{"title":"中介对科学内容的信任:评估数字媒体环境中的信任线索。","authors":"Justin T Schröder, Lars Guenther","doi":"10.1177/09636625251337709","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Intermediaries such as (digital) media use trust cues in their content, that is, information and linguistic markers that present public audiences reasons for trusting scientists, scientific organizations, and the science system. <i>Trust cues</i> refer to dimensions of trust in science such as expertise, integrity, benevolence, transparency, and dialogue. Because digital media environments are expected to be heterogeneous in content, the sources of trust cues, characteristics of objects of trust in science (e.g. the gender of scientists), and their impact on public trust in science may vary. In our quantitative content analysis, we identified trust cues across several sources of scientific information (<i>n</i> = 906) and examined their heterogeneity in digital media environments. Our results reveal journalism as the most important source for trust cues and that scientists are the most prevalent object of trust-with female scientists being underrepresented. Differences across (digital) media imply varying impacts on public trust in science.</p>","PeriodicalId":48094,"journal":{"name":"Public Understanding of Science","volume":" ","pages":"9636625251337709"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mediating trust in content about science: Assessing trust cues in digital media environments.\",\"authors\":\"Justin T Schröder, Lars Guenther\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/09636625251337709\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Intermediaries such as (digital) media use trust cues in their content, that is, information and linguistic markers that present public audiences reasons for trusting scientists, scientific organizations, and the science system. <i>Trust cues</i> refer to dimensions of trust in science such as expertise, integrity, benevolence, transparency, and dialogue. Because digital media environments are expected to be heterogeneous in content, the sources of trust cues, characteristics of objects of trust in science (e.g. the gender of scientists), and their impact on public trust in science may vary. In our quantitative content analysis, we identified trust cues across several sources of scientific information (<i>n</i> = 906) and examined their heterogeneity in digital media environments. Our results reveal journalism as the most important source for trust cues and that scientists are the most prevalent object of trust-with female scientists being underrepresented. Differences across (digital) media imply varying impacts on public trust in science.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48094,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Public Understanding of Science\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"9636625251337709\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Public Understanding of Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625251337709\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Understanding of Science","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625251337709","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
Mediating trust in content about science: Assessing trust cues in digital media environments.
Intermediaries such as (digital) media use trust cues in their content, that is, information and linguistic markers that present public audiences reasons for trusting scientists, scientific organizations, and the science system. Trust cues refer to dimensions of trust in science such as expertise, integrity, benevolence, transparency, and dialogue. Because digital media environments are expected to be heterogeneous in content, the sources of trust cues, characteristics of objects of trust in science (e.g. the gender of scientists), and their impact on public trust in science may vary. In our quantitative content analysis, we identified trust cues across several sources of scientific information (n = 906) and examined their heterogeneity in digital media environments. Our results reveal journalism as the most important source for trust cues and that scientists are the most prevalent object of trust-with female scientists being underrepresented. Differences across (digital) media imply varying impacts on public trust in science.
期刊介绍:
Public Understanding of Science is a fully peer reviewed international journal covering all aspects of the inter-relationships between science (including technology and medicine) and the public. Public Understanding of Science is the only journal to cover all aspects of the inter-relationships between science (including technology and medicine) and the public. Topics Covered Include... ·surveys of public understanding and attitudes towards science and technology ·perceptions of science ·popular representations of science ·scientific and para-scientific belief systems ·science in schools