IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0311352.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Validation of the Argentine version of the epistemic trust, mistrust, and credulity questionnaire

Author

Listed:
  • Andrea Rodriguez Quiroga
  • Juan Segundo Peña Loray
  • Laura Bongiardino
  • María Eugenia Malleville
  • Laura Borensztein
  • Arantxa Y Arredondo
  • Antonia Najas-García
  • Saskia Ivana Aufenacker
  • Camila Yosa
  • María Sol Asencio
  • Milagros Guido
  • Marianne Cottin
  • Camila Botero

Abstract

Epistemic trust refers to the trust in communicated knowledge, specifically an individual’s ability to regard knowledge conveyed by others as meaningful, relevant to oneself, and applicable to other contexts. This area has received considerable attention in recent psychological literature, though predominantly from a theoretical perspective. The main objective of this study was to test the factorial validity of the Epistemic Trust, Mistrust, and Credulity Questionnaire (ETMCQ) on an Argentine setting. Based on two studies (Study 1, n = 1018; Study 2, n = 559), the factorial structure of the instrument and its internal consistency were examined (S1 Appendix). In the second study, the factorial structure was confirmed, test-retest reliability was analysed, and associations between epistemic stances and sociodemographic variables, hypomentalisation, attachment styles, childhood traumatic experiences, and anxious-depressive symptomatology were explored. A satisfactory three-factor solution with 15 items and residual correlations was found in both studies, with stable scores over time. Significant positive correlations were found with anxious and fearful-avoidant attachment, hypomentalisation, childhood traumatic experiences, and psychopathological symptomatology. Post-hoc analysis revealed that, on the one hand, gender acts as a moderator in the relationship between hypomentalisation and epistemic mistrust. On the other hand, economic level and educational level moderate the relationship between hypomentalisation and epistemic credulity. Measurement invariance across gender was tested and found satisfactory, with significant differences subsequently observed in the epistemic trust factor. In conclusion, the Argentine version of the ETMCQ provides an empirical measure for use in non-clinical samples. Its application could facilitate clinically and theoretically relevant findings.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrea Rodriguez Quiroga & Juan Segundo Peña Loray & Laura Bongiardino & María Eugenia Malleville & Laura Borensztein & Arantxa Y Arredondo & Antonia Najas-García & Saskia Ivana Aufenacker & Camila Yo, 2024. "Validation of the Argentine version of the epistemic trust, mistrust, and credulity questionnaire," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(10), pages 1-24, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0311352
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0311352
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0311352
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0311352&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0311352?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
    ---><---

    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:pone00:0311352. 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.