Across diverse policy domains, there is broad concern about whether trust in science and expertise has eroded during the past decade. Using quota-based surveys with over 7,500 respondents across five countries and preregistered vignette experiments, we investigate what persuades populists and non-populists to accept expert advice. We find first that populism is associated with less willingness to accept expert advice, yet with variation between countries and topics. Second, we find both populists and non-populists are similarly impacted by stronger arguments. Finally, we show that populists are more likely to judge advice as poorly reasoned and perceive it as politically biased. A mediation analysis showed that the relationship between populism and advice acceptance was nearly completely mediated by these judgments. Our study indicates that populists not only listen to expertise but also respond to the same qualities of expert advice as others, even if their skepticism is higher.
AkkermanAMuddeCZasloveA (2014) How Populist Are the People? Measuring Populist Attitudes in Voters. Comparative Political Studies47 (9): 1324–1353.
2.
AltaySNielsenRKFletcherR (2022) Quantifying the “Infodemic”: People Turned to Trustworthy News Outlets During the 2020 Coronavirus Pandemic. Journal of Quantitative Description: Digital Media. Epub ahead of print 26 August. DOI: 10.51685/jqd.2022.020.
3.
ArendtHKohnJ (2006 [1961]) Between Past and Future. London: Penguin.
4.
BerganDELapinskiMKTurnerS (2022) Do Populists Really Reject Expert Judgment?: Expert Consensus and Support for Clean Water Act Protections. International Journal of Public Opinion Research34 (2): edac016.
5.
BertsouE (2022) Bring in the Experts? Citizen Preferences for Independent Experts in Political Decision-Making Processes. European Journal of Political Research61 (1): 255–267.
6.
BertsouECaramaniD (2022) People Haven’t Had Enough of Experts: Technocratic Attitudes among Citizens in Nine European Democracies. American Journal of Political Science66 (1): 5–23.
7.
BosLSchemerCCorbuN, et al. (2020) The Effects of Populism as a Social Identity Frame on Persuasion and Mobilisation: Evidence from a 15-Country Experiment. European Journal of Political Research59 (1): 3–24.
8.
BoyerP (2018) Minds Make Societies: How Cognition Explains the World Humans Create. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
9.
BusbyECGublerJRHawkinsKA (2019) Framing and Blame Attribution in Populist Rhetoric. The Journal of Politics81 (2): 616–630.
10.
CaramaniD (2017) Will vs. Reason: The Populist and Technocratic Forms of Political Representation and Their Critique to Party Government. American Political Science Review111 (1): 54–67.
11.
Castanho SilvaBAndreadisIAnduizaE, et al. (2018) Public Opinion Surveys: A New Scale. In: HawkinsBACarlinRELittvayL, et al. (eds) The Ideational Approach to Populism. London: Routledge, pp.150–177.
12.
Castanho SilvaBJungkunSHelblingM, et al. (2020) An Empirical Comparison of Seven Populist Attitudes Scales. Political Research Quarterly73 (2): 409–424.
13.
CoppockA (2023) Persuasion in Parallel: How Information Changes Minds about Politics. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
14.
DittoPHLopezDF (1992) Motivated Skepticism: Use of Differential Decision Criteria for Preferred and Nonpreferred Conclusions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology63 (4): 568.
15.
DruckmanJNMcGrathMC (2019) The Evidence for Motivated Reasoning in Climate Change Preference Formation. Nature Climate Change9 (2): 111–119.
16.
EberlJ-MHuberRAGreussingE (2021) From Populism to the “Plandemic”: Why Populists Believe in COVID-19 Conspiracies. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties31 (suppl. 1): 272–284.
17.
EberlJ-MHuberRAMedeNG, et al. (2023) Populist Attitudes Towards Politics and Science: How Do They Differ?Political Research Exchange5 (1): 2159847.
18.
ErisenCGuidiMMartiniS, et al. (2021) Psychological Correlates of Populist Attitudes. Political Psychology42 (suppl. 1): 149–171.
19.
GeurkinkBZasloveASluiterR, et al. (2020) Populist Attitudes, Political Trust, and External Political Efficacy: Old Wine in New Bottles?Political Studies68 (1): 247–267.
20.
HahnU (2020) Argument Quality in Real World Argumentation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences24 (5): 363–374.
21.
HameleersMVan der MeerTG (2021) The Scientists Have Betrayed Us! The Effects of Anti-science Communication on Negative Perceptions toward the Scientific Community. International Journal of Communication15: 25.
22.
HameleersMBosLDe VreeseCH (2017) “They Did It”: The Effects of Emotionalized Blame Attribution in Populist Communication. Communication Research44 (6): 870–900.
23.
HarrisAJLHahnUMadsenJK, et al. (2016) The Appeal to Expert Opinion: Quantitative Support for a Bayesian Network Approach. Cognitive Science40 (6): 1496–1533.
24.
HarritsGSLarsenLT (2021) Advice Not Safely Ignored: Professional Authority and the Strength of Legitimate Complexity. Sociology55 (5): 1015–1034.
25.
HuberRA (2020) The Role of Populist Attitudes in Explaining Climate Change Skepticism and Support for Environmental Protection. Environmental Politics29 (6): 959–982.
26.
HuberRAGreussingEEberlJ-M (2022) From Populism to Climate Scepticism: The Role of Institutional Trust and Attitudes Towards Science. Environmental Politics31 (7): 1115–1138.
27.
IyengarSMasseyDS (2019) Scientific Communication in a Post-Truth Society. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America116 (16): 7656–7661.
28.
JaccardJJacobyJ (2019) Theory Construction and Model-Building Skills: A Practical Guide for Social Scientists. New York: Guilford Publications.
29.
JollySBakkerRHoogheL, et al. (2022) Chapel Hill Expert Survey Trend File, 1999–2019. Electoral Studies75: 102420.
30.
JungkunzSFaheyRAHinoA (2021) How Populist Attitudes Scales Fail to Capture Support for Populists in Power. PLoS One16 (12): e0261658.
31.
KrekóP (2021) Populism in Power: The Tribal Challenge. In: ForgasJPCranoWDFiedlerK (eds) The Psychology of Populism. London: Routledge, pp.240–257.
32.
KundaZ (1990) The Case for Motivated Reasoning. Psychological Bulletin108 (3): 480–498.
33.
LeeperTJSlothuusR (2014) Political Parties, Motivated Reasoning, and Public Opinion Formation. Political Psychology35: 129–156.
34.
LewandowskySOberauerKGignacGE (2013) NASA Faked the Moon Landing—Therefore, (Climate) Science Is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science. Psychological Science24 (5): 622–633.
35.
LockwoodM (2018) Right-Wing Populism and the Climate Change Agenda: Exploring the Linkages. Environmental Politics27 (4): 712–732.
36.
MannMSchleiferC (2020) Love the Science, Hate the Scientists: Conservative Identity Protects Belief in Science and Undermines Trust in Scientists. Social Forces99 (1): 305–332.
37.
MercierH (2020) Not Born Yesterday: The Science of Who We Trust and What We Believe. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
38.
MercierHSperberD (2017) The Enigma of Reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
39.
MohrenbergSHuberRAFreyburgT (2021) Love at First Sight? Populist Attitudes and Support for Direct Democracy. Party Politics27 (3): 528–539.
40.
MuddeC (2004) The Populist Zeitgeist. Government and Opposition39 (4): 541–563.
41.
MuddeC (2007) Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
42.
NorrisPInglehartR (2016) Trump, Brexit, and the Rise of Populism: Economic Have-Nots and Cultural Backlash. Working Papers Series, no. RWP16-026, 6August, pp.1–52. Cambridge, MA: John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard Kennedy School.
PetersenMBBorAJørgensenFLindholtMF (2021) Transparent Communication About Negative Features of COVID-19 Vaccines Decreases Acceptance but Increases Trust. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences118 (29): e2024597118.
45.
PettyRECacioppoJTGoldmanR (1981) Personal Involvement as a Determinant of Argument-Based Persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology41 (5): 847–855.
46.
Philipp-MullerALeeSWSPettyRE (2022) Why Are People Antiscience, and What Can We Do about It?Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America119 (30): e2120755119.
47.
PornpitakpanC (2004) The Persuasiveness of Source Credibility: A Critical Review of Five Decades’ Evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology34 (2): 243–281.
48.
RooduijnM (2014) The Nucleus of Populism: In Search of the Lowest Common Denominator. Government and Opposition49 (4): 573–599.
49.
RooduijnM (2018) What Unites the Voter Bases of Populist Parties? Comparing the Electorates of 15 Populist Parties. European Political Science Review10 (3): 351–368.
50.
SvenssonLGEvettsJ (2010) Sociology of Professions: Continental and Anglo-Saxon Traditions. Gothenburg: Daidalos.
51.
TingleyDYamamotoTHiroseK, et al. (2014) Mediation: R Package for Causal Mediation Analysis. Journal of Statistical Software59 (5): 1–38.
52.
Van der LindenSLeiserowitzAMaibachE (2019) The Gateway Belief Model: A Large-Scale Replication. Journal of Environmental Psychology62: 49–58.
53.
WeberM (1978 [1922]) Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology, vol. 2. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, pp.243–245.
54.
WuttkeASchimpfCSchoenH (2020) When the Whole Is Greater Than the Sum of Its Parts: On the Conceptualization and Measurement of Populist Attitudes and Other Multidimensional Constructs. American Political Science Review114 (2): 356–374.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
