Measuring Trust in Science and Scientists: Italian Adaptation of the Trust in Science and Scientists Inventory

Author/s Roberto Fasanelli, Miriam Di Lisio, Alfonso Piscitelli
Publishing Year 2024 Issue 2024/1
Language Italian Pages 15 P. 125-139 File size 264 KB
DOI 10.3280/PDS2024-001007
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

In the era of scientific innovations that want, as part of evolution, an ever-increasing inclusion of human beings in its refinement process, the question of the dynamic be-tween truth and trust becomes increasingly pervasive. Trust in Science and Scientists can considerably influence the esteem and appreciation of scientific developments and dis-coveries and, no less, of scientists themselves. That trust, however, is a brute construct based on emotions, knowledge, beliefs, and interrelationships. From the literature analy-sis on the topic in our country, it was realized that no specific instrument is helpful for surveying Trust in Science and Scientists. Therefore, this study’s main objective is the preliminary adaptation of a scale aimed at assessing the trust attributed to the scientific community. The instrument proposed here originates from the scale validated by Nadel-son and collaborators (2014), which consists of 21 items. The scale was successfully tested on a non-probability sample of 201 subjects, and the implications and possible applications are discussed throughout this paper.

Keywords: Trust in Science, Trust in Scientists, scale translation, scale reliability, scale validation

  1. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education (1985). Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association
  2. Belardinelli S. e Gili G. (2020). Fidarsi. Cinque forme di fiducia alla prova del COVID-19. Mediascapes Journal, 15: 80-98.
  3. Brotherton R., French C.C. and Pickering A.D. (2013). Measuring belief in conspiracy theories: the generic conspiracist beliefs scale. Frontiers in Psychology-Personality and Social Psychology. 4.
  4. Capone V., Donizzetti A.R. and Sang‑Ah Park. M. (2021). Validation and Psychometric Evaluation of the COVID‑19 Risk Perception Scale (CoRP): a New Brief Scale to Measure Individuals’ Risk Perception. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction.
  5. Del Corona L. (2022). La fiducia nella scienza alla prova dell’emergenza sanitaria da COVID-19. Osservatorio sulle Fonti, 1.
  6. Doise W. and Valentim J.P. (2015). Levels of analysis in social psychology. In Wright J.D. (ed.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 899–903). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
  7. Donolo C. (2009). Fiducia: un bene comune. Parolechiave, 2: 7-12. DOI: 10.7377/70459
  8. Fasanelli R., Piscitelli A. and Galli I. (2020). Social Representations of Covid-19 in the Framework of Risk Psychology. Papers on Social Representations, 29(2): 8.1-8.36.
  9. Fasce A. and Picó A. (2019). Science as a Vaccine. Science & Education. 28: 109-125
  10. Gambetta D. (1988). Can We Trust? In Gambetta D. (ed.) Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations (pp. 213-237). Oxford: University of Oxford Press.
  11. Istituto di Scienze e Tecnologie della Cognizione del Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche ISTC (2022). Fidarsi dei vaccini COVID-19 come obiettivo individuale e sociale. Rapporti scientifici.
  12. Jones D.J. (2020). Pandemic policing: Highlighting the need for trauma-informed services during and beyond the COVID-19 crisis. Journal of Community Safety and Well-Being, 5(2): 69-72.
  13. Kalampalikis N., Bauer M.W. and Apostolidis T. (2013). Science, technology and society: The social representations approach. Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale, 26, 5-9.
  14. Larson H.J., Cooper L.Z., Eskola J., Katz S.L. and Ratzan S. (2011). Addressing the vaccine confidence gap. The Lancet. 378(9790): 526–535. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60678-
  15. Mousoulidou M. and Siakalli M. (2021). Adaptation and Validation of the Greek Version of the Trust in Science and Scientists Questionnaire; Unpublished Doctoral Colloquium Presentation; Neapolis University Pafos: Paphos, Cyprus.
  16. Mudde C. (2017). An ideational approach. The Oxford handbook of populism, 27-47.
  17. Nadelson L., Jorcyk C., Yang D., Jarratt Smith M., Matson S., Cornell K. and Husting V. (2014). I Just Don’t Trust Them: The Development and Validation of an Assessment Instrument to Measure Trust in Science and Scientists. School Science and Mathematics. 114(2): 76-86.
  18. Peterlin M. (2019). Predictors of Trust in Science and Scientists (Unpublished master’s thesis). Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences. Croatia: University of Zagreb
  19. Plohl N. and Musil B. (2021). Modeling compliance with COVID-19 prevention guidelines: the critical role of trust in science. Psychological Health Medicine, 26(1): 1-12. DOI: 10.1080/13548506.2020.1772988
  20. Sfardini A. (2020). Come comunicare la pandemia? Credibilità e fiducia delle fonti istituzionali nell’informazione italiana sul COVID-19. In Scaglioni M. e Sala M. (A cura di). L’altro virus. Comunicazione e disinformazione al tempo del COVID-19. Milano: Vita e Pensiero.
  21. Shaughnessy J.J., Zechmeister E.B. and Zechmeister J.S. (2000). Research methods in psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  22. Soto C.J. and John O.P. (2017). The next Big Five Inventory (BFI-2): Developing and assessing a hierarchical model with 15 facets to enhance bandwidth, fidelity, and predictive power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(1): 117-143.
  23. Spaccatini F., Richetin J., Riva P., Pancani L., Ariccio S. and Sacchi S. (2022). Trust in science and solution aversion: Attitudes toward adaptation measures predict flood risk perception. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 76: 103024.
  24. Tavakol M. and Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International journal of medical education, 2: 53.

Roberto Fasanelli, Miriam Di Lisio, Alfonso Piscitelli, La misurazione della fiducia nella scienza e negli scienziati: adattamento italiano della scala Trust in Science and Scientists in "PSICOLOGIA DELLA SALUTE" 1/2024, pp 125-139, DOI: 10.3280/PDS2024-001007