Modeling the Relationship between Trust in Science and Reliance on Formal News Sources

Authors

Keywords:

COVID, trust in predictive modeling, information source, news source

Abstract

Communication of scientific information to the population presents challenges because of the need to balance being transparent with avoidance of complex scientific terminology. The spread of information and news through social media and other informal sources rose during this past decade. The focus of this study is to understand what relates to reliance on formal news media. Formal news sources influence businesses and people, making them more apt to believe in science as measured by their beliefs in scientific concepts such as vaccinations, climate change, and compliance with COVID protocols. While this study looked at science because of the timeliness of COVID-related communication, this is a major issue related to all areas of business. For example, consider that in the case of COVID vaccines which has a consumer product manufactured by pharmaceutical firms, manufacture of the physical products related to vaccines, the distribution, and administration of vaccines. Trust in the predictive modeling that suggests vaccinations and PPE protocols impact pandemic and health concerns help influence actions. This empirical research shows that belief in science is correlated with the formality of the news source. Having a population that uses scientific information leads to behaviors like controlling the spread of something like COVID which is good for business, and not doing so results in the potential to have shutdowns or restrictions that are bad for business. If one fully understands the process, the public trusts in scientific modeling information, the impacts of non-compliance, and the negative business impact of non-compliance can be minimized.

References

Badcock, C., & Gambetta, D. (1990). Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations. British Journal of Sociology, 41, 128.

Besley, J. C., & McComas, K. A. (2015). Something old and something new: Comparing views about nanotechnology and nuclear energy. Journal of Risk Research, 18(2), 215-231.

Blank, J. M., & Shaw, D. (2015). Does partisanship shape attitudes toward science and public policy? The case for ideology and religion. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 658(1), 18-35.

Bleich, S., Blendon, R., & Adams, A. (2007). Trust in scientific experts on obesity: Implications for awareness and behavior change (Obesity (2007) 15, 8,(2145-2146)). Obesity, 15(11).

Brewer, P. R., & Ley, B. L. (2013). Whose science do you believe? Explaining trust in sources of scientific information about the environment. Science Communication, 35(1), 115-137.

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (Vol. 12). SAGE Publications.

Chryssochoidis, G., Strada, A., & Krystallis, A. (2009). Public trust in institutions and information sources regarding risk management and communication: towards integrating extant knowledge. Journal of Risk Research, 12(2), 137-185.

Downs, J. S., de Bruin, W. B., & Fischhoff, B. (2013). Parents' vaccination comprehension and decisions. In Risk Analysis and Human Behavior (pp. 274-297). Routledge.

Dunlap, R. E., & McCright, A. M. (2010). Climate change denial: sources, actors and strategies.

In Routledge handbook of climate change and society (pp. 270-290). Routledge.

Flanagin, A., & Metzger, M. J. (2017). Digital media and perceptions of source credibility in political communication. The Oxford handbook of political communication, 417.

Fletcher, R., & Park, S. (2017). The impact of trust in the news media on online news consumption and participation. Digital journalism, 5(10), 1281-1299.

Gil de Zúñiga, H., Weeks, B., & Ardèvol-Abreu, A. (2017). Effects of the news-finds-me perception in communication: Social media use implications for news seeking and learning about politics. Journal of computer-mediated communication, 22(3), 105-123.

Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of management review, 20(3), 709-734.

McCright, A. M., Marquart-Pyatt, S. T., Shwom, R. L., Brechin, S. R., & Allen, S. (2016). Ideology, capitalism, and climate: Explaining public views about climate change in the United States. Energy Research & Social Science, 21, 180-189.

McCuin, J. L., Hayhoe, K., & Hayhoe, D. (2014). Comparing the effects of traditional vs. misconceptions-based instruction on student understanding of the greenhouse effect. Journal of Geoscience Education, 62(3), 445-459.

McFadden, B. R., & Lusk, J. L. (2016). What consumers don't know about genetically modified food, and how that affects beliefs. The FASEB Journal, 30(9), 3091-3096.

McKeever, B. W., McKeever, R., Holton, A. E., & Li, J. Y. (2016). Silent majority: Childhood vaccinations and antecedents to communicative action. Mass Communication and Society, 19(4), 476-498.

Melki, J., Tamim, H., Hadid, D., Makki, M., el Amine, J., & Hitti, E. (2021). Mitigating infodemics: The relationship between news exposure and trust and belief in COVID-19 fake news and social media spreading. PLoS ONE, 16(6 June), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252830

Meyerson, D., Weick, K. E., & Kramer, R. M. (1996). Swift trust and temporary groups. Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research, 166, 195.

Michael, R. B., & Breaux, B. O. (2021). The relationship between political affiliation and beliefs about sources of "fake news". Cognitive research: principles and implications, 6(1), 1-15.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). (2017). Communicating science effectively: A research agenda. National Academies Press.

Nielsen, R. K., Cornia, A., & Kalogeropoulos, A. (2016). Challenges and opportunities for news media and journalism in an increasingly digital, mobile, and social media environment. Reuters Institute - University of Oxford, 41.

Ognyanova, K. (2019). The social context of media trust: A network influence model. Journal of communication, 69(5), 539-562.

Ranney, M., Clark, D., Reinholz, D., & Cohen, S. (2012). Changing global warming beliefs with scientific information: Knowledge, attitudes, and RTMD (Reinforced Theistic Manifest Destiny theory). In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (Vol. 34, No. 34).

Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross- discipline view of trust. Academy of management review, 23(3), 393-404.

Stratton, K. R., Howe, C. J., & Johnston, R. B. (1994). Adverse events associated with childhood vaccines: evidence bearing on causality. Natl Academy Pr.

Tsfati, Y., & Cappella, J. N. (2003). Do people watch what they do not trust? Exploring the association between news media skepticism and exposure. Communication research, 30(5), 504-529.

Van der Linden, S. L., Clarke, C. E., & Maibach, E. W. (2015). Highlighting consensus among medical scientists increases public support for vaccines: evidence from a randomized experiment. BMC public health, 15(1), 1-5.

Vanacker, B., Belmas, G. (2009) Trust and the economics of news. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 24(2- 3), 110-126.

Visschers, V. H., & Siegrist, M. (2013). How a nuclear power plant accident influences acceptance of nuclear power: Results of a longitudinal study before and after the Fukushima disaster. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 33(2), 333-347.

Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1992). Mental models of the earth: A study of conceptual change in childhood. Cognitive psychology, 24(4), 535-585.

Whitfield, S. C., Rosa, E. A., Dan, A., & Dietz, T. (2009). The future of nuclear power: Value orientations and risk perception. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 29(3), 425-437.

Downloads

Published

2022-08-29

Issue

Vol. 12 No. 1 (2022)

Section

ABR Journal Articles

License

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).