Abstract
When risky technologies are debated in the media or when cases of scientific misconduct are made public, inevitable discussions arise about public loss of trust in science. However, trust in science reaches far beyond such incidents: trust is of much more fundamental importance for science. Clearly, trust is pivotal in doing science, since researchers in their everyday practice rely on the knowledge produced by other experts with different specialization and expertise. In the same way, trust is fundamental for the public understanding of science. Laypeople depend on the knowledge of scientific experts when developing a personal stance on science-based issues and arriving at decisions about them. Laypeople only possess a bounded understanding of science, but nowadays they are able to rapidly access all kinds of scientific knowledge online. To deal with scientific information, laypeople have to trust in scientists and their findings. We will at first describe the role of trust in doing and understanding science. Then a summary of international survey results on the general public’s trust in science are presented. Starting from these results and questions that arise from them, we extend and revise past conceptualizations of trust, arriving at a conceptualization of epistemic trust. Epistemic trust rests not only on the assumption that one is dependent on the knowledge of others who are more knowledgeable; it also entails a vigilance toward the risk to be misinformed. Drawing on empirical findings, we argue that the critical characteristics that determine the epistemic trustworthiness of a source of science-based information (for example, a scientist or a scientific institution) are the source’s expertise, integrity and benevolence. These characteristics have already been described in the model of trust provided by Mayer et al. (1995), but when it comes to trust in context of science, they must be redefined. Furthermore, trust judgments are not based solely on these characteristics, but depend on further constrains, which will be discussed in this chapter.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
‘Science’ is a notion for a cognitive as well as a concrete social endeavor. The notion of Science is used to refer to distinguished bodies of knowledge (Science in a cognitive sense) as well as to abstractly refer to the institutions and people who are producing and maintaining these bodies of knowledge (Science in a social sense, see also Longino 2002). In order to emphasize that both meanings are covered, when not specified otherwise, we use a capital S.
References
Anderson, A. A., Brossard, D., & Scheufele, D. A. (2010). The changing information environment for nanotechnology: Online audiences and content. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 12(4), 1083–1094. doi:10.1007/s11051-010-9860-2.
Anderson, A. A., Scheufele, D. A., Brossard, D., & Corley, E. A. (2011). The role of media and deference to scientific authority in cultivating trust in sources of information about emerging technologies. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 24(2), 225–237. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edr032.
Barber, B. (1987). Trust in science. Minerva, 25(1–2), 123–134. doi:10.1007/s11999-014-3488-y.
Besley, J. (2014). Science and technology: Public attitudes and understanding. In National Science Board (Ed.), Science and engineering indicators 2014 (pp. 1–53). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation (NSB 14–01).
Blöbaum, B. (2016). Key factors in the process of trust. On the analysis of trust under digital conditions. In B. Bloebaum (Ed.), Trust and communication in a digitalized world. Models and concepts of trust research. Berlin: Springer.
Bromme, R., & Goldman, S. R. (2014). The public’s bounded understanding of science. Educational Psychologist, 49(2), 59–69. doi:10.1080/00461520.2014.921572.
Bromme, R., Kienhues, D., & Porsch, T. (2010). Who knows what and who can we believe? Epistemological beliefs are beliefs about knowledge (mostly) to be attained from others. In L. D. Bendixen & F. C. Feucht (Eds.), Personal epistemology in the classroom: Theory, research, and implications for practice (pp. 163–193). Cambrigde: Cambridge University Press.
Bromme, R., & Thomm, E. (2015). Knowing who knows: Laypersons’ capabilities to judge experts’ pertinence for science topics. Cognitive Science, 1–12. doi:10.1111/cogs.12252.
Bromme, R., Thomm, E., & Wolf, V. (2015). From understanding to deference: Laypersons’ and medical students’ views on conflicts within medicine. International Journal of Science Education, Part B: Communication and Public Engagement. doi:10.1080/21548455.2013.849017.
Castell, S., Charlton, A., Clemence, M., Pettigrew, N., Pope, S., Quigley, A., et al. (2014). Public attitudes to science 2014. Ipsos Mori. London. Retrieved from https://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/pas-2014-main-report.pdf
Chinn, C. A., Buckland, L. A., & Samarapungavan, A. (2011). Expanding the dimensions of epistemic cognition: Arguments from philosophy and psychology. Educational Psychologist, 46(3), 141–167. doi:10.1080/00461520.2011.587722.
Corriveau, K., & Harris, P. L. (2009). Choosing your informant: Weighing familiarity and recent accuracy. Developmental Science, 12(3), 426–37. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00792.x.
Critchley, C. R. (2008). Public opinion and trust in scientists: The role of the research context, and the perceived motivation of stem cell researchers. Public Understanding of Science, 17(3), 309–327. doi:10.1177/0963662506070162.
Cummings, L. (2014). The “trust” heuristic: Arguments from authority in public health. Health Communication, 34(1), 1–14. doi:10.1080/10410236.2013.831685.
Daston, L., & Galison, P. (2007). Objectivity. New York: Zone Books.
European Commission. (2013). Eurobarometer. Brussels. doi:10.4232/1.11873.
Eysenbach, G. (2008). Credibility of health information and digital media: New perspectives and implications for youth. In M. J. Metzger & A. J. Flanagin (Eds.), Digital media, youth, and credibility (The John D, pp. 123–154). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Feinstein, N. (2011). Salvaging science literacy. Science Education, 95(1), 168–185. doi:10.1002/sce.20414.
Hardwig, J. (1991). The role of trust in knowledge. The Journal of Philosophy, 88(12), 693–708.
Harris, P. L. (2012). Trusting what you’re told. Cambridge, MA: Belknap of Harvard UP.
Hendriks, F., Kienhues, D., & Bromme, R. (2015a). Measuring laypeople’s trust in experts in a digital age: The Muenster Epistemic Trustworthiness Inventory (METI). PLoS ONE, 10(10), e0139309. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0139309.
Hendriks, F., Kienhues, D., & Bromme, R. (2015b). Disclose your flaws! Admission enhances perceptions of trustworthiness of an expert blogger. Manuscript Submitted for Publication.
Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. H. (1953). Communication and persuasion. Psychological issues of opinion change. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Jensen, J. D. (2008). Scientific uncertainty in news coverage of cancer research: Effects of hedging on scientists and journalists credibility. Human Communication Research, 34(3), 347–369. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2008.00324.x.
Keil, F. C. (2010). The feasibility of folk science. Cognitive Science, 34(5), 826–862. doi:10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01108.x.
Keil, F. C., Stein, C., Webb, L., Billings, V. D., Rozenblit, L., & Sciences, B. (2008). Discerning the division of cognitive labor: An emerging understanding of how knowledge is clustered in other minds. Cognitive Science, 32(2), 259–300. doi:10.1080/03640210701863339.
Koenig, M. A., & Harris, P. L. (2008). The basis of epistemic trust: Reliable testimony or reliable sources? Episteme, 4, 264–284. doi:10.3366/E1742360008000087.
Landrum, A. R., Mills, C. M., & Johnston, A. M. (2013). When do children trust the expert? Benevolence information influences children’s trust more than expertise. Developmental Science, 16(4), 622–638. doi:10.1111/desc.12059.
Lane, J. D., Harris, P. L., Gelman, S. A., & Wellman, H. M. (2014). More than meets the eye: Young children’s trust in claims that defy their perceptions. Developmental Psychology, 50(3), 865–871. doi:10.1037/a0034291.
Lane, J. D., Wellman, H. M., & Gelman, S. A. (2013). Informants’ traits weigh heavily in young children’s trust in testimony and in their epistemic inferences. Child Development, 84(4), 1253–68. doi:10.1111/cdev.12029.
Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., Seifert, C. M., Schwarz, N., & Cook, J. (2012). Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(3), 106–131. doi:10.1177/1529100612451018.
Longino, H. E. (2002). The fate of knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Mascaro, O., & Sperber, D. (2009). The moral, epistemic, and mindreading components of children’s vigilance towards deception. Cognition, 112, 367–380.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734.
Mills, C. M. (2013). Knowing when to doubt: Developing a critical stance when learning from others. Developmental Psychology, 49(3), 1–26. doi:10.1037/a0029500.Knowing.
Mills, C. M., & Keil, F. C. (2005). The development of cynicism. Psychological Science, 16(5), 385–390. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01545.x.
Origgi, G. (2004). Is trust an epistemological notion? Episteme, 1(1), 61–72. doi:10.3366/epi.2004.1.1.61.
Origgi, G. (2010). Epistemic vigilance and epistemic responsibility in the liquid world of scientific publications. Social Epistemology, 24(3), 149–159.
Origgi, G. (2012). Epistemic injustice and epistemic trust. Social Epistemology, 26(2), 221–235.
Origgi, G. (2014). Epistemic trust. In P. Capet & T. Delavallade (Eds.), Information evaluation (1st ed., pp. 35–54). London: Wiley-ISTE.
Peters, R. G., Covello, V. T., & McCallum, D. B. (1997). The determinants of trust and credibility in environmental risk communication: An empirical study. Risk Analysis, 17(1), 43–54. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1997.tb00842.x.
Pew Research Center. (2015). Public and scientists’ views on science and society.
Rapp, C. (2010). Aristotle’s rhetoric. Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-rhetoric/
Resnik, D. B. (2011). Scientific research and the public trust. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(3), 399–409. doi:10.1007/s11948-010-9210-x.
Rolin, K. (2002). Gender and trust in science. Hypathia, 17(4).
Schwab, A. P. (2008). Epistemic trust, epistemic responsibility, and medical practice. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 33(4), 302–20. doi:10.1093/jmp/jhn013.
Shafto, P., Eaves, B., Navarro, D. J., & Perfors, A. (2012). Epistemic trust: Modeling children’s reasoning about others’ knowledge and intent. Developmental Science, 15(3), 436–47. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2012.01135.x.
Sperber, D., Clément, F., Heintz, C., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., Origgi, G., et al. (2010). Epistemic vigilance. Mind & Language, 25(4), 359–393. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0017.2010.01394.x.
Stapel, D. (2012). Ontsporing. Amsterdam: Prometheus.
Tseng, S., & Fogg, B. (1999). Credibility and computing technology. Communications of the ACM, 42(5), 39–44.
Vetenskap and Allmanhet. (2015). VA Barometer 2014/15. Stockholm.
Vanderbilt, K. E., Liu, D., & Heyman, G. D. (2012). The development of distrust. Child Development, 82(5), 1372–1380. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01629.x.
Wellcome Trust. (2013). Engaging with science. The Wellcome Trust Monitor. Retrieved from http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/stellent/groups/corporatesite/@msh_grants/documents/web_document/wtp052590.pdf
Whyte, K. P., & Crease, R. P. (2010). Trust, expertise, and the philosophy of science. Synthese, 177(3), 411–425. doi:10.1007/s11229-010-9786-3.
Wilholt, T. (2013). Epistemic trust in science. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 64, 233–253. doi:10.1093/bjps/axs007.
Wissenschaft im Dialog. (WiD). (2014). Wissenschaftsbarometer 2014. Berlin.
Wolpert, L. (1992). The unnatural nature of science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. doi:10.1016/0140-6736(93)92665-G.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix
Appendix
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hendriks, F., Kienhues, D., Bromme, R. (2016). Trust in Science and the Science of Trust. In: Blöbaum, B. (eds) Trust and Communication in a Digitized World. Progress in IS. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28059-2_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28059-2_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-28057-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-28059-2
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)