IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/h/spr/prochp/978-3-319-28059-2_8.html
   My bibliography  Save this book chapter

Trust in Science and the Science of Trust

In: Trust and Communication in a Digitized World

Author

Listed:
  • Friederike Hendriks

    (University of Münster)

  • Dorothe Kienhues

    (University of Münster)

  • Rainer Bromme

    (University of Münster)

Abstract

When risky technologies are debated in the media or when cases of scientific misconduct are made public, inevitable discussions arise about public loss of trust in science. However, trust in science reaches far beyond such incidents: trust is of much more fundamental importance for science. Clearly, trust is pivotal in doing science, since researchers in their everyday practice rely on the knowledge produced by other experts with different specialization and expertise. In the same way, trust is fundamental for the public understanding of science. Laypeople depend on the knowledge of scientific experts when developing a personal stance on science-based issues and arriving at decisions about them. Laypeople only possess a bounded understanding of science, but nowadays they are able to rapidly access all kinds of scientific knowledge online. To deal with scientific information, laypeople have to trust in scientists and their findings. We will at first describe the role of trust in doing and understanding science. Then a summary of international survey results on the general public’s trust in science are presented. Starting from these results and questions that arise from them, we extend and revise past conceptualizations of trust, arriving at a conceptualization of epistemic trust. Epistemic trust rests not only on the assumption that one is dependent on the knowledge of others who are more knowledgeable; it also entails a vigilance toward the risk to be misinformed. Drawing on empirical findings, we argue that the critical characteristics that determine the epistemic trustworthiness of a source of science-based information (for example, a scientist or a scientific institution) are the source’s expertise, integrity and benevolence. These characteristics have already been described in the model of trust provided by Mayer et al. (1995), but when it comes to trust in context of science, they must be redefined. Furthermore, trust judgments are not based solely on these characteristics, but depend on further constrains, which will be discussed in this chapter.

Suggested Citation

  • Friederike Hendriks & Dorothe Kienhues & Rainer Bromme, 2016. "Trust in Science and the Science of Trust," Progress in IS, in: Bernd Blöbaum (ed.), Trust and Communication in a Digitized World, edition 1, pages 143-159, Springer.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:prochp:978-3-319-28059-2_8
    DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-28059-2_8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Kristin E. Gibson & Catherine E. Sanders & Alexa J. Lamm, 2021. "Information Source Use and Social Media Engagement: Examining their Effects on Origin of COVID-19 Beliefs," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(4), pages 21582440211, November.
    2. 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.
    3. Hatsue Koizumi & Hiromi Yamashita, 2021. "Deficit Lay or Deficit Expert: How Do “Experts†in Environmental Projects Perceive Lay People and Lay Knowledge?," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(3), pages 21582440211, July.
    4. Angela Bearth & Gulbanu Kaptan & Sabrina Heike Kessler, 2022. "Genome-edited versus genetically-modified tomatoes: an experiment on people’s perceptions and acceptance of food biotechnology in the UK and Switzerland," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(3), pages 1117-1131, September.
    5. Tomáš Brabenec & Anna Maroušková & Tomáš Zoubek & Martin Filip, 2021. "Residues from Water Precipitation via Ferric Hydroxide Threaten Soil Fertility," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-11, April.
    6. Eunyoung Choi & Kun Chang Lee, 2019. "Effect of Trust in Domain-Specific Information of Safety, Brand Loyalty, and Perceived Value for Cosmetics on Purchase Intentions in Mobile E-Commerce Context," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-24, November.

    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:spr:prochp:978-3-319-28059-2_8. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.