Trust in Science and the Science of Trust
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.
KeywordsEpistemic trust Trust in science Trust Public understanding of science Science communication Division of cognitive labor
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- 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
- Daston, L., & Galison, P. (2007). Objectivity. New York: Zone Books.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- Longino, H. E. (2002). The fate of knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- Pew Research Center. (2015). Public and scientists’ views on science and society.Google Scholar
- Rapp, C. (2010). Aristotle’s rhetoric. Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-rhetoric/
- Rolin, K. (2002). Gender and trust in science. Hypathia, 17(4).Google Scholar
- Stapel, D. (2012). Ontsporing. Amsterdam: Prometheus.Google Scholar
- Vetenskap and Allmanhet. (2015). VA Barometer 2014/15. Stockholm.Google Scholar
- 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
- Wissenschaft im Dialog. (WiD). (2014). Wissenschaftsbarometer 2014. Berlin.Google Scholar