The Role of Media and Deference to Scientific Authority in Cultivating Trust in Sources of Information about Emerging Technologies
Abstract
Who individuals trust for information on highly technical or scientific issues is an important issue in contemporary risk society in which social change and technological developments occur at an accelerated pace (Priest, 2008). The convergence of scientific disciplines, such as nanotechnology, biomedicine, information technologies, and cognitive science, rapidly accelerates the development of each involved domain (Khushf, 2006). Thus, the ethical implications of each technological development may be manageable individually, but on the whole they develop so rapidly that society needs a mechanism for ethically evaluating them (Khushf, 2006). Experts who specialize in technical issues become important sources of information on developments, regulation, and policy information, particularly for governmental regulatory agencies (Jasanoff, 1990). Members of the public use trust in experts to form attitudes about emerging and controversial technologies (e.g., Liu & Priest, 2009; Olofsson, Ohman, & Rashid, 2006), with reliance on trust being particularly important when knowledge about the risk issue is low (Siegrist & Cvetkovich, 2000).
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
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Lee, C.-J., & Scheufele, D. A. (2006) · Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly · doi:10.1177/107769900608300406 · Cited by 103 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A review of the effects of uncertainty in public science communication
Gustafson, A., & Rice, R. E. (2020) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/0963662520942122 · Cited by 291 · see citing works
Fostering public trust in science: The role of social media
Huber, B., Barnidge, M., Gil de Zúñiga, H., & Liu, J. (2019) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/0963662519869097 · Cited by 231 · see citing works
Communicating science in social settings
Scheufele, D. A. (2013) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1213275110 · Cited by 231 · see citing works
Self-citationThe Effects of Uncertainty Frames in Three Science Communication Topics
Gustafson, A., & Rice, R. E. (2019) · Science Communication · doi:10.1177/1075547019870811 · Cited by 151 · see citing works
Opposing ends of the spectrum: Exploring trust in scientific and religious authorities
Cacciatore, M. A., Browning, N., Scheufele, D. A., Brossard, D., Xenos, M. A., & Corley, E. A. (2018) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/0963662516661090 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
Self-citationSanz-Menéndez, L., & Cruz-Castro, L. (2019) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/0963662519840946 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
Milella, F., & Cabitza, F. (2026) · Machine Learning and Knowledge Extraction · doi:10.3390/make8020036 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
- Authors
- Anderson, A. A., Scheufele, D. A., Brossard, D., & Corley, E. A.
- Affiliations
- University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
- Venue
- International Journal of Public Opinion Research
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2011-08-25
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 225-237
- ISSN
- 0954-2892 (ISSN-L)
- 1471-6909
- OpenAlex
- W2004120358
- Cited by
- 122
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 14.99
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Journal of Public Opinion Research (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
- Social Sciences › Communication › Media Studies and Communication
- Social Sciences › Communication › Communication and COVID-19 Impact
- Keywords
- trust in experts, scientific authority, media influence, emerging technologies, risk communication, nanotechnology, biomedicine, information technology, cognitive science, regulatory agencies, public attitudes toward technology
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
