CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 373Educational Strategies and EpistemologiesEpistemology, Ethics, and MetaphysicsRisk Perception and Management

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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

Open access
Hendriks, Friederike, Kienhues, Dorothe, Bromme, Rainer·2015·PLOS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0139309PMC PMC4608577
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Given their lack of background knowledge, laypeople require expert help when dealing with scientific information. To decide whose help is dependable, laypeople must judge an expert's epistemic trustworthiness in terms of competence, adherence to scientific standards, and good intentions. Online, this may be difficult due to the often limited and sometimes unreliable source information available. To measure laypeople's evaluations of experts (encountered online), we constructed an inventory to assess epistemic trustworthiness on the dimensions expertise, integrity, and benevolence. Exploratory (n = 237) and confirmatory factor analyses (n = 345) showed that the Muenster Epistemic Trustworthiness Inventory (METI) is composed of these three factors. A subsequent experimental study (n = 137) showed that all three dimensions of the METI are sensitive to variation in source characteristics. We propose using this inventory to measure assignments of epistemic trustworthiness, that is, all judgments laypeople make when deciding whether to place epistemic trust in-and defer to-an expert in order to solve a scientific informational problem that is beyond their understanding.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0139309

Cites

0 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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 39

  1. FC Keil, 2010, The feasibility of folk science, Cogn Sci, 34, 826, 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01108.x · DOI
  2. R Bromme, 2014, The public’s bounded understanding of science, Educ Psychol, 49, 59, 10.1080/00461520.2014.921572 · DOI · Paper page
  3. R Bromme, 2015, From understanding to deference: Laypersons’ and medical students' views on conflicts within medicine, Int J Sci Educ Part B Commun Public Engagem, 5, 68, 10.1080/21548455.2013.849017 · DOI
  4. O Mascaro, 2009, The moral, epistemic, and mindreading components of children’s vigilance towards deception, Cognition, 112, 367, 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.05.012 · DOI
  5. G Origgi, 2012, Epistemic injustice and epistemic trust, Soc Epistemol, 26, 221, 10.1080/02691728.2011.652213 · DOI
  6. AA Anderson, 2011, The role of media and deference to scientific authority in cultivating trust in sources of information about emerging technologies, Int J Public Opin Res, 24, 225, 10.1093/ijpor/edr032 · DOI · Paper page
  7. H Shema, 2012, Research blogs and the discussion of scholarly information, PLoS One, 7, e35869, 10.1371/journal.pone.0035869 · DOI
  8. R Van Noorden, 2013, Open access: the true cost of science publishing, Nature, 495, 426, 10.1038/495426a · DOI · Paper page
  9. L Mason, 2009, Searching the web to learn about a controversial topic: Are students epistemically active?, Instr Sci, 38, 607, 10.1007/s11251-008-9089-y · DOI
  10. VK Jaswal, 2010, Believing what you’re told: Young children's trust in unexpected testimony about the physical world, Cogn Psychol, 61, 248, 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.06.002 · DOI
  11. VK Jaswal, 2014, Can’t stop believing: Inhibitory control and resistance to misleading testimony, Dev Sci, 6, 1
  12. KH Corriveau, 2014, To the letter: Early readers trust print-based over oral instructions to guide their actions, Br J Dev Psychol, 32, 345, 10.1111/bjdp.12046 · DOI
  13. J Eyden, 2014, Children’s trust in unexpected oral versus printed suggestions: Limitations of the power of print, Br J Dev Psychol, 32, 430, 10.1111/bjdp.12054 · DOI
  14. DK Berlo, 1969, Dimensions for evaluating the acceptability of message sources, Public Opin Q, 33, 563, 10.1086/267745 · DOI
  15. S Tseng, 1999, Credibility and computing technology, Commun ACM, 42, 39, 10.1145/301353.301402 · DOI
  16. RC Mayer, 1995, An integrative model of organizational trust, Acad Manag Rev, 20, 709, 10.5465/amr.1995.9508080335 · DOI · Paper page
  17. G Origgi, 2004, Is trust an epistemological notion?, Episteme, 1, 61, 10.3366/epi.2004.1.1.61 · DOI
  18. AR Landrum, 2015, Learning to trust and trusting to learn: A theoretical framework, Trends Cogn Sci, 1
  19. P Shafto, 2012, Epistemic trust: Modeling children’s reasoning about others' knowledge and intent, Dev Sci, 15, 436, 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2012.01135.x · DOI
  20. JD Lane, 2014, More than meets the eye: Young children’s trust in claims that defy their perceptions, Dev Psychol, 50, 865, 10.1037/a0034291 · DOI
  21. JD Lane, 2014, The roles of intuition and informants’ expertise in children’s epistemic trust, Child Dev
  22. AW Kruglanski, 2005, Says who?: Epistemic authority effects in social judgment, Adv Exp Soc Psychol, 37, 345, 10.1016/S0065-2601(05)37006-7 · DOI
  23. A Raviv, 1993, Measuring epistemic authority: Studies of politicians and professors, Eur J Pers, 7, 119, 10.1002/per.2410070204 · DOI
  24. L Cummings, 2014, The “trust” heuristic: Arguments from authority in public health, Health Commun, 34, 1
  25. J Hardwig, 1991, The role of trust in knowledge, J Philos, 88, 693, 10.2307/2027007 · DOI · Paper page
  26. B Barber, 1987, Trust in science, Minerva, 25, 123, 10.1007/BF01096860 · DOI
  27. DB Resnik, 2011, Scientific research and the public trust, Sci Eng Ethics, 17, 399, 10.1007/s11948-010-9210-x · DOI
  28. 2010, Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct, Am Psychol, 57, 1060
  29. PJ Curran, 1996, The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis, Psychol Methods, 1, 16, 10.1037/1082-989X.1.1.16 · DOI · Paper page
  30. A Beauducel, 2005, Simulation study on fit indexes in cfa based on data with slightly distorted sample structure, Struct Equ Model, 12, 41, 10.1207/s15328007sem1201_3 · DOI
  31. J Bortz, 2010, Statistik für Human- und Sozialwissenschaftler, 10.1007/978-3-642-12770-0 · DOI
  32. Winter S, Krämer NC, Appel J, Schielke K. Information selection in the blogosphere: The effect of expertise, community rating, and age. In: Ohlsson S, Catrambone R, editors. Proceedings of the 32nd annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society; 2010. p. 802–7.
  33. RG Peters, 1997, The determinants of trust and credibility in environmental risk communication: an empirical study, Risk Anal, 17, 43, 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1997.tb00842.x · DOI
  34. JD Lane, 2013, Informants’ traits weigh heavily in young children's trust in testimony and in their epistemic inferences, Child Dev, 84, 1253, 10.1111/cdev.12029 · DOI
  35. JC McCroskey, 1981, Ethos and credibility: The construct and its measurement after three decades, Cent States Speech J, 32, 24, 10.1080/10510978109368075 · DOI
  36. AR Landrum, 2013, When do children trust the expert? Benevolence information influences children’s trust more than expertise, Dev Sci, 16, 622, 10.1111/desc.12059 · DOI
  37. CR Critchley, 2008, Public opinion and trust in scientists: The role of the research context, and the perceived motivation of stem cell researchers, Public Underst Sci, 17, 309, 10.1177/0963662506070162 · DOI
  38. L Sjöberg, 2005, Gene technology in the eyes of the public and experts, SSE/EFI Work Pap Ser Bus Adm, 2004, 1
  39. D Brossard, 2013, Science, new media, and the public, Science, 339, 40, 10.1126/science.1232329 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 373

Metadata

Authors
Hendriks, F., Kienhues, D., & Bromme, R.
Affiliations
University of Münster (DE)
Corresponding author
Hendriks, Friederike
ORCID
Venue
PLOS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2015-10-16
Volume
10
Issue
10
Pages
e0139309
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0139309
PMC
PMC4608577
OpenAlex
W2218357479
Cited by
373
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 46 · 2025: 66 · 2024: 66 · 2023: 36 · 2022: 66 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 6
FWCI
20.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (1712/1, GRK1712, 175526080)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
Keywords
epistemic trustworthiness, trust in experts, laypeople, expertise, integrity, benevolence, online information sources, source evaluation, scientific information, scale development, public trust in science
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Models, Theoretical, Comprehension, Information Dissemination, 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