Cited by 4Epistemology, Ethics, and MetaphysicsRisk Perception and ManagementEducation, Healthcare and Sociology Research

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 access
Branch, T. Y., Origgi, Gloria·2022·Social Epistemology

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/02691728.2022.2121622

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 37

  1. 10.3366/epi.2011.0013 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1007/s11205-015-1220-2 · DOI
  3. 10.1080/17448689.2016.1176730 · DOI
  4. 10.1086/292745 · DOI · Paper page
  5. 10.1007/s11205-011-9971-x · DOI
  6. Coleman James S., 1990, Foundations of Social Theory
  7. 10.1111/1467-6435.00208 · DOI
  8. 10.1186/s12889-015-2437-3 · DOI
  9. 10.1080/1461669032000072256 · DOI · Paper page
  10. 10.4324/9780429326769-52 · DOI
  11. 10.2307/2579568 · DOI
  12. Fukuyama Francis., 1995, Trust: Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity
  13. 10.1057/palcomms.2016.77 · DOI
  14. 10.2307/3071090 · DOI
  15. 10.2307/2026523 · DOI · Paper page
  16. 10.1080/00048409412345881 · DOI
  17. 10.1007/978-3-030-44018-3_4 · DOI
  18. 10.1162/003355300555475 · DOI · Paper page
  19. 10.1093/bjps/axy053 · DOI
  20. 10.1007/s11205-021-02847-9 · DOI
  21. Land Kenneth C., 1971, The American Sociologist, 6, 322
  22. 10.1007/s11205-017-1571-y · DOI
  23. 10.1177/000312240406900607 · DOI
  24. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.05.033 · DOI
  25. 10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.060606.135412 · DOI
  26. 10.3366/epi.2004.1.1.61 · DOI
  27. 10.1145/358916.361990 · DOI
  28. 10.1093/0195150899.001.0001 · DOI
  29. 10.2307/j.ctt7s8r7 · DOI
  30. Sabatini Fabio, 2015, Journal of Economic Literature, 53, 371, 10.1257/jel.53.2.360.r8 · DOI
  31. 10.1007/s11205-018-1887-2 · DOI · Paper page
  32. 10.1016/j.socec.2009.10.010 · DOI
  33. 10.1007/BF00145195 · DOI
  34. Uphoff Norman., 2000, Social Capital: A Multifaceted Perspective, 215
  35. 10.1017/CBO9780511614934 · DOI
  36. 10.1093/bjps/axs007 · DOI
  37. 10.1016/J.SOCSCIMED.2004.04.027 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 4

Metadata

Authors
Branch, T. Y., & Origgi, G.
Affiliations
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
Corresponding author
Branch, T. Y.
Venue
Social Epistemology
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
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