Aristotle described credibility as emerging from the dimensions of expertise, goodwill, and trustworthiness (Kennedy, 1999; Aristotle, 2013). Expertise is typically embodied in credentials or special skills obtained from education or training and refers to specialized knowledge a person possesses on a subject. Goodwill describes caring for others’ welfare. It is often demonstrated by empathy developed by direct interaction with others. Trustworthiness [hereafter honesty] refers to the person’s honesty; a trustworthy person is unbiased and demonstrates integrity.

Credibility is more of a relational property than a static entity (Rhee and Fiss, 2014), attaining relative stability only when it functions as an “attitude toward a source of communication held at a given time by a receiver” (McCroskey, 2015, 87). The most productive credibility emerges from situationally appropriate combination of expertise, goodwill, and honesty (Burke, 1966; Kennedy, 1999; Aristotle, 2013). Building upon the earlier Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi) example, scientists’ expertise (i.e., PhD, publication record, etc.) may be less important to their credibility than demonstrating honesty and goodwill. Inclusion of cattle producers early in the decision-making process affords scientists opportunity to (a) demonstrate honesty through open and transparent discussions and (b) validate cattle producers’ views by incorporating those perspectives into recovery management plans, thereby demonstrating goodwill (Pienaar et al., 2015). In other situations, such as determining whether to list a species as endangered, scientists’ expertise and impeccable credentials may be the most important factors in credibility.

Credibility is often associated with perceptions of a person’s character. However, it does not exist within an individual or an organization; instead it is co-constructed (Moon and Blackman, 2014). Thus, credibility, in all its dimensionality, may be interpreted differently, depending on who is participating in the communicative event (Horton et al., 2016). As a perceptual construct, credibility is based on social relations and is co-constructed within each situation, which creates a set of expectations. For example, when ranchers are told they cannot trap or kill wolves to minimize livestock predation, much of their anger comes from their expectations about private property rights being violated (Niemiec et al., 2020; Pate et al., 1996). For these reasons, decisions about which credibility dimension or dimensions is most effective in preventing the violation of expectations requires careful assessment of each situation (Pornpitakpan, 2004; Cronkhite and Liska, 1976). What is generalizable across situations is that participant expectations vary according to cultural, economic, and political aspects of a situation and the credibility that participants attribute to an individual or organization emerges largely from whether their expectations are fulfilled (Burke, 1966; Cronkhite and Liska, 1976; Horton et al., 2016).

Similar to credibility, trust is more of a relational property than a static entity (Hardin, 2001). Simply stated, trust involves a jointly constructed, “tripartite relationship” (Rapp, 2020, 2; Mayer et al., 1995) that involves a trustor (A), the one who is trusting; a trustee (B), the one who is being trusted; and a context in which the relationship between A and B occurs. Changes in the trustor, trustee, or the context, fundamentally changes the trust at issue. Therefore, trust is often “understood to be specific to not only the individuals involved but also to the specific context in which their relationship is situated” (Hamm et al., 2020, 2; Hardin, 2001; Slagle et al., 2021).

For trust to be pertinent, a perceived or real interdependent relationship exists between trustors and trustees. They depend on each other for a desired outcome since neither can achieve it on their own. This interdependence causes degrees of uncertainty about the outcomes thereby, creating some risk about whether the interests of the trustors and trustees will be realized. Interdependency combined with uncertainty create vulnerability. Thus, the “degree of trust held by a trustor is determined by their assessment regarding their willingness to accept the vulnerability that may result from the trustee’s actions” (Toman et al., 2021, 2). For example, ranchers’ trust of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) may be influenced by their concerns about how the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and ESA-listed species impact land use and their potential income. These ranchers may hesitate to trust USFWS scientists or agency’s programs that designate their pastureland as critical habitat for the endangered species, Golden-cheeked warbler (Setophaga chrysoparia) and restrict them from implementing land management practices for cattle grazing (Peterson and Horton, 1995).

Stern and Coleman (2015) explain that aspects of trustors, trustees, and specific contexts contribute to different forms of trust (i.e., dispositional, rational, affinitive, and procedural). Dispositional trust is based on trustors’ characteristics. It is a person’s tendency to trust and serves as a foundation to establish initial levels of trust in uncertain situations. Rational and affinitive trust are based on assessments of the trustee. Rational trust is grounded in predicted trustees’ behavior and the expected utility of trusting them. Affinitive trust is grounded in the perceived shared values, benevolence, and integrity of the trustee. Procedural trust is based on the “system” and is grounded in beliefs of fair, transparent, and legitimate rules and procedures. These forms highlight the importance of how participants’ expectations and fulfillment of those expectations vary according to cultural, economic, and political aspects of a situation.

The emergence of trust is influenced by nuances of trustors, trustees, and context aspects. Trustors’ characteristics include their predisposition to trust, degrees of tolerance for uncertainty and risks (i.e., vulnerability), and saliency of specific issues (Stern and Coleman, 2015). Trustors’ perceptions of trustees’ characteristics (i.e., antecedents) contribute to the emergence of trust. Conservation science scholars have offered varied and different antecedents to explain how trust emerges. Stern and Coleman (2015) and Toman et al. (2021) note trustees’ honesty is important to trustors. Hamm et al. (2020) focus on honesty and motivation. Ford et al. (2020) offer seven antecedents (reputation, communication, service quality, shared norms and values, negative past behaviors, fairness, and cooperation/support) to examine the connections between antecedents and trust. Antecedents are impactful, determining factors on trustors’ perceptions that others are worthy of their trust. Additionally, context characteristics potentially influence the emergence of trust. Context factors such as preconceived ideas or previous history with trustees and “control systems” (i.e., rules, regulations, and procedures), influence how trust relationships function in specific contexts (Stern and Coleman, 2015). For example, conservation scientists had to re-build trust with tortugueros in El Salvador communities known for nesting sites of Hawksbill turtles (Eretmochelys imbricata), after the Government of El Salvador declared a permanent moratorium on the collection of sea turtle eggs. The untimely absence of the lead scientist, who had developed positive relationships with tortugueros, coupled with the public announcement of the moratorium, led some locals to believe that scientists had betrayed their trust regarding locals’ opinions about sensitive topics of sea turtle egg consumption and conservation policies (Liles et al., 2015).

To examine how conservation scientists define credibility and trust, explain its emergence, and acknowledge benefits and risks associated with the credibility-trust relationship, we searched for refereed journal articles that focused on credibility-trust relationships contributing to or detracting from scientific legitimacy. One co-author used the Web of Science for an initial search of journal articles that discussed the credibility-trust relationship and its significance in conservation science. The initial search terms included: credible, credibility, scientific credibility, trust, distrust, conservation, and conservation science. This search resulted in 25 articles. The co-author read each one to remove those articles irrelevant to the discussion of trust and credibility interactions with scientific legitimacy. This process yielded 9 articles. Next, the co-author read each of these articles closely (Leff, 1980) to identify other key terms to guide an expanded search. Six additional search terms were chosen: ecosystems, marine biodiversity, wetlands, biodiversity, species, fisheries. Two co-authors used the terms to search Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Wiley Online Library and found 83 articles. Duplicate articles from the initial search were eliminated. Both co-authors examined titles, keywords, and abstracts of the remaining articles for two or more of the search terms. The introductory or concluding paragraph was used if the publication did not have keywords or an abstract. The co-authors eliminated articles that did not (1) specifically discuss both credibility and trust and (2) focus on protection and management of biodiversity and ecosystems with emphasis on scientific method and conservation. The third co-author functioned as a tiebreaker. Overall, this process resulted in a total of 31 publications.

A grounded theory approach (Corbin and Strauss, 2014) guided our content analysis of the conservation science literature. This approach enables the theoretical framework to develop from the data (Peterson et al., 2010). We built on Horton et al. (2016) analysis of scientists’ perspectives on credibility and advocacy. Categories emerged by identifying common themes (Peterson et al., 2010; Peterson and Silvy, 1994) across the conservation science literature that embodied the concepts used to examine credibility-trust relationship’s role in the protection and management of biodiversity and ecosystems. We used constant comparison (Corbin and Strauss, 2014) between preexisting and emerging categories. We raised questions regarding formulation of categories, documented and analyzed ideas about categories as they were refined. We reached saturation (no new categories emerged) after two categories and seven subcategories. The two categories included: credibility and risk. The credibility category was divided into 3 subcategories to capture the dimensions of expertise, goodwill, and honesty. The risk category embodied what conservation scientists are most worried about. We divided this category into four subcategories: Two subcategories captured scientists’ concerns about biodiversity and sustainability (i.e., ecological and conservation concerns), and two subcategories captured scientists’ concerns about scientific credibility and trust (i.e., co-constructed relational properties) (Table 1).

Our methods and results were iteratively linked (Corbin and Strauss, 2014). Each category and subcategory that emerged during the analysis refined already existing categories. When credibility was discussed, we examined the sentence to determine the relative emphasis on expertise, goodwill, and honesty. When the authors explicitly discussed trust, we examined the sentence to determine the relative emphasis on vulnerability. A codebook was developed to define categories and subcategories. It was used to train coders and assess intercoder reliability (Krippendorff, 2018). We entered the publications’ abstracts into NVivo 15.0 qualitative software (Lumivero. Denver, Colorado, USA) to create a searchable database and to analyze abstracts’ content. Our unit of analysis was individual sentences. The same sentence was coded in multiple categories if it fit more than one category. For example the sentence, “Effective conservation of aquatic resources can be undermined by distrust and disagreement between resource users, scientists, agencies, and even among academicians…” (Sallenave and Cowley, 2006, 203) can be coded credibility-honesty, risk-sustainability, risk-scientific credibility, and risk-trust. Two people independently coded abstracts to establish intercoder reliability (ICR). ICR was calculated with a weighted Cohen’s kappa, к = 0.89 (Cohen, 1968). We used the database to conduct a word search to discover the frequent use of the terms, credibility, and trust, in the professional literature and to run queries to determine the frequency at which authors discussed dimensions of credibility and various risks. We then cross-referenced codes to examine intersections of themes.

Of the three subcategories, most often emphasized was credibility-expertise, followed by credibility-honesty and credibility-goodwill. Fifty percent (50%) of the references decribing credibility focused on scientists’ specialized knowledge (credibility-expertise). References describing credibility as scientists’ integrity (credibility-honesty) and care for natural resources (credibility-goodwill) were 36 and 14%, respectively.

Authors referenced the value of conservation scientists’ specialized knowledge as a means to enhance credibility through expertise (credibility-expertise) (Table 1). Examples include, “principles of science should be introduced early in the decision-making process” (Sallenave and Cowley, 2006, 203) and “use tested methods that can withstand public scrutiny” (Freddy et al., 2004, 916) illustrate this sentiment. Recommendations that conservation scientists should care for natural resources and society indicates importance of credibility as it relates to goodwill (credibility-goodwill). For example, “efforts should be made to build social capital and trust by engaging influential cattlemen in pather conservation actions” (Pienaar et al., 2015, 577). Authors sometimes refer to conservation scientists’ credibility as it relates to integrity (credibility-honesty) as illustrated in the statement, “trust due to transparency will be one the main factors that determines the success of IPBES (Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services)” (Vohland et al., 2011, 1188).

When authors made statements about trust, the term was usually paired with credibility. For example, “collaborative processes can change the ways decision makers think about scientific evidence, enhance mutual trust and credibility…” (Rudd et al., 2011, 477) and “trust and credibilty are identified as driving informant views of resource protection policy.” This pairing seems to suggest that the existence of one guarantees the presence of the other. When trust was not paired with credibility, the term was typically treated as an entity. Authors noted the importance of “building trust” (Schindler et al., 2016; Tinch et al., 2018) or were concerned about “eroded trust” (Campos et al., 2023), “absence of trust” (Baker and Constant, 2020), and “lack of trust” (Glenn et al., 2012).

Authors discussed various risks associated with the credibility-trust relationship (Table 1). Risk to scientific credibility was emphasized the most (60%), followed by risk to trust (18%), risk to sustainability (15%), and risk to biodiversity (7%).

Statements referring to conservation scientists’ loss of standing or believability demonstrate awareness of risks to scientific credibility (risk-scientific credibility). For example, the statement “At a time when society appears mistrustful of science, it is critical to understand how scientific credibility is evaluated” (Runnebaum et al., 2019, 163). Authors’ statements referring to vulnerability demonstrate awareness of threats to trust (risk-trust). For example, “Unfortunately the ‘trust’ necessary for effective stateholder cooperation and participation within current fisheries science is currently somewhat lacking” (Glenn et al., 2012, 54). The phrase, “These unique ecosystems are vulnerable to multiple stressors” (Hart and Calhoun, 2010, 258) exemplifies conservation scientists’ concern for sustainability of ecosystems functions (risk-sustainability). Finally, the phrase “accelerated loss of biodiversity” (Vohland et al., 2011, 1188) indicates an emphasis on risk to biodiversity (risk-biodiversity).

When authors discussed credibility and risks, there were identifiable interconnections between dimensions of credibility and risks they emphasized (Table 2). First, we discuss the interconnections between dimensions of credibility and risks to scientific credibility, sustainability, and biodiveristy. Second, we discuss the interconnections between dimensions of credibility and risk to trust.

Among authors who emphasized credibility as expertise (credibility-expertise), most (67%) expressed concern about risk to their scientific credibility (risk-scientific credibility). Many (24%) expressed concern that their loss of standing would impact ecosystems and their functions (risk-sustainability). The statement, “Scientists often feel powerless to affect policy on natural resource conservation [aquatic resources]” (Sallenave and Cowley, 2006, 203) illustrates this concern. Although risk-biodiversity was referenced less frequently (9%), the statement “Sportsmen challenged the credibility of methods used to estimate numbers of mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) in Colorado” (Freddy et al., 2004, 916) illustrates that scientific expertise, when questioned could impact biodiversity. Authors who emphasized concern for society and natural resources (credibility-goodwill) also emphasized (89%) risk to their scientific credibility (risk-scientific credibility). Some (11%) directly connected scientists’ standing with ecosystem survival (risk-sustainability). For example, “ensuring the survival of native species in the valley rested on [biologists’] ability to catalyze instutional relationships that were compatible with their scientific practice” (Goldstein, 2010, 268). Finally, authors who discussed credibility as integrity (credibility-honesty), also tended (78%) to emphasize risk to their scientific credibility (risk-scientific credibility). Some (11%) worried that loss of scientists’ believability would negatively impact ecosystem functions (risk-sustainability). The statement, “effective conservation of aquatic resources can be undermined by distrust and disagreement between resource users, scientists” (Sallenave and Cowley, 2006, 203) illustrates this concern. They (11%) also expressed concern that loss of scientists’ standing could increase the risk of biodiversity loss (risk-biodiversity). For example, one study that focused on “risks associated with relying solely on images for documenting new species records” cautioned that this practice could encourage oversimplification that would encourage novices to mistrust more nuanced descriptions proffered by conservation scientists (Campos et al., 2023, 135).

As noted in Section 2 (Nature and Dynamics of Credibility and Trust), credibility is an essential, yet always fluid, precondition for trust. Further, accepting the vulnerability associated with trusting another individual or group likely strengthens the powerful relationship between credibility and trust. Thus, the degree of trust held by trustors is determined by their willingness to accept the vulnerability that may result from trustees’ actions. When authors discussed credibility and vulnerability (risk-trust), credibility-honesty (60%) was emphasized. The statement that, “trust due to transparency will be one the main factors that determines the success of IPBES (Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services)” (Vohland et al., 2011, 1,188) demonstrates the belief that trust in conservation scientists’ honesty is fundamental to successful conservation policy. Some articles explicitly mention the value of conservation scientists’ expertise, or specialized knowledge (24%) in enhancing credibility, and building trust. For example, the statement “these challenges are exacerbated by the scientific community’s capacity [or inability] to consistently distinguish between reliable and unreliable evidence…, which may threaten the credibility of research, including harming trust”(Burgman et al., 2023, 1) illustrates that trust in conservation science also depends on scientists’ perceived expertise and scientific rigor. Finally, other statements highlight the importance of conservation scientists’ demonstrated goodwill toward both natural resources and human society (16%) as a means of enhancing credibility and, encouraging trust. The statement, “efforts should be made to build social capital and trust by engaging influential cattlemen in panther conservation actions [italics added], thereby lending credibility to conservation initiatives” (Pienaar et al., 2015, 577) demonstrates that trust is influenced by conservation scientists’ concern for both the well being of people and species whose existence depends on their choices.