Does Endorsement of Expert Information by a Deliberative Institution Matter?

• In Event: Facts, Fake News, and Resistance to the Truth

Abstract

As misperceptions undermine the factual basis for public debate, they pose a serious challenge for expert knowledge and the democratic legitimacy of publc policy that is informed by expert evidence. In this paper, we theorize that in times of politicization and polarization of expertise, endorsement of expert information by a minipublic can serve to legitimize expert correction and render it more persuasive in the eyes of individuals. In developing our theoretical argument, we focus on the effect of minipublic on individuals in the wider public – those who did not participate in such institutions. To test our theoretical predictions, we designed, preregistered and fielded two experiments in the US (N=2168) and one experiment in Ireland (N=1125), during two diferent waves of COVID-19. The results show that minipublic endorsement significantly increases uptake of expert information among (non-participating) citizens. Furthermore, when an expert correction explicitly asserts a scientific consensus, it is as effective as the minipublic endorsement. The findings have implications for the research on misperceptions, expertise and deliberative institutions.

Author

• Lala Muradova, University of Southampton