Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

What Shapes Our Trust in Scientific Information? A Review of Factors Influencing Perceived Scientificness and Credibility

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Information Experience and Information Literacy (ECIL 2023)

Part of the book series: Communications in Computer and Information Science ((CCIS,volume 2043))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 205 Accesses

Abstract

Science literacy is a crucial part of information literacy, enabling individuals to understand and critically evaluate scientific information and arguments. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need for science literacy skills to navigate the vast amount of information available, and to understand and engage with scientific issues that impact society. The perceived scientificness of information is closely related to its credibility, but something that appears scientific may not be accurate or true. Pseudoscience can be used to claim scientificness and credibility for something that is not scientific. This paper reviews the scientific literature on factors that can mislead individuals into thinking information is credible or scientific when it is not. By understanding these factors, individuals can become more discerning consumers of scientific information and better equipped to make informed decisions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    https://openknowledgemaps.org

  2. 2.

    https://www.researchrabbit.ai/

  3. 3.

    https://elicit.org/

  4. 4.

    https://www.mturk.com/

References

  1. Liu, X.: Beyond science literacy: science and the public. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Educ. 4, 301–311 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  2. National Research Council, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Board on Science Education, Center for Education, Committee on Science Learning, Duschl, R.A., Schweingruber, H.A., Shouse, A.W.: Taking Science to School. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. (2007). https://doi.org/10.17226/11625

  3. Loomba, S., de Figueiredo, A., Piatek, S.J., de Graaf, K., Larson, H.J.: Measuring the impact of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation on vaccination intent in the UK and USA. Nat. Hum. Behav. 5, 337–348 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01056-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Miller, J.D.: Public understanding of, and attitudes toward, scientific research: what we know and what we need to know. Public Underst. Sci. 13, 273–294 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662504044908

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Mujayapura, M.R.R., Suryadi, K., Sardin, S.: COVID-19 misinformation: how does scientific information literacy prevent it? PEDAGOGIK: Jurnal Pendidikan 8(1), 39–76 (2021). https://doi.org/10.33650/pjp.v8i1.2167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Allum, N., Sturgis, P., Tabourazi, D., Brunton-Smith, I.: Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: a meta-analysis. Public Underst. Sci. 17, 35–54 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662506070159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Thomm, E., Bromme, R.: “It should at least seem scientific!” textual features of “scientificness” and their impact on lay assessments of online information. Sci. Educ. 96, 187–211 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20480

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Zaboski, B.A., Therriault, D.J.: Faking science: scientificness, credibility, and belief in pseudoscience. Educ. Psychol. 40, 820–837 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2019.1694646

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. O’Brien, T.C., Palmer, R., Albarracin, D.: Misplaced trust: when trust in science fosters belief in pseudoscience and the benefits of critical evaluation. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 96, 104184 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2021.104184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hahn, O., Lemke, S., Mazarakis, A., Peters, I.: Which visual elements make texts appear scientific? An empirical analysis. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Mensch und Computer, pp. 61–65. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (2020). https://doi.org/10.1145/3404983.3410014

  11. Tal, A., Wansink, B.: Blinded with science: trivial graphs and formulas increase ad persuasiveness and belief in product efficacy. Public Underst. Sci. 25, 117–125 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662514549688

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Isberner, M.-B., Richter, T., Maier, J., Knuth-Herzig, K., Horz, H., Schnotz, W.: Comprehending conflicting science-related texts: graphs as plausibility cues. Instr. Sci. 41, 849–872 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-012-9261-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kessler, S., Reifegerste, D., Guenther, L.: Die Evidenzkraft von Bildern in der Wissenschaftskommunikation. In: Wissenschaftskommunikation zwischen Risiko und (Un-)Sicherheit. pp. 171–192. Herbert von Halem Verlag, Köln (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Gruber, D., Dickerson, J.A.: Persuasive images in popular science: testing judgments of scientific reasoning and credibility. Public Underst. Sci. 21, 938–948 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662512454072

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. McCabe, D.P., Castel, A.D.: Seeing is believing: the effect of brain images on judgments of scientific reasoning. Cognition 107, 343–352 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.07.017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Wittwer, J., Bromme, R., Jucks, R.: Kann man dem Internet trauen, wenn es um die Gesundheit geht? Die Glaubwürdigkeitsbeurteilung medizinischer Fachinformationen im Internet durch Laien. Z. Für Medien. 16, 48–56 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1026/1617-6383.16.2.48

  17. Eriksson, K.: The nonsense math effect. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 7, 746–749 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Baesler, E.J.: Persuasive effects of story and statistical evidence. Argum. Advocacy. 33, 170–175 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.1997.11978016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Salvador-Mata, B., Cortiñas-Rovira, S.: Pharmacists’ attitudes to and perceptions of pseudoscience: how pseudoscience operates in health and social communication. Soc. Work Public Health. 35, 321–333 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1080/19371918.2020.1785983

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Thiebach, M., Mayweg-Paus, E., Jucks, R.: “Probably true” says the expert: how two types of lexical hedges influence students’ evaluation of scientificness. Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 30, 369–384 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-014-0243-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Bromme, R., Scharrer, L., Stadtler, M., Hömberg, J., Torspecken, R.: Is it believable when it’s scientific? How scientific discourse style influences laypeople’s resolution of conflicts: discourse style and lay conflict resolution. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 52, 36–57 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Jensen, J.D.: Scientific uncertainty in news coverage of cancer research: effects of hedging on scientists and journalists credibility. Hum. Commun. Res. 34, 347–369 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2008.00324.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kerwer, M., Chasiotis, A., Stricker, J., Günther, A., Rosman, T.: Straight from the scientist’s mouth—plain language summaries promote laypeople’s comprehension and knowledge acquisition when reading about individual research findings in psychology. Collabra Psychol. 7, 18898 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.18898

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. König, L., Jucks, R.: Effects of positive language and profession on trustworthiness and credibility in online health advice: experimental study. J. Med. Internet Res. 22, e16685 (2020). https://doi.org/10.2196/16685

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Scharrer, L., Britt, M.A., Stadtler, M., Bromme, R.: Easy to understand but difficult to decide: information comprehensibility and controversiality affect laypeople’s science-based decisions. Discourse Process. 50, 361–387 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2013.813835

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Krull, D.S., Silvera, D.H.: The stereotyping of science: superficial details influence perceptions of what is scientific: stereotyping of science. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 43, 1660–1667 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Crismore, A., Vande Kopple, W.J.: Readers’ learning from prose: the effects of hedges. Writ. Commun. 5, 184–202 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088388005002004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Gustafson, A., Rice, R.E.: A review of the effects of uncertainty in public science communication. Public Underst. Sci. 29, 614–633 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662520942122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Boothby, C., Murray, D., Waggy, A.P., Tsou, A., Sugimoto, C.R.: Credibility of scientific information on social media: variation by platform, genre and presence of formal credibility cues. Quant. Sci. Stud. 2, 845–863 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Bonney, R., Phillips, T.B., Ballard, H.L., Enck, J.W.: Can citizen science enhance public understanding of science? Public Underst. Sci. 25, 2–16 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515607406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Golumbic, Y.N., Dalyot, K., Barel-Ben David, Y., Keller, M.: Establishing an everyday scientific reasoning scale to learn how non-scientists reason with science. Public Underst. Sci. 32, 40–55 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625221098539

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Løvlie, A.S., Waagstein, A., Hyldgård, P.: “How trustworthy is this research?” designing a tool to help readers understand evidence and uncertainty in science journalism. Digit. J. 11, 431–464 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2023.2193344

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research as part of the “Agile research – Recognizing and combating digital disinformation campaigns” measure (funding code: 16KIS1528K).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, Web Science Department, Kiel, Germany

    Maria Henkel, Armin Jacob & Lennart Perrey

Authors
  1. Maria Henkel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Armin Jacob
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lennart Perrey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maria Henkel .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Hacettepe University, Ankara, Türkiye

    Serap Kurbanoğlu

  2. University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia

    Sonja Špiranec

  3. Université Gustav Eiffel, Paris, France

    Joumana Boustany

  4. Hacettepe University, Ankara, Türkiye

    Yurdagül Ünal

  5. Hacettepe University, Ankara, Türkiye

    İpek Şencan

  6. University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia

    Denis Kos

  7. University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Esther Grassian

  8. University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Diane Mizrachi

  9. The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA

    Loriene Roy

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Henkel, M., Jacob, A., Perrey, L. (2024). What Shapes Our Trust in Scientific Information? A Review of Factors Influencing Perceived Scientificness and Credibility. In: Kurbanoğlu, S., et al. Information Experience and Information Literacy. ECIL 2023. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 2043. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-52998-6_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-52998-6_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-52997-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-52998-6

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation