Does knowledge make a difference? Understanding how the lay public and experts assess the credibility of information on novel foods.

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.