A new study published in Public Understanding of Science reveals that attributing scientific claims to specific experts can increase the perceived accuracy of those claims, particularly among politically conservative individuals. Conducted by Rodrigo Reyes Cordova at Sciences Po Paris, the research investigates how political ideology influences public trust in experts.
The study counters the narrative that liberals are pro-science while conservatives are anti-science, suggesting instead that everyone is biased in how they accept information. It uses a framework of cultural cognition, showing that people tend to trust claims that align with their values.
In an online experiment with 1,054 U.S. adults, participants rated the accuracy of claims related to immigration, taxation, genetically modified foods, and climate change, with experts categorized as “impact” (sociologists, environmental scientists) or “production” (economists, agricultural scientists). While liberals generally showed more trust in experts, conservatives were more favorable toward production experts.
Results indicated that while expert attribution modestly boosts the perceived accuracy of claims, it didn’t consistently affect how claims were rated based on the expert’s field. Notably, conservatives rated the taxation claim more accurately when linked to an expert, despite their usual skepticism on economic issues, and showed increased accuracy perception for climate change claims attributed to scientists.
The findings suggest that explicitly mentioning expert sources can enhance credibility, especially for contentious claims. However, the study’s limitations, including the non-nationally representative sample and focused claims, call for further research into expert perception across different cultural contexts.
Overall, the study emphasizes the importance of expert communication in fostering public acceptance of scientific information for a healthy democracy.
