Governments rely on citizen compliance to implement policies. Yet, in the current climate where citizens express low levels of trust in government, gaining compliance can prove challenging. Scholarship suggests other factors that might promote compliance even in the absence of trust. We examine two: expertise and descriptive representation across race, gender, and partisanship. We experimentally activate general (dis)trust in government and use a conjoint experiment to examine multiple factors that might shape citizens’ willingness to comply with and trust government guidance related to COVID-19. We find that shared partisanship and consultation with experts have the largest effects. We also see an effect of shared racial identity on compliance for Black Americans, at least when trust is relatively low. As we consider the role of trust, expertise, and descriptive representation across race, gender, and partisanship simultaneously, the results offer important insights into factors that underpin citizens’ willingness to comply with government mandates. Our results have important real-world implications, highlighting the importance of bipartisan responses to crises as well as ensuring racial representation in government. They also demonstrate that explicitly involving experts in decision-making processes increases citizens’ willingness to comply with policy.
AlgaraCarlosFullerSamHareChristopherKazemianSara. 2021. “The Interactive Effects of Scientific Knowledge and Gender on COVID-19 Social Distancing Compliance.” Social Science Quarterly102 (1): 7–16.
2.
BargainOlivierAminjonovUlugbek. 2020. “Trust and Compliance to Public Health Policies in Times of Covid-19.” Journal of Public Economics192 (December): 1–13.
3.
BarkerDavid C.DetambleRyanMariettaMorgan. 2021. “Intellectualism, Anti-Intellectualism, and Epistemic Hubris in Red and Blue America.” American Political Science Review116 (1): 1–16.
4.
BertsouEriCaramaniDaniele. 2022. “People Haven’t Had Enough of Experts: Technocratic Attitudes among Citizens in Nine European Democracies.” American Journal of Political Science66 (1): 5–23.
5.
BlairRobertMorseBenjaminTsaiLily. 2017. “Public Health and Public Trust: Survey Evidence from the Ebola Virus Disease Epidemic in Liberia.” Social Science and Medicine172 (January): 89–97.
6.
BoboLawrenceGilliamFranklin D.. 1990. “Race, Sociopolitical Participation, and Black Empowerment.” American Political Science Review84 (2): 377–93.
7.
BowlerShaunKarpJeffrey A.. 2004. “Politicians, Scandals, and Trust in Government.” Political Behavior26 (3): 271–87.
8.
BraithwaiteJohnMakkaiToni. 1994. “Trust and Compliance.” Policing and Society: An International Journal4 (1): 1–12.
BokemperScott E.HuberGregory A.GerberAlan S.JamesErin K.OmerSaad B.. 2021. “Timing of COVID-19 vaccine approval and endorsement by public figures.” Vaccine39 (5): 825–29.
11.
BrodeurAbelGrigoryevaIdailiyaKattanLamis. 2021. “Stay-at-home Orders, Social Distancing, and Trust.” Journal of Population Economics34 (4): 1321–54.
12.
BromwichDavidGuilhot NicolasJacksonJeanne-MarieMartín Alcoff LindaCassam QuassimPamuk ZeynepTáíwò OlúfẹmiO.DeryMarkWeigelMoira.2021. “The Future of Expertise: How will the Pandemic Alter Intellectual Authority?” The Chronicle of Higher Educationonline. November 2, 2021.
13.
BrykAnthonyScheiderBarbara. 2003. “Trust in Schools: A Core Resource for School Reform.” Educational Leadership60 (6): 40–5.
14.
BrzezinskiAdamKechtValentinVan DijckeDavidWrightAustin L.. 2021. “Science Skepticism Reduced Compliance with COVID-19 Shelter-in-place Policies in the United States.” Nature Human Behaviour5 (11): 1519–27.
15.
CamobrecoJohn F.HeZhaochen. 2022. “The Party-Line Pandemic: A Closer Look at the Partisan Response to COVID-19.” PS: Political Science and Politics55 (1): 13–21.
16.
CaseChandlerEddyChristopherHemrajaniRahulHowellChristopherLyonsDanielSungYu-HsienConnorsElizabeth C.. 2022. “The Effects of Source Cues and Issue Frames during COVID-19.” Journal of Experimental Political Science9 (3): 369–78.
17.
ChanleyVirginia A.RudolphThomas J.RahnWendy M.. 2000. “The Origins and Consequences of Public Trust in Government: A Time Series Analysis.” Public Opinion Quarterly64 (3): 239–56.
18.
CitrinJackStokerLaura. 2018. “Political Trust in a Cynical Age.” Annual Review of Political Science21 (1): 49–70.
19.
ClaytonAmandaO'BrienDiana Z.PiscopoJennifer.M.. 2019. “All Male Panels? Representation and Democratic Legitimacy.” American Journal of Political Science63 (1): 113–29.
20.
Cornelson KirstenMilouchevaBoriana.. Political polarization and cooperation during a pandemic. Health Economics2022; 31(9): 2025–2049.
21.
CoppockAlexanderMcClellanOlivar A.. 2019. “Validating the Demographic, Political, Psychological, and Experimental Results Obtained from a New Source of Online Survey Respondents.” Research and Politics6 (1): 1–14.
22.
DohleSimoneWingenTobiasSchreiberMike. 2020. “Acceptance and Adoption of Protective Measures During the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Role of Trust in Politics and Trust in Science.” Social Psychological Bulletin15 (4): 1–23.
23.
FaulknerNicholasMartinAaronPeytonKyle. 2015. “Priming Political Trust.” Australian Journal of Political Science50 (1): 164–73.
24.
FarhartChristina E.ChenPhilip Gordon. 2022. “Racialized Pandemic: The Effect of Racial Attitudes on COVID-19 Conspiracy Theory Beliefs.” Frontiers in Political Science21 (4). doi:10.3389/fpos.2022.648061.
GauchatGordon. 2012. “Politicization of Science in the Public Sphere: A Study of Public Trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010.” American Sociological Review77 (2): 167–87.
27.
GoldsteinDaniel D. A.WiedemannJohannes. 2022. “Who Do You Trust? The Consequences of Partisanship and Trust for Public Responsiveness to COVID-19 Orders.” Perspectives on Politics20 (2): 1–27.
28.
GoodnowFrank J.2003. Politics and Administration: A Study in Government. New York: Routledge.
29.
GuglielmiSimonaDotti SaniGiulia M.MolteniFrancescoBiolcatiFerruccioChiesiAntonio M.LadiniRiccardoMaraffiMarcoPedrazzaniAndreaVezzoniCristiano. 2020. “Public Acceptability of Containment Measures During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Italy: How Institutional Confidence and Specific Political Support Matter.” International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy40 (9/10): 1069–85.
30.
HainmuellerJensHangartnerDominikYamamotoTeppei. 2015. “Validating Vignette and Conjoint Survey Experiments against Real-world Behavior.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences112 (8): 2395–2400.
31.
HainmuellerJensHopkinsDaniel J.YamamotoTeppei. 2014. “Causal Inference in Conjoint Analysis: Understanding Multidimensional Choices via Stated Preference Experiments.” Political Analysis22 (1): 1–30.
32.
HawesDaniel P.2021. “Symbolic Representation, Cooperation, and Undocumented Immigrants: The Role of Representation in Improving Assessments of Cooperative Behaviors in Education.” The American Review of Public Administration51 (8): 605–18.
33.
IyengarShantoKrupenkinMasha. 2018. “The Strengthening of Partisan Affect.” Political Psychology39 (1): 201–18.
34.
IyengarShantoWestwoodSean J.. 2015. “Fear and Loathing Across Party Lines: New Evidence on Group Polarization.” American Journal of Political Science59 (3): 690–707.
35.
KaganRobert A.ScholzJohn T.. The “Criminology of the Corporation” and Regulatory Enforcement Strategies. Enforcing Regulation1984; 67–95, doi:10.1007/978-94-017-5297-8_4
36.
KeeleLuke. 2005. “The Authorities Really Do Matter: Party Control and Trust in Government.” The Journal of Politics67 (3): 873–86.
37.
KeiserLael R.Haider-MarkelDonald P.DaroliaRajeev. 2022. “Race, Representation, and Policy Attitudes in US Public Schools.” Policy Studies Journal50 (4): 823–48.
38.
KeiserLael R.WilkinsVicky M.MeierKenneth J.HollandCatherine A.. 2002. “Lipstick and Logarithms: Gender, Institutional Context, and Representative Bureaucracy.” American Political Science Review96 (3): 553–64.
39.
KirchlerErich. 2007. The Economic Psychology of Tax Behaviour. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
40.
KrepsS.E.KrinerD.L.. 2021. “Factors Influencing Covid-19 Vaccine Acceptance across Subgroups in the United States: Evidence from a Conjoint Experiment.” Vaccine39 (24): 3250–58.
41.
KrupenkinMasha. 2021. “Does Partisanship Affect Compliance with Government Recommendations?” Political Behavior43 (1): 451–72.
42.
LeeNathan. 2022. “Do Policy Makers Listen to Experts? Evidence from a National Survey of Local and State Policy Makers.” American Political Science Review116 (2): 677–88.
43.
LeeperThomas J.HoboltSara B.TilleyJames. 2020. “Measuring Subgroup Preferences in Conjoint Experiments.” Political Analysis28 (2): 207–21.
44.
LuceroEddieTrounstineJessicaConnollyJennifer M.KlofstadCasey. 2022. “A Matter of Life or Death: How Racial Representation Shapes Compliance with City Disaster Preparedness Orders.” Journal of Urban Affairs44 (8): 1168–85.
45.
MasonLilliana. Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became our Identity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2018.
46.
MansbridgeJane. 1999. “Should Blacks Represent Blacks and Women Represent Women? A Contingent “Yes.” The Journal of Politics61 (3): 628–57.
47.
MarschallMelissaRuhilAnirudh. 2007. “Substantive Symbols: The Attitudinal Dimension of Black Political Incorporation in Local Government.” American Journal of Political Science51 (1): 17–33.
48.
MeierKenneth.J.Nicholson-CrottyJill. 2006. “Gender, Representative Bureaucracy, and Law Enforcement: The Case of Sexual Assault.” Public Administration Review66 (6): 850–60.
49.
MerkleyEricLoewenPeter John. 2021. “Anti-intellectualism and the Mass Public’s Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic.” Nature Human Behaviour5 (6): 706–15.
MillerSusan M.KeiserLael R. 2021. “Representative Bureaucracy and Attitudes Toward Automated Decision Making.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory31 (1): 150–65.
52.
MillerSusan M.SongMiyeonKeiserLael R.. The Effect of Human versus Automated Interaction on Willingness to Participate in Government Programs: The Role of Representation. Public Administration2022, https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12879
53.
MottaMatthew. 2018. “The Dynamics and Political Implications of Anti-intellectualism in the United States.” American Politics Research46 (3): 465–98.
54.
MosherFrederick C.1968. Democracy and the Public Service. New York: NY Oxford Univ. Press.
55.
MummoloJonathanPetersonErik. 2019. “Demand Effects in Survey Experiments: An Empirical Assessment.” American Political Science Review113 (2): 517–29.
56.
MurphyKristina. 2004. “The Role of Trust in Nurturing Compliance: A Study of Accused Tax Avoiders.” Law and Human Behavior28 (2): 187–209.
57.
MyersC. DanielZhirkovKirillTrujilloKristin Lunz. Who is `On Welfare’? Validating the Use of Conjoint Experiments to Measure Stereotype Content. Political Behavior2022, doi:10.1007/s11109-022-09815-0
NicholsTom. 2017. The Death of Expertise. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
60.
PakAntonMcBrydeEmmaAdegboyeOyelola A.. 2021. “Does High Public Trust Amplify compliance with Stringent Covid-19 Government Health Guidelines? A Multi-country Analysis using Data from 102,627 Individuals.” Risk Management and Health Care Policy14 (January): 293–302.
61.
PainterMarcusQiuTian. 2020. “Political Beliefs affect Compliance with Covid-19 Social Distancing Orders.” Covid Economics4 (April): 103–23.
PeytonKyle. 2020. “Does Trust in Government Increase Support for Redistribution? Evidence from Randomized Survey Experiments.” American Political Science Review114 (2): 596–602.
66.
PitkinHanna Fenichel. 1967. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.
67.
PonizovskiyVladimirGrigoryanLusineHofmannWilhelm. 2022. “Why is Right-wing Media Consumption Associated with Lower Compliance with COVID-19 Measures?” Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications36 (1): 3–16.
68.
RiccucciNorma M.Van RyzinGregg G.LiHuafang. 2016. “Representative Bureaucracy and the Willingness to Coproduce: An Experimental Study.” Public Administration Review76 (1): 121–30.
69.
RiccucciNorma M.Van RyzinGregg G.JacksonKarima. 2018. “Representative Bureaucracy, Race, and Policing: A Survey Experiment.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory28 (4): 506–18.
70.
ScholzJohn T.Lubell.Mark1998. “Trust and Taxpaying: Testing the Heuristic Approach to Collective Action.” American Journal of Political Science42 (2): 398–417.
71.
ScholzJohn T.PinneyNeil. 1995. “Duty, Fear, and Tax Compliance: The Heuristic Basis of Citizenship Behavior.” American Journal of Political Science39 (2): 490–512.
72.
Schwindt-BayerLeslie A.MishlerWilliam. 2005. “An Integrated Model of Women's Representation.” The Journal of Politics67 (2): 407–28.
73.
SenMaya. 2017. “How Political Signals Affect Public Support for Judicial Nominations: Evidence from a Conjoint Experiment.” Political Research Quarterly70 (2): 374–93.
74.
SimonHerbert A.2013. Administrative Behavior. Simon and Schuster.
75.
SimonovAndreySacherSzymonDubéJean-PierreBiswasShirsho. 2022. “Frontiers: The Persuasive Effect of Fox News: Noncompliance with Social Distancing During the COVID-19 Pandemic.” Marketing Science41, 2): 230–42.
76.
StaufferKatelyn E.2021. “Public Perceptions of Women’s Inclusion and Feelings of Political Efficacy.” American Political Science Review115 (4): 1226–41.
77.
StaufferKatelyn E.SongMiyeonShoubKelsey. 2022. “How Police Agency Diversity, Policies, and Outcomes Shape Citizen Trust and Willingness to Engage.” Policy Studies Journal: 1–22. doi:10.1111/psj.12479.
78.
StoetzerLukas F.MunzertSimonLoweWillÇalıBaşakGohdesAnita R.HelblingMarcMaxwellRahsaanTraunmüllerRichard. 2022. “Affective Partisan Polarization and Moral Dilemmas During the COVID-19 Pandemic.” Political Science Research and Methods: 1–8.
79.
TateKatherine. 2003. Black Faces in the Mirror: African Americans and their Representatives in the US Congress. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
80.
TylerTom R.2006. Why People Obey the Law. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
81.
UtychStephen M.2021. “Messaging Mask Wearing During the COVID-19 Crisis: Ideological Differences.” Journal of Experimental Political Science8 (2): 91–101.
82.
WangJZhuH.LaiXZhangHHuangYFengHLyuYJingRGuoJFangH. 2022. “From COVID-19 Vaccination Intention to Actual Vaccine Uptake: A Longitudinal Study Among Chinese Adults After Six Months of a National Vaccination Campaign.” Expert Review of Vaccines21 (3): 385–95.
83.
WestEmily A.IyengarShanto. 2020. “Partisanship as a Social Identity: Implications for Polarization.” Political Behavior29 (July): 1–32.
84.
WilkinsVicky M.Keiser.Lael R.2006. “Linking Passive and Active Representation by Gender: The Case of Child Support Agencies.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory16 (1): 87–102.
85.
WynenJanOp de BeeckSophieVerhoestKoenGlavinaMonikaSixFrédériqueVan DammePierreBeutelsPhillipeHendrickxGreetPepermansKoen. 2022. “Taking a COVID-19 Vaccine or Not? Do Trust in Government and Trust in Experts Help Us to Understand Vaccination Intention?” Administration and Society54 (10): 1875–1901.
TernovskiJohnOrrLilla. A Note on Increases in Inattentive Online Survey-Takers Since 2020. Journal of Quantitative Description: Digital Media2022; 2, https://doi.org/10.51685/jqd.2022.002
89.
JenkeLibbyBansakKirkHainmuellerJensHangartnerDominik. Using Eye-Tracking to Understand Decision-Making in Conjoint Experiments. Political Analysis2021; 29(1): 75–101.
90.
AronowPetereMichaelKallaJoshuaLilla OrrJohnTernovski. 2020. “Evidence of Rising Rates of Inattentivenss on Lucid in 2020.” SocArXiv
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.
