The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Social Indicators of Trust in the Age of Informational Chaos
Open accessAbstract
Expert knowledge regularly informs personal and civic-decision making. To decide which experts to trust, lay publics —including policymakers and experts from other domains—use different epistemic and non-epistemic cues. Epistemic cues such as honesty, like when experts are forthcoming about conflicts of interest, are a popular way of understanding how people evaluate and decide which experts to trust. However, many other epistemic cues, like the evidence supporting information from experts, are inaccessible to lay publics. Therefore, lay publics simultaneously use second-order social cues in their environment to inform decisions to trust. These second-order social cues, or ‘social indicators of trust’, prevent lay publics from having to trust blindly. Social indicators of trust therefore inform lay publics’ epistemic vigilance, or constant low level-monitoring of testimony from experts. This special issue examines the nature, acquisition and application of social indicators of trust for scientific experts and institutions. It also raises questions about the types of trust asked of lay publics and challenges traditional normative assumptions about the relationship between science and lay publics through study of attitudes, values, and experiences. The issue descriptively re-examines the structure of institutions, their role and methods for ferrying information, as well as how social indicators operate in times of crisis. In this collection of works, we bridge history, science, philosophy of science, science and technology studies, science communication and social epistemology, to broaden the discourse on trust in experts and more accurately reflect the imperfect yet indispensable endeavour that trusting is.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Rather, in situations where students' disciplinary knowledge is limited, they can still engage with information critically by using second-order evaluations to decide who and what to believe (Allchin, 2022(Allchin, , 2023;;Branch & Origgi, 2022;Goldman, 2001;Osborne & Pimentel, 2023).”
From Learning to evaluate sources of science (mis)information on the internet: Assessing students' scientific online reasoning (2025) · cites this paper as Branch & Origgi, 2022
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology
Portes, A. (1998) · Annual Review of Sociology · doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.24.1.1 · Cited by 12,037 · cited 1×
“…et al. 2005; Sabatini 2015), it is referred to as all the ‘features of social life’ including networks, norms and values as well as the trust that allows people to act together to pursue common goals leading to behavioural outcomes (Coleman 1990; Putnam, Leonardi, and Nanetti 1993; Portes 1998).”
BackgroundSPERBER, D., CLÉMENT, F., HEINTZ, C., MASCARO, O., MERCIER, H., ORIGGI, G., & WILSON, D. (2010) · Mind & Language · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0017.2010.01394.x · Cited by 1,795
Self-citationPredicting Cross-National Levels of Social Trust: Global Pattern or Nordic Exceptionalism?
Delhey, J., & Newton, K. (2005) · European Sociological Review · doi:10.1093/esr/jci022 · Cited by 1,267 · cited 1×
“In both the original approach to social indicators of trust and ours, thin or generalized trust is regarded as the beliefs people hold about how others, particularly those they do not know, will act towards them (Uslaner 2002; Delhey and Newton 2005; Nannestad 2008).”
Background
Research works printed but not linked: 37
- 10.3366/epi.2011.0013 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1007/s11205-015-1220-2 · DOI
- 10.1080/17448689.2016.1176730 · DOI
- 10.1086/292745 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1007/s11205-011-9971-x · DOI
- Coleman James S., 1990, Foundations of Social Theory
- 10.1111/1467-6435.00208 · DOI
- 10.1186/s12889-015-2437-3 · DOI
- 10.1080/1461669032000072256 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.4324/9780429326769-52 · DOI
- 10.2307/2579568 · DOI
- Fukuyama Francis., 1995, Trust: Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity
- 10.1057/palcomms.2016.77 · DOI
- 10.2307/3071090 · DOI
- 10.2307/2026523 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1080/00048409412345881 · DOI
- 10.1007/978-3-030-44018-3_4 · DOI
- 10.1162/003355300555475 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1093/bjps/axy053 · DOI
- 10.1007/s11205-021-02847-9 · DOI
- Land Kenneth C., 1971, The American Sociologist, 6, 322
- 10.1007/s11205-017-1571-y · DOI
- 10.1177/000312240406900607 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.05.033 · DOI
- 10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.060606.135412 · DOI
- 10.3366/epi.2004.1.1.61 · DOI
- 10.1145/358916.361990 · DOI
- 10.1093/0195150899.001.0001 · DOI
- 10.2307/j.ctt7s8r7 · DOI
- Sabatini Fabio, 2015, Journal of Economic Literature, 53, 371, 10.1257/jel.53.2.360.r8 · DOI
- 10.1007/s11205-018-1887-2 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.socec.2009.10.010 · DOI
- 10.1007/BF00145195 · DOI
- Uphoff Norman., 2000, Social Capital: A Multifaceted Perspective, 215
- 10.1017/CBO9780511614934 · DOI
- 10.1093/bjps/axs007 · DOI
- 10.1016/J.SOCSCIMED.2004.04.027 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Pimentel, D. R. (2025) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.21974 · Cited by 28
Metadata
- Authors
- Branch, T. Y., & Origgi, G.
- Affiliations
- Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
- Corresponding author
- Branch, T. Y.
- Venue
- Social Epistemology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2022-09-03
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 533-540
- ISSN
- 0269-1728 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-5297
- OpenAlex
- W4296985370
- Cited by
- 4
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1
- FWCI
- 4.49
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Social Epistemology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) (submittedVersion)
- HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR-17-EURE-0017)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Education, Healthcare and Sociology Research
- Keywords
- trust in experts, epistemic vigilance, lay public, research institutions, science communication, crisis, conflicts of interest, epistemic trust
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review