Abstract
In modern societies, one main goal for educated citizens and educators is to pursue scientific literacy. However, given the high complexity of scientific information and the fact that no single person can rely solely on their own knowledge when making science-related decisions, achieving scientific literacy is not straightforward: This chapter focuses on how people cope with these hurdles using epistemic trust as a central cognitive prerequisite. Particularly, to be able to learn and make decisions about everyday life, laypersons (trustors) must depend on the knowledge of others who know better (experts/trustees). Firstly, we describe the concept of epistemic trust, whereby we argue that epistemic trust should be considered as a learning goal for science education. Secondly, we describe trustworthiness cues that could guide laypersons through a decision on whom to trust (source judgments, language style) and which claims to believe (evidence, consensus, replication). Thirdly, we discuss the role of discursive practices (explanation, argumentation) that could enhance laypersons’ understanding of science and insights into their own limits of knowledge. Lastly, based on how epistemic trust can be enhanced through understanding trustworthiness cues and being open to active engagement in discussions about science, we offer implications for fostering epistemic trust in (higher) education.
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
References
Alfano, M., Iurino, K., Stey, P., Robinson, B., Christen, M., Yu, F., & Lapsley, D. (2017). Development and validation of a multi-dimensional measure of intellectual humility. PLoS ONE, 12(8), e0182950. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0182950.
Alter, A. L., Oppenheimer, D. M., & Zemla, J. C. (2010). Missing the trees for the forest: A construal level account of the illusion of explanatory depth. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(3), 436–451. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020218.
Barber, B. (1987). Trust in Science. Minerva, 25(1/2), 123–134.
Baron, J. (2019). Actively open-minded thinking in politics. Cognition, 188, 8–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.10.004.
Barzilai, S., & Chinn, C. A. (2017). On the goals of epistemic education: Promoting apt epistemic performance. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1, 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2017.1392968.
Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26–55. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20286.
Besley, J. C., Dudo, A., Yuan, S., & Lawrence, F. (2018). Understanding scientists’ willingness to engage. Science Communication, 40(5), 559–590. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547018786561.
Bricker, L. A., & Bell, P. (2008). Conceptualizations of argumentation from science studies and the learning sciences and their implications for the practices of science education. Science Education, 92(3), 473–498. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20278.
Bromme, R., & Goldman, S. R. (2014). The public’s bounded understanding of science. Educational Psychologist, 49(2), 59–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.921572.
Bromme, R., & Jucks, R. (2017). Discourse and expertise: The challenge of mutual understanding between experts and laypeople. In M. F. Schober, D. N. Rapp, & M. A. Britt (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of discourse processes (2nd ed., pp. 222–246). London: Routledge.
Bromme, R., Thomm, E., & Ratermann, K. (2016). Who knows? Explaining impacts on the assessment of our own knowledge and of the knowledge of experts. Zeitschrift Für Pädagogische Psychologie, 30(2–3), 97–108. https://doi.org/10.1024/1010-0652/a000175.
Burgoon, J. K., Stern, L. A., & Dillman, L. (2007). Interpersonal adaptation: Dyadic interaction patterns. Cambridge University Press.
Burkle, M., & Cobo, C. (2018). Redefining knowledge in the digital age. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 7(2), 79–80. https://doi.org/10.7821/naer.2018.7.294.
Carter, J. A., & Gordon, E. (2016). Is searching the internet making us intellectually arrogant. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.
Chinn, C. A., Barzilai, S., & Duncan, R. G. (2020). Disagreeing about how to know: The instructional value of explorations into knowing. Educational Psychologist, 55(3), 167–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2020.1786387.
Chinn, C. A., & Duncan, R. G. (2018). What is the value of general knowledge of scientific reasoning. In Scientific reasoning and argumentation: The roles of domain-specific and domain-general knowledge (pp. 77–101). https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203731826.
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453–494). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc..
Collins, H. (2015). Can we teach people what science is really like? Science Education, 99, 1049–1054. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21189.
Cook, J., Oreskes, N., Doran, P. T., Anderegg, W. R. L., Verheggen, B., Maibach, E. W., Carlton, J. S., Lewandowsky, S., Skuce, A. G., Green, S. A., Nuccitelli, D., Jacobs, P., Richardson, M., Winkler, B., Painting, R., & Rice, K. (2016). Consensus on consensus: A synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming. Environmental Research Letters, 11(4), 048002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002.
Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612453266.
Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38(1), 39–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260208560187.
Feinstein, N. (2011). Salvaging science literacy. Science Education, 95(1), 168–185. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20414.
Fernbach, P. M., Sloman, S. A., Louis, R. S., & Shube, J. N. (2013). Explanation friends and foes: How mechanistic detail determines understanding and preference. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(5), 1115–1131. https://doi.org/10.1086/667782.
Fisher, M., Goddu, M. K., & Keil, F. C. (2015). Searching for explanations: How the Internet inflates estimates of internal knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(3), 674–687. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000070.
Fisher, M., & Keil, F. C. (2016). The curse of expertise: When more knowledge leads to miscalibrated explanatory insight. Cognitive Science, 40(5), 1251–1269. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12280.
Ford, M. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92(3), 404–423. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20263.
Harris, P. L. (2012). Trusting what you’re told: How children learn from others. Harvard University Press.
Hendriks, F., & Jucks, R. (2020). Does scientific uncertainty in news articles affect readers’ trust and decision-making? Media and Communication, 8, 2824. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v8i2.2824.
Hendriks, F., & Kienhues, D. (2019). Science understanding between scientific literacy and trust: Contributions of psychological and educational research. In A. Leßmöllmann, M. Dascal, & T. Gloning (Eds.), Handbooks of communication science. Science communication (Vol. 17). Berlin: de Gruyter.
Hendriks, F., Kienhues, D., & Bromme, R. (2015). Measuring Laypeople’s trust in experts in a digital age: The Muenster epistemic trustworthiness inventory (METI). PLoS ONE, 10(10), e0139309. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139309.
Hardwig, J. (1991). The role of trust in knowledge. The Journal of Philosophy, 88(12), 693–708. https://doi.org/10.2307/2027007.
Johnston, A. M., Johnson, S. G. B., Koven, M. L., & Keil, F. C. (2017). Little Bayesians or little Einsteins? Probability and explanatory virtue in children’s inferences. Developmental Science, 20(6), e12483. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12483.
Jucks, R., & Mayweg-Paus, E. (2016). Learning through Communication: How arguing about scientific information contributes to learning. Zeitschrift Für Pädagogische Psychologie, 30(2–3), 75–77. https://doi.org/10.1024/1010-0652/a000170.
Jucks, R., & Thon, F. M. (2017). Better to have many opinions than one from an expert? Social validation by one trustworthy source versus the masses in online health forums. Computers in Human Behavior, 70, 375–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.019.
Kardash, C. M., & Edwards, O. V. (2012). Thinking and behaving like scientists: Perceptions of undergraduate science interns and their faculty mentors. Instructional Science, 40(6), 875–899. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-011-9195-0.
Kienhues, D., Jucks, R., & Bromme, R. (2020). Sealing the gateways for post-truthism: Reestablishing the epistemic authority of science. Educational Psychologist. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2020.1784012.
Kienhues, D., Thomm, E., & Bromme, R. (2018). Specificity reloaded: How multiple layers of specificity influence reasoning in science argument evaluation. In F. Fischer, C. A. Chinn, K. Engelmann, & J. Osborne (Eds.), Scientific reasoning and argumentation: The roles of domain-specific and domain-general knowledge (pp. 251–270). London: Taylor & Francis.
Kitcher, P. (2011). Public knowledge and its discontents. Theory and Research in Education, 9(2), 103–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878511409618.
Kominsky, J. F., & Keil, F. C. (2014). Overestimation of knowledge about word meanings: The “misplaced meaning” effect. Cognitive Science, 38(8), 1604–1633. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12122.
König, L., & Jucks, R. (2019a). Hot topics in science communication: Aggressive language decreases trustworthiness and credibility in scientific debates. Public Understanding of Science, 28(4), 401–416. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662519833903.
König, L., & Jucks, R. (2019b). Influence of enthusiastic language on the credibility of health information and the trustworthiness of science communicators: Insights from a between-subject web-based experiment. Interactive Journal of Medical Research, 8(3). https://doi.org/10.2196/13619.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentive reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15(3), 287–315. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1503_1.
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton University Press.
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612451018.
Lewandowsky, S., Gignac, G. E., & Vaughan, S. (2013). The pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science. Nature Climate Change, 3(4), 399–404. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1720.
Lombrozo, T. (2006). The structure and function of explanations. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(10), 464–470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.08.004.
Lynch, M. P. (2017). Teaching humility in an age of arrogance. Chronicle Review. Retrieved from https://www.chronicle.com/article/teaching-humility-in-an-age-of-arrogance/
Mayweg-Paus, E., & Jucks, R. (2018). Conflicting evidence or conflicting opinions? Two-sided expert discussions contribute to experts’ trustworthiness. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 37(2), 203–223. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X17716102.
Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(2), 57–74. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X10000968.
Mills, C. M., & Keil, F. C. (2004). Knowing the limits of one’s understanding: The development of an awareness of an illusion of explanatory depth. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 87(1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2003.09.003.
Nosek, B. A., Ebersole, C. R., DeHaven, A. C., & Mellor, D. T. (2018). The preregistration revolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(11), 2600–2606. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1708274114.
OECD. (2018). OECD science, technology and innovation outlook 2018. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Origgi, G. (2014). Epistemic trust. In Information evaluation (pp. 35–54)). Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118899151.ch2.
Priest, S. (2013). Critical science literacy: What citizens and journalists need to know to make sense of science. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 33(5–6), 138–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467614529707.
Rabb, N., Fernbach, P. M., & Sloman, S. A. (2019). Individual representation in a community of knowledge. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23(10), 891–902. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.07.011.
Renkl, A. (2002). Worked-out examples: Instructional explanations support learning by self-explanations. Learning and Instruction, 12(5), 529–556. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(01)00030-5.
Rozenblit, L., & Keil, F. (2002). The misunderstood limits of folk science: An illusion of explanatory depth. Cognitive Science, 26, 42.
Ryder, J. (2001). Identifying science understanding for functional scientific literacy. Studies in Science Education, 36(1), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260108560166.
Ryu, S., & Sandoval, W. A. (2012). Improvements to elementary children’s epistemic understanding from sustained argumentation. Science Education, 96(3), 488–526. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1435923.
Sandoval, W. A., & Morrison, K. (2003). High school students’ ideas about theories and theory change after a biological inquiry unit. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(4), 369–392. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10081.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2014). Knowledge building and knowledge creation. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 397–417). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139519526.025.
Scharrer, L., Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2014). You’d better ask an expert: Mitigating the comprehensibility effect on laypeople’s decisions about science-based knowledge claims. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(4), 465–471. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3018.
Simons, D. J. (2014). The value of direct replication. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(1), 76–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613514755
Sinatra, G. M., Kienhues, D., & Hofer, B. K. (2014). Addressing challenges to public understanding of science: Epistemic cognition, motivated reasoning, and conceptual change. Educational Psychologist, 49(2), 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.916216.
Sloman, S. A., & Rabb, N. (2016). Your understanding is my understanding: Evidence for a community of knowledge. Psychological Science, 27(11), 1451–1460. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616662271.
Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L., Macedo-Rouet, M., Rouet, J.-F., & Bromme, R. (2016). Improving vocational students’ consideration of source information when deciding about science controversies. Reading and Writing, 29(4), 705–729. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-016-9623-2.
Thiebach, M., Mayweg-Paus, E., & Jucks, R. (2015). “Probably true” says the expert: How two types of lexical hedges influence students’ evaluation of scientificness. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 30(3), 369–384. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-014-0243-4.
Thiebach, M., Mayweg-Paus, E., & Jucks, R. (2016). Better to agree or disagree? The role of critical questioning and elaboration in argumentative discourse. Zeitschrift Für Pädagogische Psychologie, 30(2–3), 133–149. https://doi.org/10.1024/1010-0652/a000174.
Thomas, G. P., & Durant, J. R. (1987). Why should we promote the public understanding of science? In M. Shortland (Ed.), Scientific literacy papers (pp. 1–14). Oxford: Rewley House.
Thon, F. M., & Jucks, R. (2016). Believing in expertise: How authors’ credentials and language use influence the credibility of online health information. Health Communication, 32(7), 828–836. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2016.1172296.
Villarroel, C., Felton, M., & Garcia-Mila, M. (2016). Arguing against confirmation bias: The effect of argumentative discourse goals on the use of disconfirming evidence in written argument. International Journal of Educational Research, 79, 167–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2016.06.009.
Ward, A. F. (2013). Supernormal: How the internet is changing our memories and our minds. Psychological Inquiry, 24(4), 341–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2013.850148.
Whitcomb, D., Battaly, H., Baehr, J., & Howard-Snyder, D. (2017). Intellectual humility: Owning our limitations.
Wingen, T., Berkessel, J. B., & Englich, B. (2020). No replication, no trust? How low replicability influences trust in psychology. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(4), 454–463. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619877412.
Wissenschaft im Dialog/Kantar Emnid. (2019). Science barometer 2019. Berlin. Available at: https://www.wissenschaft-im-dialog.de/en/our-projects/science-barometer/science-barometer-2019/.
Yousif, S. R., Aboody, R., & Keil, F. C. (2019). The illusion of consensus: A failure to distinguish between true and false consensus. Psychological Science, 30(8), 1195–1204. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797619856844.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Vaupotič, N., Kienhues, D., Jucks, R. (2021). Trust in Science and Scientists: Implications for (Higher) Education. In: Blöbaum, B. (eds) Trust and Communication. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72945-5_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72945-5_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-72944-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-72945-5
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)