This article analyzes three publicly available datasets focused on trust in science and scientists. It specifically seeks to understand what direct measures of trust (i.e. questions that directly ask respondents how much they trust scientists) assess in terms of discrete measures of trustworthiness (i.e. perceptions of scientists’ ability, integrity, and benevolence). Underlying the analyses is a concern that direct measures of trust are a poor substitute for differentiating between discrete trustworthiness perceptions and behavioral trust in the form of a specific willingness to make oneself vulnerable. The research concludes that it is unclear what direct trust measures are capturing in any given context and suggests that researchers should better use trust-related theory when designing surveys and trust-focused campaigns. The secondary data used come from the General Social Survey, Gallup, and the Pew Research Center.
BesleyJCHillD (2020) Science and technology: Public attitudes, knowledge, and interest. Report, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES), Alexandria, VA, 15May.
2.
BesleyJCShanahanJ (2005) Media attention and exposure in relation to support for agricultural biotechnology. Science Communication26(4): 347–367.
3.
BesleyJCLeeNMPressgroveG (2021a) Reassessing the variables used to measure public perceptions of scientists. Science Communication43(1): 3–32.
4.
BesleyJCNewmanTPDudoATiffanyLA (2021b) American scientists’ willingness to use different communication tactics. Science Communication43(4): 486–507.
5.
BesleyJCO’HaraKDudoA (2019) Strategic science communication as planned behavior: Understanding scientists’ willingness to choose specific tactics. PLoS ONE14(10): e0224039.
6.
CritchleyCR (2008) Public opinion and trust in scientists: The role of the research context, and the perceived motivation of stem cell researchers. Public Understanding of Science17(3): 309–327.
7.
CuddyAJCFiskeSTGlickP (2007) The BIAS map: Behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology92(4): 631.
8.
De VriesJRVan BommelSPetersK (2018) Trust at a distance—Trust in online communication in environmental and global health research projects. Sustainability10(11): 4005.
9.
FishbeinM (2009) An integrative model for behavioral prediction and its application to health promotion. In: DiClementeRJCrosbyRAKeglerMC (eds) Emerging Theories in Health Promotion Practice and Research, 2nd edn.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. 215–234.
10.
FiskeSTDupreeC (2014) Gaining trust as well as respect in communicating to motivated audiences about science topics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences111(Suppl. 4): 13593–13597.
11.
FujiwaraYVelascoRCLJonesLKHiteRL (2022) Competent and cold: A directed content analysis of warmth and competence dimensions to identify and categorise stereotypes of scientists portrayed in meme-based GIFs. International Journal of Science Education44(4): 694–715.
GriffinRJYangZTer HumeEBoernerFOrtizSDunwoddyS (2008) After the flood: Anger, attribution, and the seeking of information. Science Communication29(3): 285–315.
15.
HendriksFKienhuesDBrommeR (2015) Measuring laypeople’s trust in experts in a digital age: The Muenster Epistemic Trustworthiness Inventory (METI). PLoS ONE10(10): e0139309.
16.
HoSSScheufeleDACorleyEA (2010) Making sense of policy choices: Understanding the roles of value predispositions, mass media, and cognitive processing in public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research12(8): 2703–2715.
17.
HonLC (1998) Demonstrating effectiveness in public relations: Goals, objectives, and evaluation. Journal of Public Relations Research10(2): 103–135.
18.
HovlandCIWeissW (1951) The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly15(4): 635–650.
19.
KobayashiK (2018) The impact of perceived scientific and social consensus on scientific beliefs. Science Communication40(1): 63–88.
20.
KotcherJEMyersTAVragaEKStenhouseNMaibachEW (2017) Does engagement in advocacy hurt the credibility of scientists? Results from a randomized national survey experiment. Environmental Communication11(3): 415–429.
21.
LawJ (2009) Seeing like a survey. Cultural Sociology3(2): 239–256.
22.
McCroskeyJCTevenJJ (1999) Goodwill: A reexamination of the construct and its measurement. Communication Monographs66(1): 90–103.
23.
MayerRCDavisJHSchoormanFD (1995) An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review20(3): 709–734.
24.
MontanoDEKasprzykD (2015) Theory of reasoned action, theory of planned behavior, and the integrated behavioral model. In: GlanzK (ed.) Health Behavior: Theory, Research and Practice, 5th edn.Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 67–96.
National Science Board (2012) Chapter 7, Science and technology: Public attitudes and public understanding. Available at: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/
27.
NowotnyH (2003) Democratising expertise and socially robust knowledge. Science and Public Policy30(3): 151–156.
28.
PytlikZilligLMHammJAShockleyEHerianMNNealTMSKimbroughCD, et al. (2016) The dimensionality of trust-relevant constructs in four institutional domains: Results from confirmatory factor analyses. Journal of Trust Research6(2): 111–150.
29.
SchoormanFDMayerRCDavisJH (2007) An integrative model of organizational trust: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Review32(2): 344–354.
30.
SvareHGausdalAHMölleringG (2020) The function of ability, benevolence, and integrity-based trust in innovation networks. Industry and Innovation27(6): 585–604.
31.
TrumboCWMcComasKA (2003) The function of credibility in information processing for risk perception. Risk Analysis23(2): 343–353.
32.
Van der BlesAMVan der LindenSFreemanALJSpiegelhalteraDJ (2020) The effects of communicating uncertainty on public trust in facts and numbers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences117(14): 7672–7683.
33.
WintterlinFHendriksFMedeNGBrommeRMetagJSchaferMS (2022) Predicting public trust in science: The role of basic orientations toward science, perceived trustworthiness of scientists, and experiences with science. Frontiers in Communication6: 822757.
34.
WojciszkeBAbeleAE (2008) The primacy of communion over agency and its reversals in evaluations. European Journal of Social Psychology38(7): 1139–1147.
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.
