| Name |
|---|
| Hendriks, Friederike |
| Kienhues, Dorothe |
| Bromme, Rainer |
| Title | Measuring Laypeople's Trust in Experts in a Digital Age: The Muenster Epistemic Trustworthiness Inventory (METI): Three Datasets. |
|---|---|
| Original Title | Wie sich das von Laien in Experten gesetzte Vertrauen im digitalen Zeitalter messen lässt: "The Muenster Epistemic Trustworthiness Inventory (METI)": Drei Forschungsdatensätze. |
| Citation | Hendriks, F., Kienhues, D., & Bromme, R. (2015). Measuring Laypeople's Trust in Experts in a Digital Age: The Muenster Epistemic Trustworthiness Inventory (METI): Three Datasets. [Translated Title] (Version 1.0.0) [Data and Documentation]. Trier: Center for Research Data in Psychology: PsychData of the Leibniz Institute for Psychology ZPID. https://doi.org/10.5160/psychdata.hsfe15mu08 |
| Language of variable documentation | German |
| Responsible for Data Collection | Hendriks, Friederike; Kienhues, Dorothe; Bromme, Rainer |
| Data Collection Completion Date | 2015 |
| Dataset Publication | 2015 |
| Dataset ID | hsfe15mu08 |
| Study Description | Given their lack of background knowledge, laypeople require expert help when dealing with scientific information. To decide whose help is dependable, laypeople must judge an expert's epistemic trustworthiness in terms of competence, adherence to scientific standards, and good intentions. Online, this may be difficult due to the often limited and sometimes unreliable source information available. To measure laypeople's evaluations of experts (encountered online), we constructed an inventory to assess epistemic trustworthiness on the dimensions expertise, integrity, and benevolence. Exploratory (n = 237) and confirmatory factor analyses (n = 345) showed that the Muenster Epistemic Trustworthiness Inventory (METI) is composed of these three factors. A subsequent experimental study (n = 137) showed that all three dimensions of the METI are sensitive to variation in source characteristics. We propose using this inventory to measure assignments of epistemic trustworthiness, that is, all judgments laypeople make when deciding whether to place epistemic trust in - and defer to - an expert in order to solve a scientific informational problem that is beyond their understanding. |
| Hypotheses | 1. Epistemic trustworthiness can be differentiated in the three dimensions expertise, integrity and benevolence.
2. These dimensions are separable, though to some extent correlated. |
| Keyphrase | measurement of epistemic trustworthiness of experts in digital communication, test construction, METI, expertise & integrity & benevolence, research data |
| Funding | German Research Foundation (DFG) within the Research Training Group 1712 "Trust and Communication in a Digitized World" |
| Rating | Due to random sampling the study findings can not be generalized to the general population, however possibly to the population of young German graduates.
For psychometric properties see Hendriks, Kienhues & Bromme (in press). |
| File Access Criteria | Data files and additional material that belong to access category 1indication of an academic email account and the intended use |
| Classification | Tests & Testing Mass Media Communications Social Perception & Cognition |
|---|---|
| Controlled Terms | Trust (Social Behavior) Computer Mediated Communication Questionnaires Data Collection |
| Research Method Description | Test Data |
|---|---|
| Classification of Data Collection | Research Instrument |
| Research Instrument | Study 1: Participants received 18 semantic opposites to rate a scientific expert on Likert scales ranging from 1 (e.g. professional) to 7 (e.g., unprofessional).
Exploratory factor analysis revealed three factors - "expertise", "integrity" and "benevolence" - explaining 61.66% of the total variance. Study 2: The constructed Muenster Epistemic Trustworthiness Inventory (METI) was reduced to 16 items. To test the three-factor structure of the inventory, a new data set was assessed with confirmatory factor analysis. The results confirmed the three-factor structure. After elimination of two items, the final version of the METI consists of 14 items. All three factors are related to the comprehensive theoretical construct "epistemic trustworthiness". Study 3: The final version of the METI consisting of 14 items was administered in an experimental study. Participants had to rate the epistemic thrustworthiness of six ficticious persons, who were indicated as potential authors of a blog entry. The blog entry was about a study from the field of neurology. Descriptions of authors varied along each of the dimensions of epistemic trustworthiness (low vs. high expertise, low vs. high integrity, low vs. high benevolence). The results indicated that the METI is able to measure epistemic trustworthiness in a differentiated way. For detailed information see Hendriks, Kienhues & Bromme (2015). |
| Data Collection Method | Data collection in the absence of an experimenter
- Online-Survey |
| Time Points | repeated measurements |
| Survey Time Period | Study 1: August & Septembre 2013
Study 2: January, February & March 2014 Study 3: July & August 2015 |
| Characteristics | - |
| Population | Young German graduates |
| Experimental Pool | Individuals |
| Sample | Convenience Sample |
| Subject Recruitment | Study 1: Participants registered in the Bromme research unit’s internal volunteer database were contacted via e-mail containing the link to the online survey. Participants could choose the time and location of their participation. Subjects took part in an Amazon voucher lottery worth a total of 200 euro.
Study 2: Participants were recruited in lectures at the University of Muenster. Students interested in participation could leave their email adress for contact. They were contacted via e-mail containing the link to the online survey. Participants could choose the time and location of their participation. Subjects took part in an Amazon voucher lottery worth a total of 200 euro. Study 3: Participants registered in the Bromme research unit’s internal volunteer database were contacted via email containing the link to the online survey. Furthermore, advertisements were posted in a newsletter for students at the University of Muenster and on the German magazine "Psychologie Heute"’s website. Participants could choose the time and location of their participation. Subjects took part in an Amazon voucher lottery worth a total of 100 euro. |
| Sample Size | Study 1: 237 individuals; Study 2: 345 individuals; Study 3: 137 individuals |
| Return/Drop Out | Study 1: 300 persons followed the link to open the online survey. Only those who completed the survey were included in the analysis (79%).
Study 2: 406 persons followed the link to open the online survey. Only those who completed the survey were included in the analysis (85%). Study 3: 243 persons followed the link to open the online survey. Only those who completed the survey were included in the analysis (56%). |
| Gender Distribution | Study 1:
75,5% female subjects 24,5% male subjects Study 2: 69,3% female subjects 30,7% male subjects Study 3: 75,2% female subjects 24,8% male subjects |
| Age Distribution | Study 1: 19-47 years; Study 2: 18-50 years; Study 3: 19-53 years |
| Special Groups | - |
| Country | Germany |
| Region | - |
| City | - |
| Variables | Study 1:
Subject ID Time to complete survey Demographic variables (age, gender, educational degree) Inventory items (to be developed) Study 2: Subject ID Time to complete survey Demographic variables (age, gender, educational degree) Items of the Muenster Epistemic Trustworthiness Inventory (METI) Study 3: Subject ID Time to complete survey Demographic variables (age, gender, educational degree) Items of the Muenster Epistemic Trustworthiness Inventory (METI) in the different experimental conditions |
| Data Status | Complete Data Set |
|---|---|
| Original Records | Data were assessed via an online survey (conducted by Unipark). |
| Transformation | Using an online survey software, subject’s data were immediately assessed in a machine-readable form. |
| Description | Research data file of study 1 |
|---|---|
| File Name | hsfe15mu08_fd1.txt |
| Data Content | 237 subjects, 26 variables |
| Data Points | 237*26= 6162 data points |
| Variables | Subject ID (1), time to complete survey (1), age (1), gender (1), educational degree (1), items of the inventory (under construction), e.g. competence, intelligence, ...(18), means of the extracted factors expertise, integrity, benevolence (3) |
| MD5 Hash | 120041d8fdb7db8dfe58c99cc8160b33 |
| File Access Criteria | access category 1indication of an academic email account and the intended use |
| Description | Research data file of study 2 |
| File Name | hsfe15mu08_fd2.txt |
| Data Content | 345 subjects, 24 variables |
| Data Points | 345*24= 8280 data points |
| Variables | subject ID (1), duration (1), age (1), gender (1), educational degree (1), Muenster Muenster Epistemic Trustworthiness Inventory (METI): Items of the dimension expertise (7), METI: Items of the dimension integrity (5), METI: Items of the dimension benevolence (4), means of the dimension expertise, integrity and benevolence (3) |
| MD5 Hash | 51bf2aef8964e517d7ce089043b3b78e |
| File Access Criteria | access category 1indication of an academic email account and the intended use |
| Description | Research data file of study 3 |
| File Name | hsfe15mu08_fd3.txt |
| Data Content | 137 subjects, 191 variablens |
| Data Points | 137*191= 26167 data points |
| Variables | Subject ID (1), consent (1), age (1), gender (1), educational degree (1), condition "Expertise low": Items of METI (14), condition "Expertise high": Items of METI (14), condition "Integrity low": Items of METI (14), condition "Integrity high": Items of METI (14), condition "Benevolence low": Items of METI (14), condition "Benevolence high": Items of METI (14), condition "Expertise low": Recoded Items of METI (14), condition "Expertise high": Recoded Items of METI (14), condition "Integrity low": Recoded Items of METI (14), condition "Integrity high": Recoded Items of METI (14), condition "Benevolence low": Recoded Items of METI (14), condition "Benevolence high": Recoded Items of METI (14), means of expertise in the different conditions (6), means of integrity in the different conditions (6), means of benevolence in the different conditions (6) |
| MD5 Hash | 40ead4150dda23a5266b6f2f4a649c74 |
| File Access Criteria | access category 1indication of an academic email account and the intended use |
| Description | File Name |
|---|---|
| Codebook of the research data file hsfe15mu08_fd1.txt | hsfe15mu08_kb1.txt |
| Codebook of the research data file hsfe15mu08_fd2.txt | hsfe15mu08_kb2.txt |
| Codebook of the research data file hsfe15mu08_fd3.txt | hsfe15mu08_kb3.txt |
| Publications Directly Related to the Dataset |
|---|
| Hendriks, F., Kienhues, D., Bromme, R. (2015). Measuring Laypeople's Trust in Experts in a Digital Age: The Muenster Epistemic Trustworthiness Inventory (METI). PLoS ONE 10(10): e0139309. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0139309Datensatz 0305481 |
| Further Reading |
|---|
| Bromme, R., & Goldman, S.R. (2014). The public's Bounded Understanding of Science. Educational Psychologist, 49 (2), 59-69. DOI:10.1080/00461520.2014.921572Datensatz 0282214 |
| Bromme, R., Kienhues, D. & Porsch, T. (2010). Who knows what and who can we believe? Epistemological beliefs are beliefs about knowledge (mostly) to be attained from others. In L. D. Bendixen & F. C. Feucht (Eds.), Personal epistemology in the classroom: Theory, research, and implications for practice (pp. 163-193). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Datensatz 0232884 |
| Origgi G. (2004). Is trust an epistemological notion? Episteme, 1(1), 61–72. |
| Origgi G. (2014). Epistemic trust. In P. Capet & T. Delavallade (Eds.), Information Evaluation (pp. 35-54). New York: John Wiley & Sons. DOI: 10.1002/9781118899151.ch2 |
| Sinatra, G. M., Kienhues, D., & Hofer, B. K. (2014). Addressing challenges to public understanding of science: Epistemic cognition, motivated reasoning, and conceptual change. Educational Psychologist, 49 (2), 123-138. DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2014.916216 Datensatz 0282216 |
| Sperber, D., Clément, F., Heintz, C., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., Origgi, G., & Wilson, D. (2010). Epistemic vigilance. Mind & Language, 25 (4), 359–393. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0017.2010.01394.x |