How can scientists best inform the public and change attitudes? Does the message or the messenger matter more? We test the effect of scientific expert messengers and messages in a preregistered, nationally representative survey experiment in the United States. Consistent with our hypotheses, scientists can move public attitudes in areas where knowledge is based on a non-ideological misperception to a greater extent than the same science-based message from another source. Although we focus on political science as a field and Congressional term limits in the United States as a topic area, our findings have broader implications for science communication with policymaking relevance given the persistence of misperceptions among the public across all natural and social science research fields.
AgadjanianA (2021) When do partisans stop following the leader?Political Communication38(4): 351–369.
2.
AllenMSIliescuDGreiffS (2022) Single item measures in psychological science. European Journal of Psychological Assessment38(1): 1–5.
3.
AnsolabehereSSchaffnerBF (2014) Does survey mode still matter? Findings from a 2010 multi-mode comparison. Political Analysis22(3): 285–303.
4.
ArendtF (2015) Toward a dose-response account of media priming. Communication Research42(8): 1089–1115.
5.
BardoshKde FigueiredoAGur-ArieRJamrozikEDoidgeJLemmensT, et al. (2022) The unintended consequences of COVID-19 vaccine policy: Why mandates, passports and restrictions may cause more harm than good. BMJ Global Health7(5): e008684.
6.
BartelsLM (2005) Homer gets a tax cut: Inequality and public policy in the American mind. Perspectives on Politics3: 15–31.
7.
BauerMW (2008) Survey research and the public understanding of science. In: BucchiMTrenchB (eds) Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology. Oxford: Routledge, pp. 111–130.
8.
BoczkowskiPJMitchelsteinE (2013) The News Gap: When the Information Preferences of the Media and the Public Diverge. Boston, MA: MIT Press.
9.
BoyetteTRamseyJR (2019) Does the messenger matter? Studying the impacts of scientists and engineers interacting with public audiences at science festival events. JCOM18(2): A02.
10.
BrommeRGoldmanSR (2014) The public’s bounded understanding of science. Educational Psychologist49(2): 59–69.
11.
BroockmanDEButlerDM (2017) The causal effects of elite position-taking on voter attitudes: Field experiments with elite communication. American Journal of Political Science61(1): 208–221.
12.
CacioppoJTPettyRE (1979) Effects of message repetition and position on cognitive response, recall, and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology37(1): 97–109.
13.
CacioppoJTPettyRE (1989) Effects of message repetition on argument processing, recall, and persuasion. Basic and Applied Social Psychology10(1): 3–12.
14.
CareyJMGuessAMLoewenPJMerkleyENyhanBPhillipsJB, et al. (2022) The ephemeral effects of fact-checks on COVID-19 misperceptions in the United States, Great Britain and Canada. Nature Human Behaviour6(2): 236–243.
15.
CareyJMNiemiRGPowellLWMoncriefGF (2006) The effects of term limits on state legislatures: A new survey of the 50 states. Legislative Studies Quarterly31(1): 105–134.
16.
ChangLKrosnickJA (2009) National surveys via Rdd telephone interviewing versus the internet: Comparing sample representativeness and response quality. Public Opinion Quarterly73(4): 641–678.
17.
CollinsPMDBodmerWF (1986) The public understanding of science. Studies in Science Education13(1): 96–104.
18.
CorbettJBDurfeeJL (2004) Testing public (un)certainty of science. Science Communication26(2): 129–151.
19.
DouglasBDEwellPJBrauerM (2023) Data quality in online human-subjects research: Comparisons between MTurk, prolific, cloudresearch, qualtrics, and SONA. PLoS ONE18(3): e0279720.
20.
FähnrichBLüthjeC (2017) Roles of social scientists in crisis media reporting: The case of the German populist radical right movement PEGIDA. Science Communication39(4): 415–442.
21.
FlynnDJ (2016) The scope and correlates of political misperceptions in the mass public. In: Presented at the Annual meeting of the american political science association, Philadelphia, PA, 1–4 September.
22.
FlynnDJNyhanBReiflerJ (2017) The nature and origins of misperceptions: Understanding false and unsupported beliefs about politics. Political Psychology38(Suppl. 1): 127–150.
23.
ForgetEL (2020) 2018 HES presidential address: Folk wisdom in economics. Journal of the History of Economic Thought42(1): 1–18.
24.
FurnhamA (1993) A comparison between psychology and non-psychology students’ misperceptions of the subject. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality8(2): 311–322.
25.
HansenA (2016) The changing uses of accuracy in science communication. Public Understanding of Science25(7): 760–774.
26.
HetheringtonMJWeilerJ (2018) Prius or Pickup? How the Answers to Four Simple Questions Explain America’s Great Divide. Boston, MA: Mariner Books.
27.
HillSJLoJVavreckLZallerJ (2013) How quickly we forget: The duration of persuasion effects from mass communication. Political Communication30(4): 521–547.
28.
HillygusDSJacksonNYoungM (2014) Professional respondents in nonprobability online panels. In: CallegaroMBakerRBethlehemJ, et al (eds) Online Panel Research: A Data Quality Perspective. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 219–237.
KahnemanD (2003) A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist58(9): 697–720.
31.
KantackBRPaschallCE (2023) Perceptions of policy problems and solutions: Climate change and structural racism. Public Understanding of Science32(2): 247–256.
KlofstadCUscinskiJ (2023) Expert opinions and negative externalities do not decrease support for anti-price gouging policies. Research & Politics10(3): 20531680231194805.
34.
KrauseNMFreilingIBeetsBBrossardD (2020) Fact-checking as risk communication: The multi-layered risk of misinformation in times of COVID-19. Journal of Risk Research23(7–8): 1052–1059.
35.
KundaZ (1990) The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin108(3): 408–498.
36.
LodgeMTaberC (2000) Three steps toward a theory of motivated political reasoning. In: LupiaAMccubbinsMDPopkinSL (eds) Elements of Reason: Cognition, Choice, and the Bounds of Rationality. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 183–213.
37.
LuciaVCKelekarAAfonsoNM (2021) COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among medical students. Journal of Public Health43(3): 445–449.
38.
LupiaA (1994) Shortcuts versus encyclopedias: Information and voting behavior in California insurance reform elections. American Political Science Review88(1): 63–76.
39.
LuptonDLWebbC (2022) Wither elites? The role of elite credibility and knowledge in public perceptions of foreign policy. International Studies Quarterly66(3): sqac057.
40.
MarksJ (1996) Science and race. American Behavioral Scientist40(2): 123–133.
MillerJD (1983) Scientific literacy: A conceptual and empirical review. Daedalus Spring112: 29–48.
43.
MillerS (2001) Public understanding of science at the cross-roads. Public Understanding of Science10: 115–120.
44.
MillerSMNicholson-CrottyJNicholson-CrottyS (2011) Reexamining the institutional effects of term limits in U.S. state legislatures. Legislative Studies Quarterly36(1): 71–97.
MottaM (2018) The polarizing effect of the march for science on attitudes toward scientists. PS: Political Science & Politics51(4): 782–788.
47.
MottaMCallaghanT (2020) The pervasiveness and policy consequences of medical folk wisdom in the U.S. Scientific Reports10(1): 10722.
48.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2017) Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
49.
NisbetECCooperKEGarrettRK (2015) The partisan brain: How dissonant science messages lead conservatives and liberals to (dis)trust science. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science658(1): 36–66.
50.
NisbetECHartPSMyersTEllithorpeM (2013) Attitude change in competitive framing environments? Open-/closed-mindedness, framing effects, and climate change. Journal of Communication63(4): 766–785.
51.
NyhanBReiflerJ (2010) When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior32(2): 303–330.
52.
NyhanBReiflerJRicheySFreedGL (2014) Effective messages in vaccine promotion: A randomized trial. Pediatrics133(4): e835–e842.
53.
PettyRECacioppoJT (1984) The effects of involvement on responses to argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology46(1): 69–81.
54.
PettyRECacioppoJT (1986) The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology19: 123–205.
55.
PettyRECacioppoJTGoldmanR (1981) Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology41(5): 847–855.
56.
PielkeRA Jr (2007) The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
57.
PopkinSL (1991) The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
58.
PriorM (2007) Post-Broadcast Democracy: How Media Choice Increases Inequality in Political Involvement and Polarizes Elections. New York: Cambridge University Press.
59.
RedlawskDP (2002) Hot cognition or cool consideration? Testing the effects of motivated reasoning on political decision making. The Journal of Politics64(4): 1021–1044.
60.
ScheufeleDA (2014) Science communication as political communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences111(4): 13585–13592.
61.
SimonHA (1955) A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics69: 199–118.
62.
SkinnerNF (2009) Academic folk wisdom: Fact, fiction, and falderal. Psychology Learning & Teaching8(1): 46–50.
63.
TaberCSLodgeM (2006) Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science50(3): 755–769.
64.
TsurY (2022) Political tenure, term limits, and corruption. European Journal of Political Economy74: 102166.
65.
ZallerJ (1992) The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.
66.
ZhangFJ (2023) Political endorsement by nature and trust in scientific expertise during COVID-19. Nature Human Behaviour7: 696–706.
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.
