Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2025
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
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.
AndersonA.MarhadourA. (2007). Slick PR? The media politics of the Prestige oil spill. Science Communication, 29(1), 96–115. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547007305543
2.
BangerterA. (2000). Transformation between scientific and social representations of conception: The method of serial reproduction. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 521–535.
BratanovaB.KashimaY. (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
6.
BraunM.MartinyS.BruckmüllerS. (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
7.
BrommeR.KienhuesD.PorschT. (2010). Who knows what and who can we believe? Epistemological beliefs are beliefs about knowledge (mostly) to be attained from others. In BendixenL. D.FeuchtF. 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
8.
BrommeR.ThommE. (2016). Knowing who knows: Laypersons’ capabilities to judge experts’ pertinence for science topics. Cognitive Science, 40(1), 241–252.
9.
BrossardD.NisbetM. 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.
ChaikenS. (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.
ChaikenS.LedgerwoodA. (2012). A theory of heuristic and systematic information processing. In Van LangeP. A. M.KruglanskiA. W.HigginsE. T. (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 246–266). Sage Publications.
12.
ChinnS.WeeksB. E. (2021). Effects of competing statistical and testimonial evidence in debates about science. Environmental Communication, 15(3), 353–368.
13.
CollinsH. M.EvansR. (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.
CoronelJ. C.OttJ. M.HubnerA.SweitzerM. D.LernerS. (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.
CoronelJ. C.PoulsenS.SweitzerM. 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.
CourvoisierN.ClémenceA.GreenE. 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.
DieckmannN. F.JohnsonB. B. (2019). Why do scientists disagree? Explaining and improving measures of the perceived causes of scientific disputes. PLoS One, 14(2), e0211269.
18.
DriverJ. (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.
EchterhoffG.KopietzR. (2018). The socially shared nature of memory: From joint encoding to communication. In MeadeM. L.HarrisC. B.Van BergenP.SuttonJ.BarnierA. J. (Eds.), Collaborative remembering: Theories, research, and applications (pp. 113–134). Oxford University Press.
GreenE. G.ClémenceA. (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.
GreussingE.KesslerS. H.BoomgaardenH. 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.
HendriksF.KienhuesD.BrommeR. (2015). Measuring laypeople’s trust in experts in a digital age: The Muenster Epistemic Trustworthiness Inventory (METI). PLoS One, 10(10), e0139309.
24.
HolbertR. L.ParkE. (2020). Conceptualizing, organizing, and positing moderation in communication research. Communication Theory, 30(3), 227–246.
25.
HubnerA.DixonG. (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.
JoshiP. D.WakslakC. 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.
JoshiP. D.WakslakC. J.RajM.TropeY. (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
KahanD. M.BramanD.SlovicP.GastilJ.CohenG. (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.
KatzE. (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.
KirkpatrickA. W.ParkM.DomgaardS.ZhaoW.SteinbergC.HsuY. (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-WesterwickS. (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.
KraftP. W.LodgeM.TaberC. 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.
KrämerN. C.PrekoN.FlanaginA.WinterS.MetzgerM. (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.
KruikemeierS.LechelerS.BoyerM. M. (2019). Learning from news on different media platforms: An eye-tracking experiment. In BodeL.VragaE. K. (Eds.), Studying politics across media. Routledge.
36.
LadwigP.DalrympleK. E.BrossardD.ScheufeleD. A.CorleyE. 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.
LandM.MennieN.RustedJ. (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
LucassenT.MuilwijkR.NoordzijM. L.SchraagenJ. 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
MahonA.ClarkeA. D. F.HuntA. 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.
McKnightJ.CoronelJ. 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.
MeinertJ.KrämerN. 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.
MeinertJ.KrämerN. 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.
MetcalfeJ. (1986). Feeling of knowing in memory and problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition, 12(2), 288–294.
46.
MindichD. T. (1998). Just the facts: How “objectivity” came to define American journalism. NYU Press.
47.
NuernbergkC. (2017). Follow-Up communication in the blogosphere: A comparative study of bloggers’ linking to professional and participatory media. In FranklinB. (Ed.), The future of journalism: In an age of digital media and economic uncertainty (pp. 224–235). Routledge.
48.
PanB.HembrookeH.JoachimsT.LorigoL.GayG.GrankaL. (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.
RaynerK. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372–376.
50.
RaynerK. (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
StadtlerM.BrommeR. (2014). The content–source integration model: A taxonomic description of how readers comprehend conflicting scientific information. In RappD. N.BraaschJ. L. G. (Eds.), Processing inaccurate information: Theoretical and applied perspectives from cognitive science and the educational sciences (pp. 379–402). MIT Press.
53.
StroudN. J. (2017). Understanding and overcoming selective exposure and judgment when communicating about science. In JamiesonK. H.KahanD. M.ScheufeleD. A. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the science of science communication (pp. 377–384). Oxford University Press.
54.
SudeD.Knobloch-WesterwickS. (2022). Selective exposure and attention to attitude-consistent and attitude-discrepant information: Reviewing the evidence. In StrömbäckK.WikforssÅ.GlüerK.LindholmT.OscarssonH. (Eds.), Knowledge resistance in high-choice information environments (pp. 88–105). Routledge.
55.
SülflowM.SchäferS.WinterS. (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.
SundarS. 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-JorgensenK.BerryM.Garcia-BlancoI.BennettL.CableJ. (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.
WelbersK.OpgenhaffenM. (2019). Presenting news on social media: Media logic in the communication style of newspapers on Facebook. Digital Journalism, 7(1), 45–62.
59.
WinterS.KrämerN. 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.
WinterS.KrämerN. 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.
WinterS.KrämerN. C.AppelJ.SchielkeK. (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.
