ArticlePublic understanding of science (Bristol, England)2024
Does knowledge make a difference? Understanding how the lay public and experts assess the credibility of information on novel foods.
Article in Public understanding of science (Bristol, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- AI virtual digital human influencers vs. human influencers: the impact of health short videos on older adults' cognition and attitude.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Assessing Motivations and Channels for Nutritional Information Verification in Spanish University Communities.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
- How the innovative advertising language style for nutrition products affects consumers' purchase intentions.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Article
- Science communication with generative AI.Nature human behaviour · 2024Article
- Exploring the general public's and experts' risk and benefit perceptions of cultured meat in Singapore: A mental models approach.PloS one · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Drawing on Metzger's dual-processing model of credibility assessment, this study examines how individuals with varying topical knowledge (laypersons vs experts) assess the credibility of information on novel foods. Online focus group discussions reveal that both groups share similar motivations for assessing the credibility of information on novel foods (e.g. personal relevance and concerns about the impact of unverified information on others). However, they differ in the barriers they encounter during the assessment of information credibility. Both groups employ analytical (e.g. evaluating content quality) and intuitive methods (e.g. looking at source credibility) to assess the credibility of novel food-related information. However, they differ in the cues used for credibility assessment. Laypersons tend to rely on superficial heuristics (e.g. social endorsement cues or surface features), whereas experts rely more on content features and scientific knowledge to evaluate information credibility. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.