Matthew Motta

Dr. Matthew Motta

Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

11Years (2016-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 March 2021 in Social Science & Medicine
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
TCTimothy Callaghan
Timothy Callaghan
AMAli Moghtaderi
Ali Moghtaderi
JLJennifer A. Lueck
Jennifer A. Lueck
PHPeter Hotez
Peter Hotez
USUlrich Strych
Ulrich Strych
Matthew MottaMatthew Motta
Matthew Motta

1 May 2020 in Canadian Journal of Political Science
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
Matthew MottaMatthew Motta
Matthew Motta
DSDominik Stecula
Dominik Stecula
CFChristina Farhart
Christina Farhart
We have yet to know the ultimate global impact of the novel coronavirus pandemic. However, we do know that delays, denials and misinformation about COVID-19 have exacerbated its spread and slowed pandemic response, particularly in the U.S. (e.g., Abutaleb et al., 2020).

20 January 2025 in Nature Human Behaviour
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
VCViktoria Cologna
Viktoria Cologna
NMNiels G. Mede
Niels G. Mede
SBSebastian Berger
Sebastian Berger
JBJohn Besley
John Besley
CBCameron Brick
Cameron Brick
RZRolf A. Zwaan
Rolf A. Zwaan
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.

1 August 2018 in Social Science & Medicine
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
Matthew MottaMatthew Motta
Matthew Motta
TCTimothy Callaghan
Timothy Callaghan
SSSteven Sylvester
Steven Sylvester

11 July 2017 in American Politics Research
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
Matthew MottaMatthew Motta
Matthew Motta
Recently, Americans have become increasingly likely to hold anti-intellectual attitudes (i.e., negative affect toward scientists and other experts). However, few have investigated the political implications of anti-intellectualism, and much empirical uncertainty surrounds whether or not these attitudes can be mitigated. Drawing on cross-sectional General Social Survey (GSS) data and a national election panel in 2016, I find that anti-intellectualism is associated with not only the rejection of policy-relevant matters of scientific consensus but support for political movements (e.g., “Brexit”) and politicians (e.g., George Wallace, Donald Trump) who are skeptical of experts. Critically, though, I show that these effects can be mitigated. Verbal intelligence plays a strong role in mitigating anti-intellectual sympathies, compared with previously studied potential mitigators. I conclude by discussing how scholars might build on this research to study the political consequences of anti-intellectualism in the future.