Trust in Science and the Science of Trust

  • Friederike Hendriks
  • Dorothe Kienhues
  • Rainer Bromme
Part of the Progress in IS book series (PROIS)


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.


Epistemic trust Trust in science Trust Public understanding of science Science communication Division of cognitive labor 


  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barber, B. (1987). Trust in science. Minerva, 25(1–2), 123–134. doi: 10.1007/s11999-014-3488-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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).Google Scholar
  5. 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.Google Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.
  9. 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.Google Scholar
  10. 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
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cummings, L. (2014). The “trust” heuristic: Arguments from authority in public health. Health Communication, 34(1), 1–14. doi: 10.1080/10410236.2013.831685.Google Scholar
  15. Daston, L., & Galison, P. (2007). Objectivity. New York: Zone Books.Google Scholar
  16. European Commission. (2013). Eurobarometer. Brussels. doi: 10.4232/1.11873.
  17. 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.Google Scholar
  18. Feinstein, N. (2011). Salvaging science literacy. Science Education, 95(1), 168–185. doi: 10.1002/sce.20414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hardwig, J. (1991). The role of trust in knowledge. The Journal of Philosophy, 88(12), 693–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Harris, P. L. (2012). Trusting what you’re told. Cambridge, MA: Belknap of Harvard UP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hendriks, F., Kienhues, D., & Bromme, R. (2015b). Disclose your flaws! Admission enhances perceptions of trustworthiness of an expert blogger. Manuscript Submitted for Publication.Google Scholar
  23. Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. H. (1953). Communication and persuasion. Psychological issues of opinion change. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Keil, F. C. (2010). The feasibility of folk science. Cognitive Science, 34(5), 826–862. doi: 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01108.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Longino, H. E. (2002). The fate of knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Mascaro, O., & Sperber, D. (2009). The moral, epistemic, and mindreading components of children’s vigilance towards deception. Cognition, 112, 367–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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.Google Scholar
  35. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Origgi, G. (2004). Is trust an epistemological notion? Episteme, 1(1), 61–72. doi: 10.3366/epi.2004.1.1.61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Origgi, G. (2010). Epistemic vigilance and epistemic responsibility in the liquid world of scientific publications. Social Epistemology, 24(3), 149–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Origgi, G. (2012). Epistemic injustice and epistemic trust. Social Epistemology, 26(2), 221–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Origgi, G. (2014). Epistemic trust. In P. Capet & T. Delavallade (Eds.), Information evaluation (1st ed., pp. 35–54). London: Wiley-ISTE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pew Research Center. (2015). Public and scientists’ views on science and society.Google Scholar
  43. Rapp, C. (2010). Aristotle’s rhetoric. Retrieved from
  44. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rolin, K. (2002). Gender and trust in science. Hypathia, 17(4).Google Scholar
  46. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stapel, D. (2012). Ontsporing. Amsterdam: Prometheus.Google Scholar
  50. Tseng, S., & Fogg, B. (1999). Credibility and computing technology. Communications of the ACM, 42(5), 39–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Vetenskap and Allmanhet. (2015). VA Barometer 2014/15. Stockholm.Google Scholar
  52. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wellcome Trust. (2013). Engaging with science. The Wellcome Trust Monitor. Retrieved from
  54. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wilholt, T. (2013). Epistemic trust in science. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 64, 233–253. doi: 10.1093/bjps/axs007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wissenschaft im Dialog. (WiD). (2014). Wissenschaftsbarometer 2014. Berlin.Google Scholar
  57. Wolpert, L. (1992). The unnatural nature of science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(93)92665-G.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Friederike Hendriks
    • 1
  • Dorothe Kienhues
    • 1
  • Rainer Bromme
    • 1
  1. 1.University of MünsterMünsterGermany

Personalised recommendations