Trust In Experts Research Articles

Trust in COVID-19 information sources and perceived risk among smokers: A nationally representative survey.

BackgroundPublic health officials have classified smoking as a risk factor for COVID-19 disease severity. Smokers generally have less trust in health experts than do nonsmokers, leading to reduced risk perceptions. This study addresses smokers’ trust in information sources about COVID-19 and how trust is associated with perceived COVID-19 susceptibility and severity among smokers.Methods and findingsA nationally representative sample of 1,223 current smokers were surveyed between October and November 2020, indicating their level of trust in COVID-19 information sources, and their perceptions of risk from COVID-19. Multiple differences in trustworthiness emerged; smokers trusted their personal doctor for information about COVID-19 more than other information sources, while news media were generally distrusted. In addition, the FDA was trusted less than the NIH and CDC. Several “trust gaps” were observed, indicating disparities in levels of trust associated with gender, ethnicity, education, and political orientation, which had the strongest association with trust of all factors. Political orientation was also a significant predictor of COVID-19 risk perceptions, but there was no independent effect of political orientation when accounting for trust, which was predictive of all risk perception outcomes.ConclusionsTrusted sources, such as personal doctors, may most effectively convey COVID-19 information across political orientations and sociodemographic groups. News media may be ineffective at informing smokers due to their low credibility. The results suggest that trust may explain the apparent effect of political orientation on COVID-19 risk perceptions. Implications for researchers, communication professionals, and policy makers are discussed.

Social Media Use for Information Management in Organization and How It Can Engage and Empower Employees in The Era of COVID-19

Marion Koopmans, a well-known Dutch virologist, remarked in April 2020 that Twitter had been a two-edged sword in the fight against the COVID-19 outbreak. She discovered tweets of a new virus appearing in Wuhan in her casual Twitter feeds in December 2019, forcing her to diligently monitor the pathogen's spread. Koopmans was an expert on the government's quick reaction team four months later, and her Twitter page was full with disparaging and abusive tweets about her work from unknown sources. At a time when health communication is in crisis, social media can be used to spread misinformation and undermine institutional and professional trust (Llewellyn, 2020). Simultaneously, they can be useful tools for public involvement and information dissemination. We noticed how the epidemiology of the disease is tightly linked with the methods and practices of sharing accurate information as the corona pandemic unfolded (Bjrkdahl & Carlsen, 2019). The public's trust in experts is at risk in this contentious process of health communication: How can social media use for information management in organization engage and empower employees in the era of Covid-19?

Perspectives from Journalism Professionals on the Application and Benefits of Constructive Reporting for Addressing Misinformation

The proliferation of misinformation in contemporary information environments contributes to increasing polarization and decreasing trust in institutions and experts, both of which encourage further proliferation of misinformation. Increasing attention has been brought to the role of news media in the spread and uptake of misinformation, and to the role of journalists and news organizations in combatting this spread. Constructive journalism is a relatively new approach to reporting which, among other aims, looks to increase audience engagement, reduce polarization, and provide a more accurate view of events. In early 2020, we interviewed 16 journalism professionals from Europe (UK inclusive), Australia, Africa, and North America across a range formats to explore their perceptions of the use ‘constructive’ reporting strategies to address the spread of misinformation. We used thematic analysis to produce three themes and six subthemes in journalists’ responses, ‘apathy against the machine’, with subthemes ‘journalism as a moderator’, and ‘news and mental health’; ‘standards as shared reality’, with subthemes, ‘pluralism not postmodernism’, and ‘this means information war’; and ‘truth, trust, and the turn to transparency’, with subthemes, ‘facts necessary but not sufficient’, and ‘principles not particulars’. Constructive journalism was thought to address misinformation by increasing engagement with news and institutions, reducing polarization, providing a sense of shared reality amidst increasingly diverse perspectives, increasing trust, and reducing misperceptions encouraged by selection and reporting strategies. Constructive journalism may be a promising approach to addressing the spread and consequences of misinformation, however, empirical work is needed to evaluate the efficacy of the approach.

Trust and Mistrust in Sources of Scientific Information on Climate Change and Vaccines: Insights from Portugal and Poland.

Public trust in science and expertise remains a contentious issue. When public trust is analysed, it often simplifies a complex process of information retrieval and interpretation. Questionnaire surveys help us make sense of differences among actors and countries, but they fail to provide a comprehensive analysis of the reasons that lead citizens to trust a specific actor to differing degrees. Hence, we opted for using a qualitative grounded approach to understand how citizens make sense of their trust in several actors. This article draws from the results of public consultations with citizens in Portugal and Poland about two specific science-related topics—climate change and vaccines—focusing on citizens’ perceptions of trust in several sources of scientific information. The results show that citizens’ trust varies depending on the source of scientific information, and it is affected by the topic’s visibility and different national levels of institutional trust. It also concludes that citizens use different criteria to evaluate trustworthiness and that this process leads to different ways of expressing trust/mistrust: unquestioned confidence, justified trust, reflexive trust, and active distrust. Such knowledge leads to a more in depth understanding of how trust in science is constructed, which can help science communicators and educators choose sources and materials.

Planning for a COVID-19 vaccination campaign in New Zealand: trust, affective and cognitive attitudes, and COVID-19 vaccine intention

ABSTRACT Building public trust and willingness to vaccinate against COVID-19 is as important as developing a safe and effective vaccine to contain the pandemic. Based on the theory of planned behaviour and trust heuristic, this study tests factors associated with COVID-19 vaccination intentions using a national sample survey of the New Zealand public (N = 1040). Results show that while trust in health experts, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, and mass media are significantly associated with COVID-19 vaccine intention, affective attitude, and cognitive attitude partly mediate this relationship. Findings can help inform theory and practice of health campaigns to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake. Trusted sources communicating information that addresses prevailing vaccine concerns are likely to increase public enthusiasm for COVID-19 vaccination.

Intellectual Virtues in the Infodemic Age

One of the core problems provoked by the Coronavirus pandemic is the problem of the infodemic. The abundance of informational sources, the lack of sufficient skills and opportunities for its critical comprehension make the task of understanding the infodemic by the majority of the population highly relevant and significant in the era of informatization. Principally, in conditions of a real risk to the health and life of each individual. Often, disorientation in the information space about understanding the nature of the virus and possible ways of dealing with it causes no fewer fears and even phobias than the disease itself. The article deals with the problem of infodemic as a consequence of the post-truth era. The main attention is paid to the potential possibilities of the theory of virtue epistemology in solving the problem of infodemic. Thus, to clarify the problem of disinformation in the era of a pandemic, it is proposed to follow the virtue of phronesis (as the central virtue in Aristotle's theory), which allows us to make a qualitative assessment of the epistemological context and select the necessary tools for analyzing information and its sources. Also, ways are proposed for the formation of a research identity (self), which allows you to navigate a variety of informational sources due to the loss of elemental trust in experts. To do this, two levels of self-formation are analyzed, on the one hand, with the help of the function of the other (which is considered in the role of critic, model, support and authority), and on the other hand, with the help of independent work on oneself and concern for intellectual virtues.

What Does It Mean for a Robot to Be Respectful?

Intelligent systems are increasingly incorporated into relationships that had, until recently, been reserved solely for humans, and are delegated the role of a partner, which, if human, would presuppose a system of normatively regulated interactivity. This includes expectations of reciprocity and certain attitudes/actions towards human actors, such as respect. Even though a robot cannot respect, I argue that it can be respectful. A robot can be attributed respectfulness (in the direct sense) iff its interactions with persons reflect the respectful attitude of the humans involved in its design and operation. Robot respectfulness is a compound of (a) robotic actions governed by principles that (b) reflect the attitude of respect for persons by humans involved in its design, implementation, and professional use. I define respect for persons as a commitment to core values that make someone a person (i.e., intellect, rationality of reactive attitudes, autonomy, personal integrity, and trust in expertise).

Physical and feasible: Climate change adaptation in Longyearbyen, Svalbard

Abstract Longyearbyen, Svalbard, has become showcase of Arctic climate change. However, we know little about how these changes are dealt with locally. This article aims to fill this gap by examining climate change impacts and adaptation in a non-Indigenous “community of experts” and sets out to 1) describe observed changes and perceived societal impacts of climate change and 2) discuss adaptation measures and related understandings of adaptation. The research consists of ethnographic fieldwork and interviews with planners, engineers, architects, scientists, construction workers and local politicians. The research finds that climate change impacts the built environment in Longyearbyen, and that there is vast awareness of and concern related to these impacts. There is a substantial knowledge base for adaptation, and a special trust in scientific knowledge, skills and experts. The interview partners consider adaptation as necessary and feasible. Adaptation is understood and implemented as technical responses to physical problems, rooted in a modernist understanding of the environment as separated from humans, who can control it through technical means. This suggests a narrow understanding of adaptation that might fail to address more socially transformative processes.

MetaBoost: A Novel Heterogeneous DCNNs Ensemble Network With Two-Stage Filtration for SAR Ship Classification

Current synthetic aperture radar (SAR) ship classification research mainly focuses on modifying deep convolutional neural networks (DCNNs) and injecting manual features on DCNNs. Yet, the weak robustness of individual models in high-risk scenarios makes it difficult to gain the trust of SAR experts. In this letter, an automated method of heterogeneous DCNNs model ensemble based on two-stage filtration (MetaBoost) is proposed, effectively achieving robustness and high accuracy recognition on SAR ship classification. The principle of MetaBoost is generating a pool of diverse heterogeneous classifiers, selecting a subset of the most diverse and accurate classifiers, and finally fusing meta-features from the optimal subset. MetaBoost is a self-configuring algorithm that automatically determines the optimal type and number of base classifiers to be combined. Extensive experiments on the OpenSARShip and FUSAR-Ship datasets show that MetaBoost significantly outperforms individual classifiers, traditional ensemble models, and feature injection techniques.

Corporate social responsibility, customer trust and corporate reputation in the COVID-19 pandemic: Evidence in the car industry in Vietnam market

The aim of this study is to explore the impact of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) activities in building customer trust and company reputation with limited resources in the Covid-19 pandemic context. Data was collected through questionnaires sent from August 2021 to November 2021 in major cities of Vietnam, then we evaluated hypotheses in the research model by using the SEM technique. The results show that CSR activities including four facets: economic responsibility, legal responsibility, ethical responsibility, and philanthropic responsibility have positive impacts on customer trust as well as influences directly and indirectly on corporate reputation. Simultaneously, three dimensions of trust including expertise trust, integrity trust, and social benevolence trust also have strong impacts on corporate reputation with different levels, therein social benevolence trust has the strongest impact on corporate reputation. Based on this finding, some management implications are also discussed to show how corporations can allocate appropriate resources for different CSR activities so that they could leverage the benefits from the CSR strategy in their business.

The role of non–COVID-specific and COVID-specific factors in predicting a shift in willingness to vaccinate: A panel study

Although declines in intent to vaccinate had been identified in international surveys conducted between June and October 2020, including in the United States, some individuals in the United States who previously expressed reluctance said, in spring 2021, that they were willing to vaccinate. That change raised the following questions: What factors predicted an increased willingness to inoculate against COVID-19? And, to what extent was the change driven by COVID-specific factors, such as personal worry about the disease and COVID-specific misinformation, and to what extent by background (non-COVID-specific) factors, such as trust in medical authorities, accurate/inaccurate information about vaccination, vaccination history, and patterns of media reliance? This panel study of more than 8,000 individuals found that trust in health authorities anchored acceptance of vaccination and that knowledge about vaccination, flu vaccination history, and patterns of media reliance played a more prominent role in shifting individuals from vaccination hesitance to acceptance than COVID-specific factors. COVID-specific conspiracy beliefs did play a role, although a lesser one. These findings underscore the need to reinforce trust in health experts, facilitate community engagement with them, and preemptively communicate the benefits and safety record of authorized vaccines. The findings suggest, as well, the need to identify and deploy messaging able to undercut health-related conspiracy beliefs when they begin circulating.

COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy among Americans with disabilities aged 18-65: An exploratory analysis.

BackgroundIt is important for people with disabilities to be vaccinated against COVID-19 because, as a group, they are at increased risk of severe outcomes. While there are multiple vaccines available to prevent COVID-19, a considerable proportion of Americans report some hesitancy to becoming vaccinated, including people with disabilities.ObjectiveWe conducted a study to explore what factors may contribute to COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy among Americans with disabilities.MethodsWe used Amazon's Mechanical Turk to survey 439 people with disabilities (ages 18+) about their concerns of the COVID-19 disease, vaccines, and hesitancy toward vaccination to learn more about factors that influence vaccination hesitancy. Concerns about vaccines were analyzed as a composite variable representing different dimensions such as: side effects, too new, developed too quickly, influenced by politics, and effectiveness.ResultsResults from a logistic regression indicate that concern about vaccines was the most significant predictor of hesitancy, even after considering demographic, economic, and geographic factors. Concerns about getting COVID-19, getting tested for COVID-19, trust in experts, education, and being a Democrat were negatively associated with hesitancy.ConclusionsThese findings indicate that some groups of individuals may be more vaccination hesitant because they are more concerned about vaccine safety than COVID-19 infection. Public health messaging that focuses on the risks of vaccines relative to the risks of COVID-19 might be one strategy to reduce hesitancy and increase vaccination uptake. Messaging should also be tailored to specific disabilities (i.e. physical, mental, sensory), written in plain language, and disseminated in accessible formats.

I Think, Therefore I Act: The Influence of Critical Reasoning Ability on Trust and Behavior During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Actively open‐minded thinking (AOT) operates in three dimensions: it serves as a norm accounting for how one should search for and use information in judgment and decision making; it is a thinking style that one may adopt in accordance with the norm; and it sets standards for evaluating the thinking of others, particularly the trustworthiness of sources that claim authority. With the first and third dimensions in mind, we explore how AOT influences trust in public health experts, risk perceptions, and compliance with recommended behaviors aimed at slowing the spread and severity of the COVID‐19 pandemic. Using survey data from a nationally representative sample of Americans (N = 857), we tested whether AOT will lead people to place greater trust public health experts (H1). Because these experts have been consistently messaging that COVID‐19 is a real and serious threat to public health, we also hypothesized that trust in experts would be positively associated with high perceived risk (H2), which should have a positive influence on (self‐reported) compliance with CDC recommendations (H3). And because AOT is a self‐directed thinking style, we also expected it to directly influence risk perceptions and, by extension, compliance (H4). Our results support all four hypotheses. We discuss the implications of these results for how risk communication and risk management efforts are designed and practiced.

Factors affecting public responses to health messages during the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia: partisanship, values, and source credibility

ABSTRACT The COVID-19 crisis highlighted issues of trust in government and experts, as citizens were asked to accept restrictions on liberties in order to slow the spread of the virus. Based on a survey of 1992 Australians conducted in May 2020, this paper reports on the attitudes of Australians toward the responses of their State and Federal governments to the pandemic. Unsurprisingly, we found support for government responses differed with partisan alignment. However, when we controlled for values differences, we found that values predicted social distancing attitudes and behaviour. This oppugns the common conclusion in political psychology that party alignment is a proxy for values. Scientists were trusted more than political institutions or actors for accurate COVID-19 information, and likewise, traditional media were preferred to online sources. These findings have implications for policy communication when individual action is required to address collective goals.

Channeling Facts, Crouching Rumours: Taiwan’s Post-Truth Encounter with the Covid Pandemic

This study examines the confrontation between Taiwan and Covid in the period before the virus finally invaded and spread widely on the island in May 2021. While the general approach to Taiwan’s success in keeping the virus out is historical, stating the policy lessons learned from previous anti-pandemic experience, the study focuses on how these coping strategies were able to be made and conducted with little disruption from misinformation and conspiracy theories. Inspired by Sheila Jasanoff’s notion of how science and technology are received through different political and policy systems, and by Bruno Latour’s semiotic reflections on the actor-network theory, the STS take on post-truth politics here is institutional and discursive: instead of focusing on the scientific and the misleading in individual policies, I provide an ethnography of rumour and scientific discourse on Covid, capturing their interactions and net effects in the context of policy discussions. Following closely the daily press conferences held by the Central Epidemic Command Center (CECC), the only official information source for the Covid pandemic, I argue that discursive frames were made upon the limited information given and few confirmed cases found. Through the expert authority and ‘what if?’ scenarios seen at these conferences, Taiwan’s anti-Covid policies came to be presented as a narrative on crises and what the government was doing to get over them, and rumours were either ignored or marginalised. Meanwhile, though disputes and speculations on pandemic control did exist among experts, they only surfaced after the local outbreak, whereupon conspiracy theories flared up, challenging the already exhausted CECC. Together, the excessive information by experts, health professionals, policy analysists and talkshow hosts composes a ‘post-truth normal’ that has started to place Taiwan’s democracy and its trust in expertise on trial.

Correlates of intended COVID-19 vaccine acceptance across time and countries: results from a series of cross-sectional surveys

ObjectiveDescribe demographical, social and psychological correlates of willingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccine.SettingSeries of online surveys undertaken between March and October 2020.ParticipantsA total of 25 separate national samples (matched to...

Revisiting norms of citizenship in times of democratic change

Over the last two decades, scholars have investigated norms of citizenship by focussing primarily on ‘dutiful’ and ‘engaged’ norms. In the meantime, contemporary democracies have witnessed growing demands for more sustainable styles of living and increasing public support for authoritarian and populist ideas. These developments point to both a change and an expansion of conventional understandings and conceptions of what a ‘good citizen’ in a democratic polity ought to do. Specifically, they raise questions about whether demands for more sustainability and increasing support for populist ideas establish new facets of democratic citizenship, and if so, how they can be meaningfully incorporated into existing images of citizenship. This study provides a re-conceptualization of citizenship norms and empirically tests a new measurement instrument using original data collected in Germany in 2019. The empirical application of an expanded set of items demonstrates the existence of more variegated facets of norms of citizenship, including norms to safeguard a sustainable future and distinct populist facets emphasizing the relevance of trust in authorities and experts as well as reliance on feelings and emotions. Contemporary conceptions of citizenship thus go beyond conventional distinctions between dutiful and engaged norms of citizenship.

Who is more likely to ignore experts' advice related to COVID-19?

Failing to adhere to COVID-19 experts’ advice could have devastating consequences for individuals and communities. Here we determine which demographic factors can impact trust in COVID-19 experts. Participants consisted of more than 1875 online volunteers, primarily from the U.S. Survey data were collected before and after the first peak of the COVID-19 outbreak in the U.S. (28th of March−15th of May 2020). We consistently find that participants with a lower perceived socio-economic status, social conservatives, individualists, and participants who are less worried about COVID-19 are significantly more likely to support individuals who ignore the goverment's, scientists’, medical professionals’ COVID-19 advice. Regarding race, Black participants consistently (and Hispanics to a lesser degree) were more likely to support individuals who ignore the three expert groups relative to Whites. All these findings generalized to weaker trust towards public policy decision experts. Asian and other racial groups’ trust was consistently lower than Whites, but primarily numerically, not statistically. Age and gender showed weak or inconsistent results respectively. We provide an enhanced understanding of the demographic factors that can result in individuals/groups ignoring COVID-19 experts. Lack of compliance could increase the transmission risks of the virus. Therefore, non-partisan campaigns that target individuals/groups who distrust COVID-19 experts will likely reduce COVID-19 related deaths. Increasing expert representatives’ racial diversity may also increase trust among racial minorities.

Awareness of ethical dilemmas enhances public support for the principle of saving more lives in the United States: A survey experiment based on ethical allocation of scarce ventilators

Recommendations by health experts to deal with public health emergencies are primarily guided by the principle of “saving more lives”. It is unclear whether people perceive this principle as ethically more legitimate than some other principle such as “saving more life-years”. Understanding the answer to this question is particularly relevant to the allocation of scarce medical resources during public health emergencies. Different principles typically lead to different allocations, and consequently have dramatically different implications as to who survives and who dies. We fielded an online randomized controlled survey experiment in the context of scarce ventilator allocation with a demographically representative sample of US adults (n = 700) from October 22 to October 30, 2020. Participants faced hypothetical situations where they had to allocate few available ventilators among several needy patients. The experiment was designed such that the allocation decision made by a participant can be used to infer the principle in line with their personal ethical values. We interpret this inferred principle as the one that the participant perceives to be most legitimate. The treatment group, but not the control group, was provided balanced information that described the ethical dilemmas faced by experts in developing ventilator allocation guidelines. Nearly half of the participants in the control group perceive saving more lives the most legitimate principle. Despite the balanced nature of the information, the perceived legitimacy of saving more lives was 7·6 percentage points higher in the treatment group. The magnitude of this impact was particularly strong among republican-leaning participants, a subgroup that has less trust in experts according to previous research. Our findings suggest that enhancing public awareness of ethical dilemmas faced by health experts can increase the perceived legitimacy of their proposed guidelines even among those with lower trust in experts.

Factors influencing nursing students' intention to accept COVID-19 vaccination: A pooled analysis of seven European countries

BackgroundExperiencing the third wave of COVID-19 pandemic, high vaccination coverage by a safe and effective vaccine globally would be a great achievement. Acceptance of vaccination by nursing students is an important issue as they play a decisive role as future professionals in educating patients, counselling, and guiding them to the right clinical decision. ObjectivesTo explore the intention of nursing students to get vaccinated for SARS-CoV-2 infection and the factors acting either as motivators or as barriers towards vaccination. DesignA multicenter cross-sectional design. ParticipantsIn total 2249 undergraduate nursing students participated. MethodsThe study was conducted in 7 universities in participating countries (Greece, Albania, Cyprus, Spain, Italy, Czech Republic, and Kosovo) through a web survey. Data was collected during December 2020–January 2021 in all countries. ResultsForty three point 8% of students agreed to accept a safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine, while the acceptance was higher among Italian students. The factors for intention to get vaccinated were male gender (p = 0.008), no working experience in healthcare facilities during the pandemic (p = 0.001), vaccination for influenza in 2019 and 2020 (p < 0.001), trust in doctors (p < 0.001), governments and experts (p = 0.012), high level of knowledge (p < 0.001) and fear of COVID-19 (p < 0.001). ConclusionsUnderstanding of factors that influence students' decision to accept COVID-19 vaccination could increase the acceptance rate contributing to a management of the pandemic.