When and Why Do Citizens Accept Governments as Knowledge Authorities?

• In Event: Polarization, Pandemic, and Trust in Political Information (Virtual Session)

Abstract

Even before the Covid-19 pandemic, a recurring theme in debates about political authority and expertise was whether science and knowledge had lost their role in democracy. Have we entered a 'Post-Truth' era? Before finding any answers, the world was thrust into a pandemic where the relationship between expertise and political authorities would provoke social resistance and mistrust. In light of this year's overall theme, this paper seeks to rethink and reassess when and why citizens accept political authority. When governments tell citizens what to do, is that perceived as legitimate and based on knowledge, or merely as a raw exercise of power? The question here is not simply about compliance, but more broadly about whether voters perceive governmental agencies as legitimate expert authorities or as representatives of partisan politics.

These questions were not created by the pandemic, but the prolonged controversies over restrictions and vaccines have underlined their complexity. For instance, while the credibility of expert knowledge is often thought to depend on its independence from politics, most information given to the public about the pandemic has been delivered by sources that blend governmental and scientific institutions such as national health agencies.

The core ambition in this paper is to investigate what explains citizens' acceptance of or resistance to knowledge-based public authorities. Do citizens only accept advice that aligns with their prior beliefs or can they be persuaded by its source and the quality of the argumentation? How do people respond when a trusted authority recommends a course of action which conflicts with their beliefs?

As we have seen during the pandemic, there is great variation in how people respond to knowledge authorities and reason through complex and risk-filled choices. In seeking to explain this variation, we set out to theorize and test three central ideas about what impacts reactions to knowledge-based authority.

First, citizens' opposition to expert authorities may be driven by broader populist or anti-elite attitudes, which may either influence attitudes towards all sources of expertise, or may be restricted to certain domains (e.g., politicians). Second, it is important to consider how citizens' own knowledge and capabilities may impact the acceptance of advice as authoritative. When does understanding science make an individual more accepting of scientific advice and when does it make them feel autonomous and able to disagree with experts? Third, how do individuals evaluate and balance the quality of the source, the quality of the argument, and whether it accords with prior beliefs?

To test these theories, we use large, representative surveys with a total of 7,500 respondents across five countries: the United States, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Denmark, and the Czech Republic. These countries vary in trust levels, organization of expertise, and political composition. Our surveys combine multiple measures of attitudes towards expert groups and institutions including measures of populist attitudes, perceptions of science, and trust. We also use vignettes to measure citizens' willingness to follow expert advice in four concrete scenarios. We vary the advice, its source, and the quality of the argument.

By combining this theoretical framework, multiple attitude measurements, a comprehensive vignette design, and the broad international coverage, we can contribute to existing literature on public opinion and the role of expertise in political authority. Much of the existing literature only considers one domain of authority at a time (e.g., Furedi 2013; Starr 2017; Mudde & Kaltwasser 2013) and when different authorities are compared, it is often done at very abstract levels (e.g. ‘popularity’ rankings) (Radius 2016; Svensson & Eriksson 2009). By connecting various spheres of authority, we can see how perceptions of expertise are embedded in acceptance of political authorities. Whether the spheres are held separate in people's minds may depend on how politicized the knowledge authorities are. Although individuals are motivated to form correct beliefs about the world (Mercier 2020), it remains a struggle to know whom to trust. Even when incentivized, partisans will seek out congenial information (Peterson & Iyengar 2020). Such findings may be evidence of motivated reasoning but are also consistent with individuals reasoning from different priors (Druckman & McGrath 2019). Establishing who is a credible source and what is credible evidence is not straightforward. When it comes to following expert advice, Harrits & Larsen (2021) have demonstrated that most citizens are willing to follow professional advice if they perceive it as based on specialized expertise relevant to a specific problem. However, if advice is perceived to be politically motivated, individuals may be more reluctant to follow it.

Authors

• Adam Peresman, Aarhus University

• Lars Thorup Larsen, Aarhus University

• Honorata Mazepus, Leiden University