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.”

“Perceived source competence was measured using five 7-point semantic differential items (experienced-inexperienced, expert-inexpert, compe-tent-incompetent, poorly trained–well trained, and informed-uninformed [12,55]).”

“The fi rst three measures were designed to assess trust in the target, with six items measuring expertise-based trust, four items measuring integrity-based trust, and four items measuring benevolence-based trust 35 .”

“Our scale is similar to a recently developed scale [21] that considers and combines items and ideas of established instruments (in particular: [36,45,66,85]).”

“This approach delves into various perceptions of trustworthiness (Besley & Tiffany, 2023; Hendriks et al., 2015), also sometimes referred to as dimensions of trust (Besley et al., 2021; Reif & Guenther, 2022).”

“In today’s digital landscape, freely accessible scientific videos and podcasts exist alongside unreliable media [1].”

“Aside this, the participants could indicate how competent in terms of expertise , integrity , and benevolence they rated their partner, using the Muenster Epistemic Trustworthiness Inventory (Hendriks et al., 2015, 2017).”

“In the same vein, these findings are in line with the epistemic trust framework (Hendriks et al., 2015): researchers being perceived as more ethical may go hand in hand with higher perceived integrity and a feeling that they work for the benefits of the society (i.e., benevolence).”

“In the same vein, conceptualizations of the epistemic trustworthiness of scientists (METI; Hendriks et al., 2015; Wintterlin et al., 2022) also include three dimensions – expertise, integrity, and benevolence.”

“Hendriks, Kienhues, and Bromme (2015) suggest an interesting distinction between credibility, as conceptualized in persuasion research, and epistemic trustworthiness, with the latter concept more closely linked to evaluation of expertise in knowledge domains.”

“Trustworthiness, in turn, arises from perceptions of competence, benevolence, and integrity (Hendriks et al., 2015; Mayer et al., 1995), but other dimensions, such as honesty and transparency, have also been proposed (Renn, 2022; Siegrist, 2021).”

“Related work demonstrates that acknowledging uncertainty can increase trust by reducing attributions of communicator bias — especially when admissions are self-disclosed — although perceived expertise may take a small hit (Grant, 2023; Hendriks et al., 2015, 2017a).”

“Trust in experts (Hendriks et al., 2015) concerns laypeople’s willingness to defer to expert testimony based on perceived competence, benevolence, and integrity.”

“Participants rated the trustworthiness of Dr. [redacted] using the 14-item Muenster Epistemic Trustworthiness Inventory (METI; Hendriks et al., 2015).”

“For example, trust in science has been described as epistemic trust, focusing more strongly on scienti fi c knowledge 15 ,orasinstitutionaltrust,referringtotheinstitutionalizednature of science 38,53 .”

“However, there is a risk that the knowledge provided by the trust object may be incorrect (Hendriks et al., 2015 ).”

“Expertise (6 items), Integrity (4 items), and Benevolence (4 items) were measured using the Muenster Epistemic Trustworthiness Inventory (METI) [33].”

“This suggests that a researcher’s perceived integrity and benevolence, which connect to bias or morality (Hendriks et al. 2015; Besley et al. 2021), are particularly vulnerable to ad hominem attacks.”

“To measure public trust in science, we use the framework by Reif et al. (2024), building on Hendriks et al. (2015).”

“25,63,64 They can either serve as a heuristic 65 or are associated with known components of trustworthiness, that is, competence, integrity, and benevolence 66 — both was re fl ected in our results.”

“Expertise captures perceived competence and relevant knowledge, integrity concerns whether the expert is perceived as adhering to appropriate principles or professional standards, and benevolence concerns perceived goodwill toward the person affected by the expert’s actions [20].”

“Studies of such trust/distrust dynamics differentiate multiple dimensions of trust: the public separately evaluating the competence, integrity, and benevolence of scientists and research institutions (Muenster Epistemic Trustworthiness Inventory, METI, (Hendriks et al., 2015)).”

“This phenomenon is consistent with the findings of Hendriks et al. (2015) and Pandey et al. (2026), who found that epistemic trust in digital systems tends to become excessive when information is presented in a systematic and persuasive manner.”

“…the likelihood that people turn to scientists for advice on risk-related questions (i.e., behavioral or relational trust as a goal) may need people to see scientists as trustworthy, including high in ability (i.e., expertise), benevolence (i.e., caring), and integrity (Hendriks et al. 2015 ).”

“In lay-audience research, perceived warmth is among the strongest predictors of whether information from an expert source is accepted as legitimate 22 .”

“Among the most established measures are the Hu-man±Computer Trust Scale (HCTS) [3] and the MÈunster Epistemic Trustworthiness Inventory (METI) [4].”

“Therefore, communication strategies should move beyond one-way dissemination of numerical data and instead prioritize rebuilding trust by conveying transparency, integrity, and benevolence, as emphasized by Hendriks et al. [34].”

“Following the stimulus, participants rated the researcher’s epistemic trust-worthiness via 14 pairs of opposite adjectives (Hendriks et al., 2015; e.g. “unprofessional” vs “professional”) and the credibility of the communicated findings using four items (based on Alten-müller et al., 2021; e.g. “I…”

“For instance, in a recent study, credibility is an umbrella evaluation under which competence and objectivity fall (Bundi et al., 2025; see also Hendriks et al., 2015).”

“Expertise refers to an assessment of whether the source is knowledgeable about a topic and has the necessary credentials to be an expert on the topic (Hendriks et al., 2015).”

“In persuasion research, the Yale Group introduced the concept of communicator credibility, defined by expertness and trustworthiness [25], and later extended as epistemic trustworthiness comprising expertise, integrity, and benevolence [13,22,32].”

“Epistemic trust-worthiness is a judgment that follows from perceived IH: Observers who see someone as intellectually hum-ble often judge them as more competent, benevolent, and morally grounded—facets of epistemic trustworthiness (Hendriks et al., 2015).”

“Psychological research on dimensions of trust in science among laypeople stresses the importance of the assumed benevolence of researchers and their work (Hendriks et al., 2015).”

“…we tested are as follows: • H1: Advisor errors will significantly negatively affect trust evaluations of the advisor, including epistemic trustworthiness measured using the Hendriks, Kienhues, and Bromme (2015) instrument and entity-specific trust adapted from Riedl, Hogeterp, and Reuter (2024).”

“It is interesting to note that this phenomenon overlaps with the previously known crisis of public trust in the testimony of scientific experts (Almassi, 2012; Haerlin & Parr, 1999; Hendriks et al., 2015).”

“Basándose en esta escala y en las tres dimensiones de la confianza definidas por Mayer et al. (1995), a saber, experticia, integridad y benevolencia, Hendriks et al. (2015) desarrollaron el Muenster Epistemic Trustworthiness Inventory (METI), que recoge las dimensiones anteriores, adap - tadas al…”

“…or the extent to which their motivations serve societal rather than self-interests (Whyte & Crease, 2010) These three components – expertise, integrity, and benevolence – comprise epistemic trust and are measured using the Muenster Epistemic Trustworthiness Inventory (METI; Hendriks et al., 2015).”

“To only integrate sub-parameters in CharacteristicTrust(E i ) with a high influence on trustworthiness, we select only sub-parameters that are assigned an influence value of greater 0.8 from Hendriks et al. (2015).”

“Science-communication scholars similarly conceptualize cognitive trust as a function of perceived expertise, integrity and benevolence (Hartman et al., 2017; Hautea et al., 2024; Hendriks et al., 2015; Bromme et al., 2022).”

“Drawing on Besley et al. (2021) and Hendriks et al. (2015), we measured the dimensions of expertise (“qualified,” “intelligent,” “knowledgeable,” and “expert”), integrity (“polite,” “like they would listen well to others,” “like they would welcome feedback,” and “like they are telling the whole…”

“Disclosing uncertainty or tentative-ness about one’s research could signal honesty and goodwill, thus enhancing evaluations of integrity and benevolence (Hendriks et al., 2015, 2016).”

“Here we will define trustworthiness evaluations as an epistemic activity, consisting of assessing whether the source has the competence, integrity, and intentions to share reliable information (Hendriks et al., 2015; Sperber et al., 2010).”

“Trust questions were adapted from the literature (Besley et al., 2021; Colquitt & Rodell, 2011; Fiske & Dupree, 2014; Hendriks et al., 2015; McCroskey & Young, 1981) with a focus on finding trustworthiness-related questions that made sense for a presentation context and a short questionnaire,…”

“Future research could also include a measure of how much people trust experts (Hendriks et al., 2015).”

“While trust has been a central component is several science communication studies, there is a “conceptual confusion” (Lewis & Weigert, 1985, p. 975) about the definition of trust (see Schäfer, 2016; Hendriks et al., 2015).”

“To measure trust in scientists we used the Muenster Epistemic Trustworthiness Inventory (METI; [2]) and to assess environmental awareness we utilized the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP; [1]).”

“[1] Hendriks, Friederike, Dorothe Kienhues, and Rainer Bromme.”

“published further articles [34][35] about the trust, that laypeople must put in experts in videos.”