2025 Online Content Survey

In previous research, Galvanize Action has received responses from ideologically-moderate white women indicating that they trust “experts,” but did not clarify what “experts” means to this audience. This study looks at what women in our audience consider “experts” to be and what kinds of qualifications they believe make someone an expert. Additionally, it reveals more about the types of content they’re consuming online, how frequently they’re seeking or engaging with specific types of content, and how much they like and trust the content they consume.

KEY FINDINGS

• Women in our audience value when an expert is able to communicate their ideas clearly in addition to formal credentials, which affords the opportunity to point women toward qualified experts who excel at science communication, but also may make them susceptible to believing disinformation.
• The majority of women surveyed report getting “tradwife” and alternative wellness content on their social media feeds via the algorithm. The majority of women exposed to this content have positive opinions about it.
• While respondents indicate they view science-based wellness as more trustworthy overall than the genre of alternative wellness, we also see that a slight majority say tradwife content is mostly or extremely trustworthy, highlighting our audience’s susceptibility to this form of content.

Details

EXPERTISE

In previous research, ideologically-moderate white women have told us that they seek information on important topics from “experts,” which has created a need to learn more about what “expert” means to them. First, we asked respondents to tell us who they seek out online when looking for information about public health, such as disease prevention, vaccination programs, and wellbeing. A majority of respondents indicated that they look to experts, such as scientists, doctors, and academics, on social media. Other frequently selected responses included the news, online forums, and government websites. Very few respondents indicated that they seek out religious community leaders, teachers, or elected officials on social media for public health information.

For respondents who selected “experts,” we asked them to briefly describe the type of person or source they were thinking of. While the question referred specifically to online information and social media, many of the responses indicated they would ask their own primary care physician or doctor. Many respondents listed specific sources such as MayoClinic, WebMD, and the CDC website. While most responses did not include specifics, the overwhelming sentiment was that “experts” included healthcare professionals, such as doctors, nurses, and scientists.

We then presented respondents with various types of credentials and asked how important each would be to consider someone an “expert.” The majority of women surveyed indicated that extremely important credentials include professional licenses or certifications, advanced degrees in a health-related field, years of work experience in healthcare, and the ability to explain complex topics clearly. On the opposite end of the spectrum, an overwhelming majority indicated that having a large social media following is not at all important to being considered an expert, and nearly half of respondents said that being appointed by officials to a government role is not at all important, either.

Looking at results by segment, we see that, on average, while all segments consider credentials such as professional certifications, advanced degrees, and years of work experience to be very important, Egalitarians rank these things more highly than our other segments. They also place a greater level of importance on publications in scientific journals. We also see that Traditionalists place greater importance than other segments on personal experience, alignment with their values, and relatability. Interestingly, Pragmatists place slightly higher importance on recommendations by trusted people, citations by the news, appointment to a government role, and having a large social media following, though these credentials are not considered overall to be that important. 

Most notably, women in all four segments appear to value the ability to explain complex topics clearly when determining whether someone is an expert.

SOCIAL MEDIA CONTENT

To learn more about the types of content ideologically-moderate women consume and engage with on social media, Galvanize Action asked a series of questions about how frequently certain types of posts appear on their feeds and how favorable their opinions are towards the content they see. We presented respondents with a list of various content types and asked, “When you use social media, how often do the following types of content appear in your feed without you actively seeking them out?” Respondents who indicated that a certain type of content appears at least rarely are considered to be exposed to that type of content.

Among the types of content listed, we included four genres of interest:

• Homemaking (“tradwife”): Content about homemaking, traditional family roles, cooking from scratch, raising children as a stay-at-home parent, parenting advice
• Alternative wellness: Content about natural remedies, holistic health, alternative medicine, or non-mainstream health approaches
• Cultural commentary: Content discussing political correctness, changes in society, cultural trends, traditional vs. modern values, gender roles
• Men’s lifestyle (“manosphere”): Commentary or motivational content about masculinity, dating advice, male fitness and lifestyle, relationship dynamics between men and women

We found that a majority of our audience reports algorithmically receiving content in all four categories, though unsurprisingly, less of our audience receives manosphere content than the other three genres. Among respondents, 56% report exposure to manosphere content, 78% report exposure to cultural commentary, 81% report exposure to alternative wellness content, and 85% report exposure to tradwife content.

In addition to how much of our audience has been exposed, we also looked at how favorably those respondents feel toward that content. We see that, among those exposed to tradwife content, a majority (68%) view the content either somewhat or very favorably. In contrast, of those exposed to manosphere content, only 34% view it favorably. Of the four content types, tradwife and alternative wellness content are viewed the most favorably, while cultural commentary and manosphere are viewed less favorably.

Next, Galvanize Action asked respondents how they typically react to each type of content that appears on their feeds. Respondents were instructed to select all options that applied.

Looking again at the same content categories, we see that the majority of those exposed to tradwife and alternative wellness content react by watching or reading the content that appears; however, not as many actively engage with that content. Additionally, while many of those exposed to cultural commentary are watching or reading the content, nearly as many instead decide to keep scrolling. Similarly, women exposed to manosphere content more often scroll than watch.

Galvanize Action also sought to understand what kinds of content, if any, ideologically-moderate women are actively seeking out rather than receiving passively via the algorithm. We instructed respondents to think about the types of posts they engage with, enjoy, and search for when they’re on social media and asked, “How often do you actively seek out the following types of content?”

We find that, for all the listed types of content, passive exposure is more common than active seeking. This is unsurprising, as social media has shifted toward algorithmically-driven feeds such as TikTok’s “for you” page, as opposed to the way social media used to function, where your feed would consist of posts by the people you explicitly followed.

Finally, we presented the same list of content types and asked for each, “In your opinion, how trustworthy do you find each type of content to be as a source of information?” We see that much of our audience falls somewhere in the middle, finding most types of content to be either slightly or mostly trustworthy. Respondents indicate they view science-based wellness as more trustworthy overall than the genre of alternative wellness. Additionally, cultural commentary and manosphere content are not perceived to be very trustworthy either. However, we also see that a slight majority of women surveyed say tradwife content is mostly or extremely trustworthy.

Looking at mean trustworthiness by segment, we see that in general, all segments tend to view content as somewhere between slightly and mostly trustworthy. On average, Pragmatists seem to view the four content areas previously identified as slightly more trustworthy than Centrists do. Overall, Pragmatists have higher mean trustworthiness for most types of content.

TAKEAWAYS

The results of this study show that ideologically-moderate white women claim to place high value on expertise grounded in formal credentials, professional experience, and clear communication. Across segments, the ability to explain complex topics clearly is considered very important when determining whether one could be considered an “expert.”

We also see that women in our audience are widely and passively exposed to certain content genres, especially tradwife and alternative wellness content, and these two categories are viewed rather favorably. Additionally, respondents report consuming content that is presented to them more frequently than deliberately seeking out content, which makes sense as social media has shifted toward algorithm-driven content delivery. These findings highlight how getting content picked up by the algorithm is essential in messaging.

Methodology

• Audience: Ideologically Moderate US White Women
• Sample size: 589
• Dates in field: October 16, 2025

Full questionnaire

QUESTION #1
When you are looking online for information about public health (such as disease prevention, vaccination programs, wellbeing, etc.), who do you seek out? Please select any of the following sources you use to stay knowledgeable and up-to-date on public health, regardless of how frequently or infrequently you use them.

QUESTION #2
How important is each of the following for you, personally, to consider someone to be an expert on public health?

QUESTION #3
When we scroll on social media, we typically see posts recommended to us based on our interests, previous activity, and what’s popular right now. When you use social media, how often do the following types of content appear in your feed without you actively seeking them out? [Never, Rarely, Sometimes, Often, Frequently]

For the types of content you see on social media, how favorable or unfavorable is your opinion of each? [Strongly favorable, Somewhat favorable, Neither favorable nor unfavorable, Somewhat unfavorable, Strongly unfavorable]

QUESTION #4
When you come across the following types of content, how do you typically respond? Please select all that apply.

QUESTION #5
In your opinion, how trustworthy do you find each type of content to be as a source of information?