'To trust or not to trust,…'-pupils' ways of judging information encountered in a socio-scientific issue

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Related collections

Most cited references 19

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Book: not found

Misunderstanding science?

Alan Irwin, Brian Wynne (1996)

0 comments Cited 209 times – based on 0 reviews

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Article: not found

Knowledges in Context

B. M. Wynne (1991)

0 comments Cited 163 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

What determines trust in information about food-related risks? Underlying psychological constructs.

Jonathan C. Howard, Peter Shepherd, D I Hedderley … (1996)

Trust in risk information about food related-hazards may be an important determinant of public reactions to risk information. One of the central questions addressed by the risk communication literature is why some individuals and organizations are trusted as sources of risk information and others are not. Industry and government often lack public trust, whereas other sources (for example, consumer organizations, the quality media, medical doctors) are highly trusted. Problematically, previous surveys and questionnaire studies have utilized questions generated by the investigators themselves to assess public perceptions of trust in different sources. Furthermore, no account of the hazard domain was made. In the first study reported here, semistructured interviewing was used to elicit underpinning constructs determining trust and distrust in different sources providing food-related risk information (n = 35). In the second study, the repertory grid method was used to elicit the terminology that respondents use to distinguish between different potential food-related information sources (n = 35), the data being submitted to generalised Procrustes analysis. The results of the two studies were combined and validated in survey research (n = 888) where factor analysis indicated that knowledge in itself does not lead to trust, but that trusted sources are seen to be characterised by multiple positive attributes. Contrary to previous research, complete freedom does not lead to trust-rather sources which possess moderate accountability are seen to be the most trusted.

0 comments Cited 114 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Journal

Title: International Journal of Science Education

Abbreviated Title: International Journal of Science Education

Publisher: Informa UK Limited

ISSN (Print): 0950-0693

ISSN (Electronic): 1464-5289

Publication date Created: September 2001

Publication date (Print): September 2001

Volume: 23

Issue: 9

Pages: 877-901

Article

DOI: 10.1080/09500690010016102

SO-VID: da1d26cf-9d59-4e8d-92b2-e9e17dbc479b

History

Data availability:

Comments

Comment on this article

scite_

Smart Citations

Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting

View Citations

See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.