Do People Value Expertise? Revisiting Assumptions About Attention to Expertise via Eye-Tracking and the Loss of Expertise Cues During Person-to-Person Transmission of Science Information

Abstract

People often learn about science from various sources including scientists, journalists, and friends. Many studies assume people pay different levels of attention to expert and non-expert sources. This foundational assumption has largely been tested with selective exposure and reading time measures. In Study 1, we used eye-tracking to measure attention and found that individuals paid more attention to experts than non-experts. The results are promising as it suggests that people can discriminate between expert and non-expert information. But in Study 2, we showed that expertise cues do not survive person-to-person transmission via serial reproduction. Our studies highlight the need to use new methods to validate key theoretical assumptions about attention and the presence of expertise cues during social transmission.

Keywords

science communication eye-tracking social transmission expertise

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anderson

Marhadour

(2007). Slick PR? The media politics of the Prestige oil spill. Science Communication, 29(1), 96–115. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547007305543

Bangerter

(2000). Transformation between scientific and social representations of conception: The method of serial reproduction. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 521–535.

Bartlett

F. C.

(1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466600164615

Brambor

Clark

W. R.

Golder

(2006). Understanding interaction models: Improving empirical analyses. Political Analysis, 14, 63–82. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpi014

Bratanova

Kashima

(2014). The “saying is repeating” effect: Dyadic communication can generate cultural stereotypes. Journal of Social Psychology, 154(2), 155–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2013.874326

Braun

Martiny

Bruckmüller

(2023). From serial reproduction to serial communication: Transmission of the focus of comparison in lay communication about gender inequality. Human Communication Research, 49, 35–46. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqac024

Bromme

Kienhues

Porsch

(2010). Who knows what and who can we believe? Epistemological beliefs are beliefs about knowledge (mostly) to be attained from others. In Bendixen

L. D.

Feucht

F. C.

(Eds.), Personal epistemology in the classroom: Theory, research, and implications for practice (pp. 163–193). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12252

Bromme

Thomm

(2016). Knowing who knows: Laypersons’ capabilities to judge experts’ pertinence for science topics. Cognitive Science, 40(1), 241–252.

Brossard

Nisbet

M. C.

(2007). Deference to scientific authority among a low information public: Understanding US opinion on agricultural biotechnology. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 19(1), 24–52. https://doi.org/101093/ijopr/edl003

10.

Chaiken

(1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), 752–766. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.752

11.

Chaiken

Ledgerwood

(2012). A theory of heuristic and systematic information processing. In Van Lange

P. A. M.

Kruglanski

A. W.

Higgins

E. T.

(Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 246–266). Sage Publications.

12.

Chinn

Weeks

B. E.

(2021). Effects of competing statistical and testimonial evidence in debates about science. Environmental Communication, 15(3), 353–368.

13.

Collins

H. M.

Evans

(2002). The third wave of science studies: Studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Science, 32(2), 235–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312702032002

14.

Coronel

J. C.

Ott

J. M.

Hubner

Sweitzer

M. D.

Lerner

(2023). How are competitive framing environments transformed by person-to-person communication? An integrated social transmission, content analysis, and eye movement monitoring approach. Communication Research, 50(1), 3–29.

15.

Coronel

J. C.

Poulsen

Sweitzer

M. D.

(2020). Investigating the generation and spread of numerical misinformation: A combined eye movement monitoring and social transmission approach. Human Communication Research, 46, 25–54. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqz012

16.

Courvoisier

Clémence

Green

E. G.

(2013). Man-made black holes and Big Bangs: Diffusion and integration of scientific information into everyday thinking. Public Understanding of Science, 22(3), 287–303. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662511405877

17.

Dieckmann

N. F.

Johnson

B. B.

(2019). Why do scientists disagree? Explaining and improving measures of the perceived causes of scientific disputes. PLoS One, 14(2), e0211269.

18.

Driver

(2001). A selective review of selective attention research from the past century. British Journal of Psychology, 92, 53–78. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712601162103

19.

Echterhoff

Kopietz

(2018). The socially shared nature of memory: From joint encoding to communication. In Meade

M. L.

Harris

C. B.

Van Bergen

Sutton

Barnier

A. J.

(Eds.), Collaborative remembering: Theories, research, and applications (pp. 113–134). Oxford University Press.

20.

Edwards

Middleton

(1987). Conversation and remembering: Bartlett revisited. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 1, 77–92. https://doi.org/088-4080/87/020077

21.

Green

E. G.

Clémence

(2008). Discovery of the faithfulness gene: A model of transmission and transformation of scientific information. British Journal of Social Psychology, 47(3), 497–517. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466607X248912

22.

Greussing

Kessler

S. H.

Boomgaarden

H. G.

(2020). Learning from science news via interactive and animated visualizations: An investigation combining eye tracking, online survey, and cued retrospective reporting. Science Communication, 42, 803–828. https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470209621

23.

Hendriks

Kienhues

Bromme

(2015). Measuring laypeople’s trust in experts in a digital age: The Muenster Epistemic Trustworthiness Inventory (METI). PLoS One, 10(10), e0139309.

24.

Holbert

R. L.

Park

(2020). Conceptualizing, organizing, and positing moderation in communication research. Communication Theory, 30(3), 227–246.

25.

Hubner

Dixon

(2023). Is news media sharing an active framing process? Examining whether individual tweets retain news media frames about climate change. Human Communication Research, 49(1), 75–84.

26.

Joshi

P. D.

Wakslak

C. J.

(2014). Communicating with the crowd: Speakers use abstract messages when addressing larger audiences. Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 143(1), 351–362. https://doi.org/10.1086/266350

27.

Joshi

P. D.

Wakslak

C. J.

Raj

Trope

(2016). Communicating with distant others: The functional use of abstraction. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7(1), 37–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/194855061559044

28.

Just

M. A.

Carpenter

P. A.

(1976). Eye fixations and cognitive processes. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 441–480. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(76)90015-3

29.

Kahan

D. M.

Braman

Slovic

Gastil

Cohen

(2009). Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nature Nanotechnology, 4(2), 87–90. https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2008.341

30.

Katz

(1957). The two-step flow of communication: An up-to-date report on a hypothesis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 21(1), 61–78. https://doi.org/10.1086/266687

31.

Kirkpatrick

A. W.

Park

Domgaard

Zhao

Steinberg

Hsu

(2021). Vaccine videos and information sharing: the effects of framing, evidence type, and speaker expertise. Journal of Health Communication, 26(9), 608–617. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2021.1983892

32.

Knobloch-Westerwick

(2015). The selective exposure self-and affect-management (SESAM) model: Applications in the realms of race, politics, and health. Communication Research, 42(7), 959–985. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650214539173

33.

Kraft

P. W.

Lodge

Taber

C. S.

(2015). Why people “don’t trust the evidence”: Motivated reasoning and scientific beliefs. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 658(1), 121–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716214554758

34.

Krämer

N. C.

Preko

Flanagin

Winter

Metzger

(2018). What do people attend to when searching for information on the web: An eye-tracking study. In Proceedings of the technology, mind, and society (pp. 1–1). Oxford University Press.

35.

Kruikemeier

Lecheler

Boyer

M. M.

(2019). Learning from news on different media platforms: An eye-tracking experiment. In Bode

Vraga

E. K.

(Eds.), Studying politics across media. Routledge.

36.

Ladwig

Dalrymple

K. E.

Brossard

Scheufele

D. A.

Corley

E. A.

(2012). Perceived familiarity or factual knowledge? Comparing operationalizations of scientific understanding. Science and Public Policy, 39(6), 761–774. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scs091

37.

Land

Mennie

Rusted

(1998). The roles of vision and eye movements in the control of activities of daily living. Perception, 28, 1311–1328. https://doi.org/10.1068/p281311

38.

Land

M. F.

(2009). Vision, eye movements, and natural behavior. Visual Neuroscience, 26, 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952523809090015

39.

Lucassen

Muilwijk

Noordzij

M. L.

Schraagen

J. M.

(2013). Topic familiarity and information skills in online credibility evaluation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(2), 254–264. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22750

40.

Luck

S. J.

Gold

J. M.

(2008). The construct of attention in schizophrenia. Biological Psychiatry, 64(1), 34–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2008.02.014

41.

Mahon

Clarke

A. D. F.

Hunt

A. R.

(2018). The role of attention in eye-movement awareness. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 80(7), 1691–1704. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-018-1537-4

42.

McKnight

Coronel

J. C.

(2017). Evaluating scientists as sources of science information: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Communication, 67(4), 565–585. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12317

43.

Meinert

Krämer

N. C.

(2020, July). Which cues are credible?–The relative importance and interaction of expertise, likes, shares, pictures and involvement while assessing the credibility of politicians’ Facebook postings [Conference session]. International Conference on Social Media and Society (pp. 299–308). https://doi.org/10.1145/3400806.3400840

44.

Meinert

Krämer

N. C.

(2022). How the expertise heuristic accelerates decision-making and credibility judgments in social media by means of effort reduction. PLoS One, 17(3), e0264428.

45.

Metcalfe

(1986). Feeling of knowing in memory and problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition, 12(2), 288–294.

46.

Mindich

D. T.

(1998). Just the facts: How “objectivity” came to define American journalism. NYU Press.

47.

Nuernbergk

(2017). Follow-Up communication in the blogosphere: A comparative study of bloggers’ linking to professional and participatory media. In Franklin

(Ed.), The future of journalism: In an age of digital media and economic uncertainty (pp. 224–235). Routledge.

48.

Pan

Hembrooke

Joachims

Lorigo

Gay

Granka

(2007). In Google we trust: Users’ decisions on rank, position, and relevance. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 801–823. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00351.x

49.

Rayner

(1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372–376.

50.

Rayner

(2009). The 35th Sir Frederick Bartlett Lecture: Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1457–1506. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210902816461

51.

Schmidt

L. L.

Maier

(2022). Interactive ad avoidance on mobile phones. Journal of Advertising, 51, 440–449. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2022.2077266

52.

Stadtler

Bromme

(2014). The content–source integration model: A taxonomic description of how readers comprehend conflicting scientific information. In Rapp

D. N.

Braasch

J. L. G.

(Eds.), Processing inaccurate information: Theoretical and applied perspectives from cognitive science and the educational sciences (pp. 379–402). MIT Press.

53.

Stroud

N. J.

(2017). Understanding and overcoming selective exposure and judgment when communicating about science. In Jamieson

K. H.

Kahan

D. M.

Scheufele

D. A.

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the science of science communication (pp. 377–384). Oxford University Press.

54.

Sude

Knobloch-Westerwick

(2022). Selective exposure and attention to attitude-consistent and attitude-discrepant information: Reviewing the evidence. In Strömbäck

Wikforss

Å.

Glüer

Lindholm

Oscarsson

(Eds.), Knowledge resistance in high-choice information environments (pp. 88–105). Routledge.

55.

Sülflow

Schäfer

Winter

(2019). Selective attention in the news feed: An eye-tracking study on the perception and selection of political news posts on Facebook. New Media & Society, 21(1), 168–190. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818791520

56.

Sundar

S. S.

(2008). The MAIN model: A heuristic approach to understanding technology effects on credibility (pp. 73–100). MacArthur Foundation Digital Media and Learning Initiative.

57.

Wahl-Jorgensen

Berry

Garcia-Blanco

Bennett

Cable

(2017). Rethinking balance and impartiality in journalism? How the BBC attempted and failed to change the paradigm. Journalism, 18(7), 781–800. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884916648094

58.

Welbers

Opgenhaffen

(2019). Presenting news on social media: Media logic in the communication style of newspapers on Facebook. Digital Journalism, 7(1), 45–62.

59.

Winter

Krämer

N. C.

(2012). Selecting science information in Web 2.0: How source cues, message sidedness, and need for cognition influence users’ exposure to blog posts. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18(1), 80–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01596.x

60.

Winter

Krämer

N. C.

(2014). A question of credibility–Effects of source cues and recommendations on information selection on news sites and blogs. Communications, 39(4), 435–456. https://doi.org/10.1515/commun-2014-0020

61.

Winter

Krämer

N. C.

Appel

Schielke

(2010). Information selection in the blogosphere: The effect of expertise, community rating, and age. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 32(32), 802–807.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.20 MB