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

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.