Learning to trust and trusting to learn: a theoretical framework

Landrum, Asheley R.; Eaves, Baxter S.; Shafto, Patrick

doi:10.1016/j.tics.2014.12.007

Cited by 114 publications

(92 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…When people are unable to judge the quality of information about highly specific scientific domains, as is the case with various emerging technologies [Hardwig, 1985;Hendriks, Kienhues and Bromme, 2016;Siegrist, 2000], they tend to rely, instead, on their assessments of the originator's trustworthiness; or the extent to which they perceive relevant stakeholders as having topical knowledge (e.g., expertise) and positive motivations, such as putting public welfare before their own interests [e.g., Fiske, Cuddy and Glick, 2007;Hovland, Janis and Kelley, 1953;Landrum, Eaves and Shafto, 2015]. There are a variety of stakeholders for whom consumers' perceptions of trustworthiness affect views of the research, development, production, and sale of GMOs.…”

Section: Trustworthinessmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…"), ratings of researcher credibility (with subscales of trusting researchers to have positive intentions, i.e., "benevolent", trusting researchers to have expertise, i.e., "competent", and not trusting researchers, or being skeptical of them), rankings of perceived researcher knowledge, and rankings of perceived researcher ethics. These ways of operationalizing trustworthiness are based on prior research by Critchley [2008] and theories of epistemic trust, credibility, and dimensions of social cognition [Fiske, Cuddy and Glick, 2007;Landrum, Eaves and Shafto, 2015;Pornpitakpan, 2004]. We describe these variables in more detail below.…”

Section: Dependent Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Open and transparent research practices and public perceptions of the trustworthiness of agricultural biotechnology organizations

Landrum¹,

Hilgard²,

Lull³

et al. 2018

JCOM

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Public trust in agricultural biotechnology organizations that produce so-called 'genetically-modified organisms' (GMOs) is affected by misinformed attacks on GM technology and worry that producers' concern for profits overrides concern for the public good. In an experiment, we found that reporting that the industry engages in open and transparent research practices increased the perceived trustworthiness of university and corporate organizations involved with GMOs. Universities were considered more trustworthy than corporations overall, supporting prior findings in other technology domains. The results suggest that commitment to, and communication of, open and transparent research practices should be part of the process of implementing agricultural biotechnologies. AbstractPublic perception of science and technology; Public understanding of science and technology; Risk communication

show abstract

Section: Trustworthinessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Dependent Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Open and transparent research practices and public perceptions of the trustworthiness of agricultural biotechnology organizations

Landrum¹,

Hilgard²,

Lull³

et al. 2018

JCOM

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition to developing an understanding that learning can occur through their own exploration, young children may also develop an understanding of learning through didactic instruction—they may believe that learning can also happen through teaching. Recent work in selective social learning argues that much knowledge is acquired through others’ testimony (Harris, ; Harris & Koenig, ; Landrum, Eaves, & Shafto, ; Mills, ; Sobel & Kushnir, ). This work runs counter to the belief that early learning is mostly accomplished through exploration and interaction with the environment (e.g., Harris, ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Preschoolers’ Understanding of How Others Learn Through Action and Instruction

Sobel

Letourneau

2017

Child Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is widely believed that exploration is a mechanism for young children's learning. The present investigation examines preschoolers' beliefs about how learning occurs. We asked 3- to 5-year-olds to articulate how characters in a set of stories learned about a new toy. Younger preschoolers were more likely to overemphasize the role of characters' actions in learning than older children were (Experiment 1, N = 53). Overall performance improved when the stories explicitly stated that characters were originally ignorant and clarified the characters' actions, but general developmental trends remained (Experiment 2, N = 48). These data suggest that explicit metacognitive understanding of the relation between actions and learning is developing during the preschool years, which might have implications for how children learn from exploration.

show abstract

“…Cumulatively, this body of research demonstrates that children tend to exercise caution when deciding whom to believe (e.g., see also Harris, 2012; Koenig & Sabbagh, 2013; Landrum, Baxter, & Shafto, 2015; Mills, 2013). Whether children have similar or different patterns of reasoning across domains, including food, is theoretically important in that it speaks to the nature of children's trust in testimony, that is, the extent to which children's trust is specific or general.…”

Section: Children's Trust In Testimonymentioning

confidence: 99%

Trust and doubt: An examination of children’s decision to believe what they are told about food

Nguyen

Gordon

Chevalier

et al. 2016

Journal of Experimental Child Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The domain of food is one that is highly relevant and vital to the everyday lives of children. However, children's reasoning about this domain is poorly understood within the field of developmental psychology. Because children's learning about food, including its evaluative components (e.g., health, taste) is so heavily dependent upon information conveyed by other people, a major developmental challenge that children face is determining who to distrust regarding food. In three studies, this investigation examined how 3- to 4-year-olds and adults (N = 312) use different cues to determine when to ignore informant information (i.e., distrust what an informant tells them by choosing an alternative) in food- and nonfood-specific scenarios. The results of Study 1 indicated that by age 4, children are less trusting of inaccurate sources of information compared with sources that have not demonstrated previous inaccuracy. Study 2 revealed that these results are applicable across the domain of objects. The results of Study 3 indicated that by age 4, children trust benevolent sources more often than malevolent ones. Thus, when reasoning about the evaluative components of food, by age 4, children appraise other people's untrustworthiness by paying attention to their inaccuracy and malevolence.

show abstract

Learning to trust and trusting to learn: a theoretical framework

Cited by 114 publications

References 14 publications

Open and transparent research practices and public perceptions of the trustworthiness of agricultural biotechnology organizations

Open and transparent research practices and public perceptions of the trustworthiness of agricultural biotechnology organizations

Preschoolers’ Understanding of How Others Learn Through Action and Instruction

Trust and doubt: An examination of children’s decision to believe what they are told about food

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About