Trust-building factors in the risk communication of a German state institution from the recipient’s point of view. A qualitative analysis

One disruption modern societies are experiencing is an ‘erosion’ of trust in governments and institutions in recent decades (e.g. Edelman 2018; Siegrist 2001). Although the majority of citizens in Europe trust science (e.g. for the German case: Wissenschaft im Dialog 2023) institutions that try to protect the population from (health) risks, for instance, are exposed to critical voices of dissent that question their recommendations, sowing mistrust. This can cast doubt on which information is correct and which sources of information can be trusted.

The question of when (risk) communication is considered trustworthy is therefore of social relevance. We address this question from the perspective of the recipients. We conducted 40 one-hour, qualitative guided face-to-face interviews with a cross-section of the German population. During the interviews, participants were shown various risk communication materials (on radon and mobile phone radiation) from the Federal Office for Radiation Protection (FRP).

Participants were first asked in general terms what they understand by trust and which factors they believe influence whether they trust institutions. ... mehrSecond, during and after the reception of the communication materials, participants were asked whether there were specific aspects of the communication that they considered to increase or decrease trust. Third, they were interviewed about their risk perception and their trust in the FRP before and after reception.

The interviews were transcribed and analyzed according to Mayring’s (2022) qualitative content analysis (using MAXQDA software).

Our results show that the most important trust-building factors for the interviewees are prominence of and positive experiences with the institution (e.g. an impression of interest in the well-being of citizens), perceived professional competence (e.g. research activities), independence, incorruptibility, and reliability – largely in line with the trust dimensions of the Muenster Epistemic Trustworthiness Inventory (expertise, integrity, benevolence; Hendriks et al. 2017). These were supplemented by our participants with the dimensions of transparency and willingness to engage in dialogue (also considered by Reif et al. 2023). The communication material promoted trust if it seemed easy to understand, up-to-date, objective/ fact-based, reliable, not interest-driven, transparent, relevant, with reference to everyday life, professionally designed and published by a ‘reputable’ communicator. After reception of the communication material, recipients’ trust in the FRP tended to increase as well as risk perception, implying that communication may affect perceptions of trust.



References

Edelman (Ed.) (2018). 2018 Edelman Trust Barometer. Global Report. https://www.edelman.com/sites/g/files/aatuss191/files/2018-10/2018_Edelman_Trust_Barometer_Global_Report_FEB.pdf.

Hendriks, F., Kienhues, D. & Bromme, R. (2017). METI. Muenster Epistemic Trustworthiness Inventory. In Leibniz-Institut für Psychologie (ZPID) (Ed.), Open Test Archive. https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.6557.

Mayring, P. (2022). Evidenztriangulation und Mixed Methods in der Gesundheitsforschung. In R. Haring (Ed.), Gesundheitswissenschaften (pp. 137-145). Berlin.

Reif, A., Taddicken, M., Guenther, L., Schröder, J. T., & Weingart, P. (2023, Mai 25). Public Trust in Science: Introducing and Testing a New Survey Instrument. 73rd Annual ICA Conference, Toronto.

Siegrist, M. (2001). Die Bedeutung von Vertrauen bei der Wahrnehmung und Bewertung von Risiken. Working paper. http://elib.uni-stuttgart.de/handle/11682/8695.

Wissenschaft im Dialog (Ed.) (2023). Wissenschaftsbarometer 2022. https://www.wissenschaft-im-dialog.de/projekte/wissenschaftsbarometer/wissenschaftsbarometer-2022/.