DESIVE² - Desinformationsverhalten verstehen (Understanding Disinformation Behavior)
Published October 9, 2023 | Version 1.0.0
Presentation Open

What Shapes Our Trust in Scientific Information? A Review of Factors Influencing Perceived Scientificness and Credibility

Authors/Creators

  • 1. ROR icon ZBW – Leibniz-Informationszentrum Wirtschaft

Description

Poster: What Shapes Our Trust in Scientific Information? - A Review of Factors Influencing Perceived Scientificness and Credibility

Presented at European Conference on Information Literacy 2023

Abstract (English)

Information literacy is crucial in our digitalised society, where access to information is easier and more abundant than ever before. It empowers us to locate, evaluate, and effectively, as well as ethically, use information in private and professional contexts. Without information literacy, individuals may struggle to make informed decisions or, even worse, fall prey to misinformation.

Science literacy, which we consider a part of information literacy, refers to an individual's understanding of science and its methods, as well as their ability to critically evaluate scientific information and arguments (Liu, 2009). Science literacy is an important aspect of being an informed citizen in a democratic society, as it allows individuals to understand and engage with scientific issues that have an impact on their lives or even society as a whole (National Research Council et al., 2007, p. 34). This is especially essential during a pandemic, when misinformation can have serious consequences for public health and safety (Loomba et al., 2021).

The COVID-19 pandemic is a prime example of the importance of science literacy for everyone. The ongoing pandemic has highlighted the need for individuals to be able to critically evaluate and understand scientific information, as well as navigate the vast amount of information that is available on the internet and social media. The lack of science literacy skills can result in confusion, misinformation, and a lack of trust in scientific authorities and experts.

The concept of "scientificness" refers to the degree to which something is perceived as scientific or having characteristics of science (Thomm & Bromme, 2012). Scientificness and credibility are closely linked. People who associate a high level of scientificness with, for example, a specific style of documents are likely to rate their credibility higher as well (Zaboski & Therriault, 2020). However, something that appears to be scientific does not necessarily have to be accurate or true. In fact, a scientific appearance might be used to "claim" the categories of scientificness and credibility for something that is not: This is called pseudoscience (O'Brien et al., 2021).

Our paper focuses on perceived scientificness and credibility of information. We conducted a scoping review of scientific literature to summarise the various factors that can mislead individuals into thinking information is credible or scientific, even when it is not. Furthermore, we discuss different types and ways of emergence of scientific misinformation or pseudoscience. Critically evaluating scientific health information is a challenging task, but with the help of information literacy, it is possible to become more discerning consumers of scientific information and better equipped to make informed decisions. By understanding the various factors that can mislead us, we can then build greater resilience to misinformation and pseudoscience.

(Abstract was taken from the corresponding full paper.)

Notes (English)

This publication is part of the research project "DESIVE² – Desinformationsverhalten verstehen / Understanding Disinformation Behavior", funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) in Germany as part of the "Agile research – Recognizing and combating digital disinformation campaigns" measure (Grant Agreement No.: 16KIS1528K). The responsibility for the content lies with the authors.

Files

What Shapes Our Trust in Scientific Information.pdf

Files (490.8 kB)

Additional details

Related works

Is supplement to
Conference proceeding: 10.1007/978-3-031-52998-6_9 (DOI)

References

  • Dennis Gore [@DenisTheChemist]. (2021, December 7). Dandelion leaf extract blocks #spikeproteins from binding to the #ACE2 cell surface receptor. Https://mdpi.com/1424-8247/14/10/1055 Available at https://bit.ly/31B1Kt1 #dandelionextract #dandelionleaf https://t.co/tkK8q8LE3M [Tweet]. Twitter. https://twitter.com/DenisTheChemist/status/1468231683715518466
  • Gruber, D., & Dickerson, J. A. (2012). Persuasive images in popular science: Testing judgments of scientific reasoning and credibility. Public Understanding of Science, 21(8), 938–948. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662512454072
  • Hahn, O., Lemke, S., Mazarakis, A., & Peters, I. (2020). Which visual elements make texts appear scientific? An empirical analysis. Proceedings of the Conference on Mensch Und Computer, 61–65. https://doi.org/10.1145/3404983.3410014
  • Isberner, M.-B., Richter, T., Maier, J., Knuth-Herzig, K., Horz, H., & Schnotz, W. (2013). Comprehending conflicting science-related texts: Graphs as plausibility cues. Instructional Science, 41(5), 849–872. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-012-9261-2
  • Jensen, J. D. (2008). Scientific Uncertainty in News Coverage of Cancer Research: Effects of Hedging on Scientists and Journalists Credibility. Human Communication Research, 34(3), 347–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2008.00324.x
  • Kessler, S., Reifegerste, D., & Guenther, L. (2016). Die Evidenzkraft von Bildern in der Wissenschaftskommunikation. In Wissenschaftskommunikation zwischen Risiko und (Un-)Sicherheit (pp. 171–192). Herbert von Halem Verlag.
  • Kimmo Eriksson. (2012). The nonsense math effect. Judgment and Decision Making, 7(6), 746–749.
  • König, L., & Jucks, R. (2020). Effects of Positive Language and Profession on Trustworthiness and Credibility in Online Health Advice: Experimental Study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(3), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.2196/16685
  • McCabe, D. P., & Castel, A. D. (2008). Seeing is believing: The effect of brain images on judgments of scientific reasoning. Cognition, 107(1), 343–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.07.017
  • Nex, F., Armenakis, C., Cramer, M., Cucci, D. A., Gerke, M., Honkavaara, E., Kukko, A., Persello, C., & Skaloud, J. (2022). UAV in the advent of the twenties: Where we stand and what is next. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 184, 215–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2021.12.006
  • O'Brien, T. C., Palmer, R., & Albarracin, D. (2021). Misplaced trust: When trust in science fosters belief in pseudoscience and the benefits of critical evaluation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 96, 104184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2021.104184
  • Scharrer, L., Britt, M. A., Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2013). Easy to Understand but Difficult to Decide: Information Comprehensibility and Controversiality Affect Laypeople's Science-Based Decisions. Discourse Processes, 50(6), 361–387. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2013.813835
  • Smyth, J. (2021, September 25). Poisonings rise as Americans treat Covid with anti-parasitic drug. Financial Times. https://www.ft.com/content/9715bd16-bcb2-4bfc-bbd9-b7316d787698
  • Tal, A., & Wansink, B. (2014). Blinded with science: Trivial graphs and formulas increase ad persuasiveness and belief in product efficacy. Public Understanding of Science, 25(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662514549688
  • Thiebach, M., Mayweg-Paus, E., & Jucks, R. (2015). "Probably true" says the expert: How two types of lexical hedges influence students' evaluation of scientificness. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 30(3), 369–384. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-014-0243-4
  • Thomm, E., & Bromme, R. (2012). "It should at least seem scientific!" Textual features of "scientificness" and their impact on lay assessments of online information. Science Education, 96(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20480
  • Tran, H. T. T., Gigl, M., Le, N. P. K., Dawid, C., & Lamy, E. (2021). In Vitro Effect of Taraxacum officinale Leaf Aqueous Extract on the Interaction between ACE2 Cell Surface Receptor and SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein D614 and Four Mutants. Pharmaceuticals, 14(10), 1055. https://doi.org/10.3390/ph14101055
  • Wittwer, J., Bromme, R., & Jucks, R. (2004). Kann man dem Internet trauen, wenn es um die Gesundheit geht? Die Glaubwürdigkeitsbeurteilung medizinischer Fachinformationen im Internet durch Laien. Zeitschrift für Medienpsychologie, 16(2), 48–56. https://doi.org/10.1026/1617-6383.16.2.48
  • Zaboski, B. A., & Therriault, D. J. (2020). Faking science: Scientificness, credibility, and belief in pseudoscience. Educational Psychology, 40(7), Article 7. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2019.1694646