Measuring Laypeople’s Trust in Experts in a Digital Age: The Muenster Epistemic Trustworthiness Inventory (METI)

“To evaluate the model fit, we used directives given by Schreiber and colleagues [49].”

“When developing the inventory, we took into account previous work on scales measuring credibility [27,29], but adapted this to fit the theoretical ideas underlying the concept of epistemic trustworthiness.”

“More recently, science communication scholarship has found these necessary contributors to trust to persist when measuring public trust in experts in the current digital age (Besley et al., 2021; Hendriks et al., 2015).”

“34 Corner et al. 2018 35 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2017; Hendriks et al. 2015 36 Saffran et al. 2020; Dudman & de Wit 2021 something to lose, be it wasted time, facing personal attacks, or embarrassment.37 While scientists may be reluctant to communicate in order to…”

“The participants rated how much they trusted the SDS as a source of knowledge using the Münster Epistemic Trustworthiness Inventory (METI; [53]).”

“…fi ndings in Study 1 are the result of an e ff ective manipulation of the ABI components because the manipulations were validated in prior work (e.g. Hendriks et al., 2015) and because everything other than the manipulations was held constant in our study due to the highly controlled experimental…”

“Hendriks et al. (2015) argue that multiple dimensions should be tapped, including expertise, integrity, and benevolence.”

“This vulnerability can be mediated by deciding whom to trust for scientific knowledge, which in turn builds on anticipations and evaluations of both the trustworthiness of scientists (Hendriks et al., 2015), and the perceived credibility of scientific information (Fiske & Dupree, 2014).”

“Theorists have shown that source credibility comprises several dimensions (Eisend, 2006), including competence/expertise, integrity/trustworthiness, and benev-olence/goodwill (e.g. Hendriks et al., 2015).”

“First, as emphasized in work on epistemic beliefs, students did value expert authority, at least to an extent (Hendriks et al., 2015).”

“After reading the text, participants responded to the survey measures in the following order: emotions about the text, topic-specific intellectual humility, willingness to act and Muenster Epistemic Trustworthiness Inventory (METI).”

“…of Science literature, from the classic measure of promise of science and reservations about science (Miller et al., 1997), to recent developments in trustworthiness of scientists (Besley et al., 2021; Hendriks et al., 2015; Reif and Guenther, 2021) and science-related populism (Mede et al., 2022).”

“, open access education science journals, open educational resources, science-related blogs, or blogs from colleagues) and may be inaccurate due to unavailable gatekeeping mechanisms (Metzger and Flanagin, 2013; Hendriks et al., 2015).”

“Accordingly, the trustworthiness of the YouTuber was assessed with the Muenster Epistemic Trustworthiness Inventory (METI: Hendriks et al., 2015).”

“Previous literature has either focused on lay readers’ perceived trust of text authors (Hendriks et al., 2015, 2016a, 2016b; König and Jucks, 2019; Merk and Rosman, 2019) or text credibility (Bromme et al., 2015; Kerwer et al., 2021a; Scharrer et al., 2013, 2019; Thomm and Bromme, 2012; Winter et…”

“The participants rated how much they trusted the physician as a source of knowledge using the Münster Epistemic Trustworthiness Inventory (Hendriks et al., 2015).”

“Vlogger’s epistemic trustworthiness was assessed with the Muenster Epistemic Trustworthiness Inventory (METI) [16].”

“Rather, it involves epistemic vigilance: a balance between openness to learning and caution against the risks of deception or misinformation (Hendriks, Kienhues, and Bromme 2015; Sperber et al. 2010).”

“Scientific literacy describes individuals’ ability to understand and apply scientific concepts, and to develop scientific skills, including critically analysing science claims and factors influencing their legitimacy, such as domain-specific expertise and vested interests 28,33 .”

“Our division into “evidence-based knowledge” and “experi-ence knowledge” is supported by theory and previous research (Hendriks, Kienhues, Bromme, & Wicherts, 2015; Lee, 2014; Svensson, 2016), as well as participants’ open responses.”

“Diese Merkmale konnten als Dimensionen von Vertrauenszuschreibungen zu Wissenschaftler:innen auch empirisch unterschieden werden (Hendriks et al. 2015).”

“Public trust in the transparency and reliability of scientific evidence is an important component of effective responses to major challenges and crises (Hendriks et al., 2015; Pittinsky, 2015).”

“Established measurement instruments on epistemic trustworthiness (e.g., the Münster Epistemic Trustworthiness Inventory [METI]; Hendriks et al., 2015) often operationalize trust and distrust, along the dimensions outlined above, as opposite ends of three continuous variables (i.e., expertise,…”

“…et al. 2014): Dies könnte dadurch erklärt werden, dass externe Informationen oft genutzt werden, wenn Personen eher wenig Wissen auf einem Gebiet haben und dementsprechend auch keine Möglichkeit besitzen, die Validität der Quelle zu beurteilen, auf die sie sich verlassen (Hendriks et al. 2015).”

“Moreover, they utilised the METI scale (Hendriks et al., 2015) to evaluate students’ perceptions of the feedback provider’s competency, considering evaluation dimensions such as expertise, integrity, and benevolence.”

“The dimension of benevolence refers to sci-ence’s orientation toward ethical norms and moral values as well as awareness of its responsibility to society (see also Hendriks et al., 2015).”

“When evaluating the author ’ s intentions, readers can consider whether the author offers the highest-quality information, without being driven by personal interests or agendas (Hendriks et al., 2015).”

“Moreover, conceptualizations that target expert credibility more speci fi cally are scarce (e.g., Haynes et al. , 2011; Hendriks et al. , 2015).”

“For epistemic trustworthiness, they followed prior research conceptualizing the characteristics that determine the trustworthiness of a source of science information as expertise, integrity, and benevolence (Hendriks et al., 2015).”

“This factor represents participants’ impressions regarding whether the scientist acts with the interests of others at heart and not just personal aims or benefit” (Hendriks et al., 2015, p. 16).”

“Such research should also reexamine the relationship between direct democracy and trusting experts as well as what trustworthiness of experts means with regard to democratic decision-making (Hendriks et al., 2015).”

“…et al., 2017) referring to the (un)willingness to accept vulnerability and (not) rely on a person or entity based upon positive (or negative) expectations and evaluations of scientists’ expertise, integrity, and benevolence (Hendriks et al.,2015, 2016; Mayer et al., 1995; Rousseau et al., 1998).”

“Discovering that social evaluations (competence and morality primarily) predict trust in scientists is in line with various trust models that assume the central role of social evaluations in trust (Besley et al., 2021; Hendriks et al., 2015; Mayer et al., 1995).”

“Within the literature on learning from multiple texts, such evaluation has most commonly been examined as based on source , or author, trustworthiness (List et al., 2022; Bråten et al., 2009; Hendriks et al., 2015).”

“Vertrauen in Experten entsteht einem psychologischen Modell zufolge, wenn Nicht-Experten ihnen Können/Expertise, Integrität und gute Absichten/Wohlwollen zuschreiben (Mayer et al. 1995; Hendriks et al. 2015).”

“For example, Hendriks et al. (2015) suggest distinguishing between expertise/competence, integrity, and benevolence, while Besley et al. (2021) add openness.”

“This is because trustors always rely on trustees to assume concrete risks, which involve situational, interactionist and agential components (Hendriks et al., 2015 ; Cummings, 2014 ; Peters et al., 1997).”

“But competence is also bound up with reputation and expertise (Hendriks et al., 2015; Turcotte et al., 2015; Utz & Wolfers, 2022).”

“…Kahan, 2017), science communication sources (Scheufele and Krause, 2019), perceptions and social evaluations of scientists (Gligorić et al., 2022; Hendriks et al., 2015), and attitudes toward specific science products, such as vaccines (Andrade, 2020; Edy and Risley-Baird, 2016; Paul et al.,…”

“It might also be important to communicate to try to foster beliefs about relevant scientists’ trustworthiness (i.e., benevolence, integrity, and ability beliefs) (Hendriks et al., 2015).”

“However, other measures that address qualities such as the experience, pro-fessionality, sincerity, and consideration of readers’ benefit (e.g., Hendriks et al., 2015) could potentially apply to diverse sources.”

“Trust in experts and the public’s willingness to follow their guidance depend on three key factors: the experts’ competence (expertise), motivation (alignment of interests), and goodwill (integrity and benevolence) (Hendriks et al., 2015).”

“While previous studies have explored how source credibility cues impact the acceptance of a message through persuasion, proficient Internet readers must go beyond superficial cues to assess trustworthiness (Brante & Strømsø, 2018; Hendriks et al., 2015).”

“(Chen et al., 2023; Hendriks et al., 2015) Social Distance I feel that the lifestyle of online shopping recommenders is similar to mine.”

“With regard to trust strategies, we refer to various theoretical frameworks that identify appropriate indicators for trust strategies used by laypeople (Allchin & Zemplén, 2020; Anderson, 2011; Bromme & Kienhues, 2014; Hendriks et al., 2015).”

“Following Hendriks et al.’s (28) work, the present study conceptualizes the trustworthiness of experts as the totality of expertise (e.g., knowledge), integrity (e.g., honesty), and benevolence (e.g., good intention).”

“More recently, Hendriks et al. (2015) proposed an inventory to measure laypeople’s trust in experts on the same dimensions.”

“More common perspectives toward expertise have been researched through concepts of trust (e.g. Cummings, 2014; Hendriks et al. , 2015) and attitudes (Dommett and Pearce, 2019).”

“Other areas where the current research line could advance and address its limitations include building out the measurement of key constructs – especially the trust in engagement practitioners measures (e.g. Hendriks et al., 2015) – and potentially increasing the specificity of the focus.”

“Perceived trustworthiness of psychologists was examined through the Muenster Epistemic Trustworthiness Inventory, a 6-item scale adapted from Hendriks et al. (2015) with two items for each dimension (i.e., ability, benevolence, and integrity).”

“In contrast, for other scientific fields, the trustworthiness of scientists (Hendriks et al., 2015, 2016), scientific controversies (Anvari & Lakens, 2018; Koehler, 2016), or simply whether the research topics seem interesting (Sachisthal et al., 2020) may be more central for public attitudes.”