De invloed van verwijzing naar wetenschappelijke autoriteit op de waarheidsperceptie van plausibel maar onjuist weergegeven wetenschapsnieuws

Inaccurate representations of research in science-news reporting may impact public perceptions, particularly of plausible news. Because non-specialists may lack the necessary background knowledge to assess the accuracy of such plausible but misrepresented claims, they may have to rely on peripheral cues to estimate the messages’ truthfulness. We examine one such cue – reference to authority – and investigate its effect on the perceived truthfulness of science-news messages. Participants (N = 147) were randomly assigned to one of four conditions (no source, professor-as-source, university-as-source, combination-as-source), and rated ten science-news messages. Results showed an effect of source: participants perceived texts to be more true in the university- and combination-conditions compared to the professor-condition. The effect was not moderated by participants’ willingness to think analytically. These findings suggest that non-specialists do not necessarily rely on authority when assessing the truthfulness of information and may be less susceptible to heuristic information than dual process models predict.