Misperceptions and Minipublics: Does Endorsement of Expert Information by a Minipublic Influence Misperceptions in the Wider Public?

IF 4.6 1区社会学 Q1 COMMUNICATION

Political Communication Pub Date : 2023-04-09 DOI:10.1080/10584609.2023.2200735

L. Muradova, Eileen Culloty, Jane Suiter

{"title":"Misperceptions and Minipublics: Does Endorsement of Expert Information by a Minipublic Influence Misperceptions in the Wider Public?","authors":"L. Muradova, Eileen Culloty, Jane Suiter","doi":"10.1080/10584609.2023.2200735","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT As misperceptions undermine the factual basis for public debate, they pose a serious challenge to expert knowledge and the democratic legitimacy of public policy informed by expert evidence. In this paper, we theorize that in times of politicization and polarization of expertise, endorsement of expert information by a minipublic can serve to legitimize expert correction and render it more persuasive in the eyes of individuals. In developing our theoretical argument, we focus on the effect of a minipublic on individuals in the wider public – those who did not participate in such institutions. To test our theoretical predictions, we designed, pre-registered and fielded two experiments in the US (N = 2168) and one experiment in Ireland (N = 1125), during two different waves of COVID-19. The results show that minipublic endorsement significantly increases the uptake of expert information among (nonparticipating) citizens. Furthermore, when an expert correction explicitly asserts a scientific consensus, it is as effective as the minipublic endorsement. The findings have implications for the research on misperceptions, expertise and deliberative institutions.","PeriodicalId":20264,"journal":{"name":"Political Communication","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Communication","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2023.2200735","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 2

Abstract

ABSTRACT As misperceptions undermine the factual basis for public debate, they pose a serious challenge to expert knowledge and the democratic legitimacy of public policy informed by expert evidence. In this paper, we theorize that in times of politicization and polarization of expertise, endorsement of expert information by a minipublic can serve to legitimize expert correction and render it more persuasive in the eyes of individuals. In developing our theoretical argument, we focus on the effect of a minipublic on individuals in the wider public – those who did not participate in such institutions. To test our theoretical predictions, we designed, pre-registered and fielded two experiments in the US (N = 2168) and one experiment in Ireland (N = 1125), during two different waves of COVID-19. The results show that minipublic endorsement significantly increases the uptake of expert information among (nonparticipating) citizens. Furthermore, when an expert correction explicitly asserts a scientific consensus, it is as effective as the minipublic endorsement. The findings have implications for the research on misperceptions, expertise and deliberative institutions.

查看原文本刊更多论文

误解和小公众：小公众对专家信息的认可会影响广大公众的误解吗？

由于误解破坏了公共辩论的事实基础，它们对专家知识和由专家证据提供信息的公共政策的民主合法性构成了严重挑战。本文认为，在专业知识政治化和两极分化的时代，小公众对专家信息的认可可以使专家纠正合法化，并使其在个人眼中更具说服力。在发展我们的理论论点时，我们关注的是小公众对广大公众中个人的影响——那些没有参与这种制度的人。为了验证我们的理论预测，我们在两波不同的COVID-19期间，在美国(N = 2168)和爱尔兰(N = 1125)设计、预注册和实施了两项实验。结果表明，微公众支持显著增加了(非参与)公民对专家信息的吸收。此外，当专家的纠正明确地主张科学共识时，它与小公众的认可一样有效。研究结果对误解、专业知识和审议机构的研究具有启示意义。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Political Communication Multiple-

CiteScore

13.90

自引率

2.70%

发文量

期刊介绍： Political Communication is a quarterly international journal showcasing state-of-the-art, theory-driven empirical research at the nexus of politics and communication. Its broad scope addresses swiftly evolving dynamics and urgent policy considerations globally. The journal embraces diverse research methodologies and analytical perspectives aimed at advancing comprehension of political communication practices, processes, content, effects, and policy implications. Regular symposium issues delve deeply into key thematic areas.