We study how informing the public about the views of international policy experts shapes public support for international cooperation. Using survey experiments, we test whether variation in levels of support among experts with differing types of domain-specific knowledge can shape public support for a recent and politically salient international treaty: the UNFCCC COP21 Paris Climate Agreement. Our results show that the public is, under certain conditions, deferential to the views of experts, with respondents reporting increasingly higher levels of support for the COP21 agreement as support among experts increased. In addition, we provide suggestive evidence that domain-specific expertise matters: When it comes to support for the COP21 agreement, the public is most sensitive to the views of climate scientists, while exposure to the views of international relations and international economics experts have less dramatic and less consistent effects. Despite these results, we find that it is exposing the public to information about opposition to a proposed treaty among members of relevant epistemic communities that has greatest and most consistent effects. Our findings thus provide new insight into the conditions under which epistemic communities can shape public support for particular policy alternatives.
AdkinsToddLaymanGeoffrey C.CampbellDavid E.GreenJohn C.2013. “Religious Group Cues and Citizen Policy Attitudes in the United States.” Politics and Religion6 (2): 235–63.
2.
AdlerEmanuel. 1992. “The Emergence of Cooperation: National Epistemic Communities and the International Evolution of the Idea of Nuclear Arms Control.” International Organiza-tion46 (1): 101–45.
3.
AklinMichaëlUrpelainenJohannes. 2014. “Perceptions of Scientific Dissent Undermine Public Support for Environmental Policy.” Environmental Science & Policy38:173–77.
4.
AllanBentley B.2017. “Producing the Climate: States, Scientists, and the Constitution of Global Governance Objects.” International Organization71 (1): 131–62.
5.
AndereggWilliamPrallJames W.HaroldJacobSchneiderStephen H.2010. “Expert Credibility in Climate Change.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences107 (27): 12107–109.
6.
BaumeisterRoyBratslavskyEllenFinkenauerCatrin. 2001. “Bad Is Stronger than Good.” Review of General Psychology5 (4): 323–70.
BechtelMichaelScheveKenneth. 2013. “Mass Support for Global Climate Agreements Depends on Institutional Design.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences110 (34): 13763–68.
9.
BerinskyAdam. 2009. In Time of War: Understanding American Public Opinion from World War II to Iraq. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
10.
BolsenTobyDruckmanJames N.CookFay Lomax. 2014. “The Influence of Partisan Motivated Reasoning on Public Opinion.” Political Behavior36 (2): 235–62.
11.
BoykoffMaxwellBoykoffJules. 2004. “Balance as Bias: Global Warming and the US Prestige Press.” Global Environmental Change14 (2): 125–36.
12.
BullockJohn. 2011. “Elite Influence on Public Opinion in an Informed Electorate.” American Political Science Review105 (3): 496–515.
13.
CohenGeoffrey. 2003. “Party Over Policy: The Dominating Impact of Group Influence on Political Beliefs.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology85 (5): 808–22.
14.
CrossMai’a. 2013. “Rethinking Epistemic Communities Twenty Years Later.” Review of International Studies39 (1): 137–60.
15.
DingDingMaibachEdward W.ZhaoXiaoquanRoser-RenoufConnieLeiserowitzAnthony. 2011. “Support for Climate Policy and Societal Action Are Linked to Perceptions About Scientific Agreement.” Nature Climate Change1 (9): 462–66.
16.
DownsAnthony. 1957. “An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy.” Journal of Political Economy65 (2): 135–50.
17.
DruckmanJames N.2001. “On the Limits of Framing Effects: Who Can Frame?” Journal of Politics63 (4): 1041–66.
18.
DruckmanJames N.PetersonErikSlothuusRune. 2013. “How Elite Partisan Polarization Affects Public Opinion Formation.” American Political Science Review107 (1): 57–79.
19.
FeldmanLaurenMaibachEdward W.Roser-RenoufConnieLeiserowitzAnthony. 2012. “Climate on Cable: The Nature and Impact of Global Warming Coverage on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC.” The International Journal of Press/Politics17 (1): 3–31.
20.
FeldmanLaurenMyersTeresa A.HmielowskiJay D.LeiserowitzAnthony. 2014. “The Mutual Reinforcement of Media Selectivity and Effects: Testing the Reinforcing Spirals Framework in the Context of Global Warming.” Journal of Communication64 (4): 590–611.
21.
GelpiChristopherGriecoJoseph M.ReiflerJasonFeaverPeter D.2011. “Let’s Get a Second Opinion: International Institutions and American Public Support for War 1.” International Studies Quarterly55 (2): 563–83.
22.
GroelingTimBaumMatthew. 2009. “Journalists’ Incentives and Media Coverage of Elite Foreign Policy Evaluations.” Conflict Management and Peace Science26 (5): 437–70.
23.
GrossNeilSimmonsSolon. 2014. “The Social and Political Views of American Professors.” In Professors and Their Politics, edited by GrossNeilSimmonsSolon, 19–49. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
24.
GuessAndrewCoppockAlexander. 2018. “Does Counter-attitudinal Information Cause Backlash? Results from Three Large Survey Experiments.” British Journal of Political Science. Published electronically November 5. doi:10.1017/S0007123418000327.
25.
GuisingerAlexandraSaundersElizabeth. 2017. “Mapping the Boundaries of Elite Cues: How Elites Shape Mass Opinion Across International Issues.” International Studies Quarterly61 (2): 425–41.
26.
HaasPeter M.1992a. “Banning Chlorofluorocarbons: Epistemic Community Efforts to Protect Stratospheric Ozone.” International Organization46 (1): 187–224.
27.
HaasPeter M.1992b. “Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination.” International Organization46 (1): 1–35.
28.
HartSolNisbetErik. 2012. “Boomerang Effects in Science Communication.” Communication Research39 (6): 701–23.
29.
KahanDan. 2013. “Ideology, Motivated Reasoning, and Cognitive Reflection: An Experimental Study.” Judgment and Decision Making8:407–24.
30.
KahanDan. 2015. “Climate-science Communication and the Measurement Problem.” Political Psychology36 (Suppl. 1): 1–43.
31.
KahanDanPetersEllenWittlinMaggieSlovicPaulOuelletteLisa LarrimoreBramanDonaldMandelGregory. 2012. “The Polarizing Impact of Science Literacy and Numeracy on Perceived Climate Change Risks.” Nature Climate Change2 (10): 732–35.
32.
KerrJohnWilsonMarc. 2018. “Changes in Perceived Scientific Consensus Shift Beliefs About Climate Change and GM Food Safety.” PLOS ONE13 (7): e0200295.
33.
KinderDonald. 1998. “Opinion and Action in the Realm of Politics.” In The Handbook of Social Psychology, edited by GilbertD. T.FiskeS. T.LindzeyG., 778–867. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
34.
KotcherJohnMyersTeresa A.VragaEmily K.StenhouseNeilMaibachEdward W. . 2017. “Does Engagement in Advocacy Hurt the Credibility of Scientists? Results from a Randomized National Survey Experiment.” Environmental Communication11 (3): 415–29.
35.
LenzGabriel S.2013. Follow the Leader? How Voters Respond to Politicians’ Policies and Performance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
36.
LevenduskyMatthewHorowitzMichael. 2012. “When Backing Down Is the Right Decision: Partisanship, New Information, and Audience Costs.” Journal of Politics74 (2): 323–38.
37.
LewandowskyStephanGignacGillesVaughanSamuel. 2013. “The Pivotal Role of Perceived Scientific Consensus in Acceptance of Science.” Nature Climate Change3 (4): 399–404.
38.
LordCharlesRossLeeLepperMark. 1979. “Biased Assimilation and Attitude Polarization: The Effects of Prior Theories on Subsequently Considered Evidence.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology37 (11): 2098–109.
39.
LupiaArthurMcCubbinsMathew. 1998. The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn What They Need to Know?Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
40.
MaliniakDanielParajonEricPetersonSusanPowersRyan2019. “Expert Endorsements, Partisan Cues, and Public Support for International Cooperation.” Unpublished Manuscript.
41.
MaliniakDanielPetersonSusanPowersRyanTierneyMichael J.2020. Bridging the Theory-practice Divide in International Relations. Washington: Georgetown University Press.
42.
MarshDavidHartPaulTindallKaren. 2010. “Celebrity Politics: The Politics of the Late Modernity?” Political Studies Review8 (3): 322–40.
43.
McCrightAaron M.DunlapRiley E.2013. “Bringing Ideology In: The Conservative White Male Effect on Worry About Environmental Problems in the USA.” Journal of Risk Research16 (2): 211–26.
44.
NicholsTom. 2017. The Death of Expertise. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
45.
NicholsonStephen. 2011. “Dominating Cues and the Limits of Elite Influence.” Journal of Politics73 (4): 1165–77.
46.
NyhanBrendanReiflerJason. 2010. “When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misperceptions.” Political Behavior32 (2): 303–30.
47.
OreskesNaomiConwayErik. 2010. “Defeating the Merchants of Doubt.” Nature465 (7299): 686–87.
SorokaStuart. 2014. Negativity in Democratic Politics: Causes and Consequences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
50.
TingleyDustinTomzMichael. 2014. “Conditional Cooperation and Climate Change.” Comparative Political Studies47 (3): 344–68.
51.
WaltStephen. 2012. “Theory and Policy in International Relations: Some Personal Reflections.” Yale Journal of International Affairs7: 33–43.
52.
ZallerJohn. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
