Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42629634›Full record

ArticleRisk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis2026

Communicating Risk in the Age of Misinformation: Empirical Frameworks for Understanding Stakeholder Trust.

Matthew S Weber, Chaeyeong Margo Lee, David S Kosson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Matthew S WeberDepartment of Communication, School of Communication and Information, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3880-9131
Chaeyeong Margo LeeDepartment of Communication, School of Communication and Information, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-2734-7832
David S KossonDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, School of Engineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9898-456X

Funding

U.S. Department of Energy DE-EM0005321
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This systematic literature review examines how stakeholder trust is conceptualized and measured in risk and science communication amid increasingly complex information environments shaped by misinformation and disinformation. Following PRISMA procedures, which provide a framework for conducting a systematic review with transparency, replicability, and completeness, we searched major databases and screened studies using explicit inclusion criteria. For instance, trust had to be operationalized and measured in risk or scientifically complex contexts; credibility studies were retained when credibility was a trust-related dimension related to stakeholder communication. Scientifically complex contexts are taken to refer to settings where information is inherently complex and nuanced, and understanding requires advanced knowledge. The final corpus (k = 69) includes quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods designs, with a post-2020 increase aligning with pandemic-era scholarship. The findings identify three roles for trust. First, stakeholder trust as an outcome is strengthened more by transparency, empathy, and perceived value similarity than by expertise claims alone. Second, trust as a broad concept often embodies more than just detailed technical understanding; rather, trust predicts acceptance of technologies and policies and lower perceived risk. Third, as a mechanism, stakeholder trust mediates links between credibility, transparency, or value similarity and downstream outcomes such as compliance and cooperation. From organizations to interpersonal interactions, stakeholder trust formation reflects the characteristics of trustors, trustees, and context. We integrate these strands into a communication approach that emphasizes clarity about uncertainty, engagement, and visible accountability as preconditions for trust. Practically, the review underscores the design of transparent messaging, alignment with public values without oversimplification, and participatory approaches that treat stakeholders as partners. Conceptually, we separate judgments about whether information seems credible from trust in the people or institutions behind it. We argue that trust helps connect what people think and feel to what they are willing to do, especially when they must make decisions under uncertainty in today's complex information environment.

Indexed as

complex informationmisinformationsystematic reviewtrust

Identifiers

PMID42629634
PMCPMC13498723

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.