IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0139309.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Friederike Hendriks
  • Dorothe Kienhues
  • Rainer Bromme

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Friederike Hendriks & Dorothe Kienhues & Rainer Bromme, 2015. "Measuring Laypeople’s Trust in Experts in a Digital Age: The Muenster Epistemic Trustworthiness Inventory (METI)," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(10), pages 1-20, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0139309
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0139309
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0139309
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0139309&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0139309?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lukas Gierth & Rainer Bromme, 2020. "Beware of vested interests: Epistemic vigilance improves reasoning about scientific evidence (for some people)," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(4), pages 1-18, April.
    2. Dominik Sondern & Guido Hertel, 2019. "Does Paying Back Pay Off? Effects of Reciprocity and Economic Outcomes on Trust Emergence in Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 28(6), pages 1053-1076, December.
    3. Petropoulos, Fotios & Apiletti, Daniele & Assimakopoulos, Vassilios & Babai, Mohamed Zied & Barrow, Devon K. & Ben Taieb, Souhaib & Bergmeir, Christoph & Bessa, Ricardo J. & Bijak, Jakub & Boylan, Joh, 2022. "Forecasting: theory and practice," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 705-871.
      • Fotios Petropoulos & Daniele Apiletti & Vassilios Assimakopoulos & Mohamed Zied Babai & Devon K. Barrow & Souhaib Ben Taieb & Christoph Bergmeir & Ricardo J. Bessa & Jakub Bijak & John E. Boylan & Jet, 2020. "Forecasting: theory and practice," Papers 2012.03854, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2022.
    4. Friederike Hendriks & Regina Jucks, 2020. "Does Scientific Uncertainty in News Articles Affect Readers’ Trust and Decision-Making?," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(2), pages 401-412.
    5. Justin Sulik & Ophelia Deroy & Guillaume Dezecache & Martha Newson & Yi Zhao & Marwa El Zein & Bahar Tunçgenç, 2021. "Facing the pandemic with trust in science," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-10, December.
    6. Hershkovitz, Arnon & Hayat, Zack, 2020. "The role of tie strength in assessing credibility of scientific content on facebook," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).
    7. Niklas Simon, 2020. "Investigating Ethos and Pathos in Scientific Truth Claims in Public Discourse," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(1), pages 129-140.
    8. Dominic Balog‐Way & Katherine McComas & John Besley, 2020. "The Evolving Field of Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2240-2262, November.
    9. Anne Reif & Tim Kneisel & Markus Schäfer & Monika Taddicken, 2020. "Why Are Scientific Experts Perceived as Trustworthy? Emotional Assessment within TV and YouTube Videos," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(1), pages 191-205.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0139309. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.