Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2020-11
Deference and decision-making in science and society: How deference to scientific authority goes beyond confidence in science and scientists to become authoritarianism
Deference to scientific authority theoretically captures the belief that scientists and not publics should make decisions on science in society. Few studies examine deference, however, and none test this central theoretical claim. The result is deference is often conflated with concepts such as trust in scientists and belief in the authority of science. This study examines two claims key to conceptualizing deference: that deference (1) predicts anti-democratic views of decision-making and (2) relates to but is distinct from beliefs of science as authoritative knowledge. Analyzing US nationally representative data, we find deference to scientific authority does predict anti-democratic views, and this is its distinct conceptual value: trust in scientists and belief in science as authoritative knowledge strongly relate to deference, but both predict pro-democratic views, unlike deference. We discuss how these findings highlight deference as vital for understanding perceptions of science and societal decision-making and how we can better develop the concept.
AkinHRoseKMScheufeleDASimis-WilkinsonMBrossardDXenosMA, et al. (2017) Mapping the landscape of public attitudes on synthetic biology. BioScience67(3): 290–300.
2.
AllumNSturgisPTabouraziDBrunton-SmithI (2008) Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: A meta-analysis. Public Understanding of Science17(1): 35–54.
3.
AndersonAAScheufeleDABrossardDCorleyEA (2012) The role of media and deference to scientific authority in cultivating trust in sources of information about emerging technologies. International Journal of Public Opinion Research24(2): 225–237.
4.
BauerMWPansegrauPShuklaR (2018) Image, perception and cultural authority of science—By way of introduction. In: BauerMWPansegrauPShuklaR (eds) The Cultural Authority of Science: Comparing across Europe, Asia, Africa and the Americas, 1st edn. London: Routledge, pp. 3–21.
5.
BauerMWPetkovaKBoyadjievaP (2000) Public knowledge of and attitudes to science: Alternative measures that may end the “Science War.”Science, Technology, & Human Values25(1): 30–51.
6.
BeauducelAHerzbergPY (2006) On the performance of maximum likelihood versus means and variance adjusted weighted least squares estimation in CFA. Structural Equation Modeling13(2): 186–203.
7.
BesleyJC (2018) Correlational stability in the US-NSF science & engineering surveys, 1979-2014. In: BauerMWPansegrauPShuklaR (eds) The Cultural Authority of Science: Comparing across Europe, Asia, Africa and the Americas, 1st edn. London: Routledge, pp. 250–263.
8.
BinderARHillbackEDBrossardD (2016) Conflict or caveats? Effects of media portrayals of scientific uncertainty on audience perceptions of new technologies. Risk Analysis36(4): 831–846.
9.
BraunMDabrockP (2016) “I bet you won’t”: The science-society wager on gene editing techniques. EMBO Reports17(3): 279–280.
10.
BrossardD (2002) Media Effects, Public Perceptions of Science, and Authoritarian Attitudes towards Agricultural Biotechnology Decision-Making. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
11.
BrossardDNisbetMC (2007) Deference to scientific authority among a low information public: Understanding U.S. opinion on agricultural biotechnology. International Journal of Public Opinion Research19(1): 24–52.
12.
BrossardDShanahanJ (2003) Do citizens want to have their say? Media, agricultural biotechnology, and authoritarian views of democratic processes in science. Mass Communication and Society6(3): 291–312.
13.
BrownT (2006) Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford Press.
14.
CallegaroMDisograC (2008) Computing response metrics for online panels. Public Opinion Quarterly72: 1008–1032.
15.
Cambridge Dictionary (2018) Defer to Someone—Cambridge Dictionary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16.
CollingridgeDReeveC (1986) Science Speaks to Power: The Role of Experts in Policy Making. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
17.
DeBackerTKCrowsonHMBeesleyADThomaS (2008) The challenge of measuring epistemic beliefs: An analysis of three self-report instruments. The Journal of Educational Research76(3): 281–312.
18.
EpsteinS (2008) Culture and science/technology: Rethinking knowledge, power, materiality, and nature. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science619(September): 165–182.
19.
EzrahiY (1990) Machines and images of order. Descent of Icarus. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 149–166.
20.
FunkCHefferonMKennedyBJohnsonC (2019) Trust and mistrust in Americans’ views of scientific experts. 2August. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
21.
GauchatG (2011) The cultural authority of science: Public trust and acceptance of organized science. Public Understanding of Science20(6): 751–770.
22.
GreelyHT (2019) CRISPR’d babies: Human germline genome editing in the “He Jiankui affair.”Journal of Law and the Biosciences6(1): 111–183.
23.
HoSSBrossardDScheufeleDA (2008) Effects of value predispositions, mass media use, and knowledge on public attitudes toward embryonic stem cell research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research20: 171–192.
24.
HoSSScheufeleDACorleyEA (2010) Making sense of policy choices: Understanding the roles of value predispositions, mass media, and cognitive processing in public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research12(8): 2703–2715.
25.
HoSSScheufeleDACorleyEA (2011) Value predispositions, mass media, and attitudes toward nanotechnology: The interplay of public and experts. Science Communication33(2): 167–200.
26.
HooperDCoughlanJMullenM (2008) Structural equation modeling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal on Business Research Methods6(1): 53–60.
27.
HowellEL (2019) Science & the Authoritarian: Deference to Scientific Authority & How It Disables Democratic Deliberation on Controversial Science Issues. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison.
28.
ImhoffRLambertyPKleinO (2018) Using power as a negative cue: How conspiracy mentality affects epistemic trust in sources of historical knowledge. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin44(9): 1364–1379.
29.
JasanoffS (1990) The Fifth Branch—Scientific Advisors as Policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
30.
JasanoffS (2005) Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
KimJYeoSKBrossardDScheufeleDAXenosMA (2014) Disentangling the influence of value predispositions and risk/benefit perceptions on support for nanotechnology among the American public. Risk Analysis34(5): 965–980.
33.
KrauseNMBrossardDScheufeleDAXenosMAFrankeK (2019) The Polls—Trends: Americans’ Trust in Science and Scientists. Public Opinion Quarterly83: 817–836.
34.
KrimskyS (1982) Beyond technocracy: New routes for citizen involvement in social risk assessment. Journal of Voluntary Action Research11(1): 8–23.
35.
KrishanKKanchanTSinghB (2016) Human genome editing and ethical considerations. Science and Engineering Ethics22(2): 597–599.
36.
LatourB (1991) We Have Never Been Modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
37.
LeeC-JScheufeleDA (2006) The influence of knowledge and deference toward scientific authority: A media effects model for public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly83(4): 819–834.
38.
LiC-H (2016) Confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data: Comparing robust maximum likelihood and diagonally weighted least squares. Behavior Research Methods48(3): 936–949.
39.
LiangXHoSSBrossardDXenosMAScheufeleDAScheufeleAA, et al. (2015) Value predispositions as perceptual filters: Comparing of public attitudes toward nanotechnology in the United States and Singapore. Public Understanding of Science24(5): 582–600.
40.
MiddenCJHHuijtsNMA (2009) The role of trust in the affective evaluation of novel risks: The case of CO2 storage. Risk Analysis29(5): 743–751.
41.
National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Medicine (2017) Human Genome Editing: Science, Ethics, and Governance. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
OriggiG (2014) Epistemic trust. In: CapetPDelavalladeT (eds) Information Evaluation. New York: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 35–54.
44.
PetersRG (1996) A study of the factors determining perceptions of trust and credibility in environmental risk communication: The importance of overcoming negative stereotypes. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health68: 442–447.
RoseKMHowellELSuLYXenosMAXenosDXenosDA (2019) Distinguishing scientific knowledge: The impact of different measures of knowledge on GM food attitudes. Public Understanding of Science28: 449–467.
47.
RosseelY (2012) Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling and more. Version 0.5–12 (BETA). Journal of Statistical Software48(2): 1–36.
48.
ScheufeleDA (2013) Communicating science in social settings. Proceedings of the National Academies of Science of the United States of America110(Suppl 3): 14040–14047.
49.
SchrawG (2013) Conceptual integration and measurement of epistemological and ontological beliefs in education research. ISRN Education2013: 1–19.
50.
SchrawGBendixenLDDunkleME (2002) Development and validation of the Epistemic Belief Inventory. In: HoferBKPintrichPR (eds) Personal Epistemology: The Psychology of Beliefs about Knowledge and Knowing. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 103–118.
51.
Schröder-PfeiferPTaliaAVolkertJTaubnerS (2018) Developing an assessment of epistemic trust: A research protocol. Research in Psychotherapy Psychopathology, Process and Outcome21(3): 330.
52.
ShapinS (2007) Science and the modern world. In: HackketEAmsterdamskaOLynchMWajcmanJ (eds) The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, 3rd edn.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 433–448.
53.
SiegristM (2000) The influence of trust and perceptions of risk and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Analysis20(2): 195–203.
54.
SiegristMGutscherHEarleTC (2006) Perception of risk: The influence of general trust, and general confidence. Journal of Risk Research8(2): 145–156.
55.
WynneB (1992) Misunderstood misunderstanding: Social identities and public uptake of science. Public Understanding of Science1: 281–304.
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.
