Article ID Journal Published Year Pages File Type
6576182 Studies in Communication Sciences 2016 8 Pages PDF
Abstract
Laypeople need to trust experts, because they lack sufficient background knowledge to handle scientific evidence. This study investigates if a science blogger's expertise, integrity, and benevolence are affected by an admission of a study's flaw in contrast to a critique by another scientist. Results (N = 90) showed that ascriptions of expertise were lower when a flaw was disclosed, no matter by whom. However, ascriptions of integrity and benevolence were higher when admitted vs. when introduced via critique. Hence, epistemic trustworthiness is inferred from objective data (a flaw was made), but also from communicative actions (admission of the flaw).
Related Topics
Social Sciences and Humanities Arts and Humanities Language and Linguistics
Authors
, , ,