectives: The Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ) is one of the most common self-report instruments used in scientific literature to assess mindfulness. However, mixed evidence has been provided regarding its psychometric properties. Among them, the FFMQ seems to present latent classes or profiles with specific patterns in its facets, which might explain said mixed evidence. This study explores mindfulness profiles in the Spanish population using the short form of the FFMQ (FFMQ-SF) and its relations with relevant constructs (i.e., decentering, self-compassion, psychological well-being, psychopathology, positive and negative states). Methods: A general population sample of 826 participants completed instruments measuring mindfulness and related constructs. Latent profile analyses were applied to the FFMQ-SF facets, and profile membership of participants was estimated for relations with related constructs. Results: Three latent profiles were found: General Mindfulness, Judgmentally Observing, and Non-judgmentally Aware. General Mindfulness showed expected relations with other constructs, but the other two profiles showed some relations opposite to prior literature: The Judgmentally Observing profile displayed functional behaviors while the Non-judgmentally Aware profile showed an inverse mitigated pattern. Results could not be explained by gender, age, level of studies, or minimum experience with meditation. Conclusions: Most people (68%) fall into mindfulness profiles that can be regarded as a continuum (e.g., an overall mindfulness factor). However, the FFMQ-SF shows heterogeneities in its facets due to two unique latent profiles, namely “Judgmentally Observing” (7.4%) and “Non-judgmentally Aware” (24.8%). While the structure of these profiles was replicated, relations with relevant psychological constructs contradicted previous literature. Implications and recommendations for future studies are discussed.