Communicating expert consensus increases personal support for COVID‐19 mitigation policies

Abstract

The Gateway Belief Model (GBM) places perception of a scientific consensus as a key “gateway cognition” with cascading effects on personal beliefs, concern, and ultimately support for public policies. However, few studies seeking to evaluate and extend the model have followed the specification and design of the GBM as originally outlined. We present a more complete test of the theoretical model in a novel domain: the COVID‐19 pandemic. In a large multi‐country correlational study ( N = 7,206) we report that, as hypothesized by the model, perceptions of scientific consensus regarding the threat of COVID‐19 predict personal attitudes toward threat and worry over the virus, which are in turn positively associated with support for mitigation policies. We also find causal support for the model in a large pre‐registered survey experiment ( N = 1,856): experimentally induced increases in perceived consensus have an indirect effect on changes in policy support mediated via changes in personal agreement with the consensus. Implications for the role of expert consensus in science communication are discussed.

Scientific-Consensus Communication About Contested Science: A Preregistered Meta-Analysis

“…First, regarding the three different topics, we found that the effects of scientific-consensus communication were very similar for climate change and genetically modified food. We identified only two experiments that investigated scientific-consensus communication in the context of vaccination (although more research might be upcoming because of the COVID-19 pandemic; e.g., Kerr & van der Linden, 2022), which prevents us from drawing conclusions regarding that topic specifically. Second, regarding extreme and influential cases, the main results related to perceived scientific consensus might be inflated somewhat (removal of extreme, influential, or potentially inflated effect sizes yielded g s of 0.44 and 0.46), whereas the effect related to belief in scientific facts was largely robust in this context.…”

Investigating the Heterogeneity of Misperceptions: A Latent Profile Analysis of COVID-19 Beliefs and Their Consequences for Information-Seeking

“…As noted earlier, their selective rejection might be linked to pre-existing attitudes and the politicization and polarization of COVID-19 communication. Based on prior studies, it could be fruitful to develop interventions that use value-congruent messages ( Kahan et al, 2011 ), scientific consensus messages ( Kerr & Linden, 2022 ), or specifically warn about the politicization of science ( Bolsen & Druckman, 2015 ). For approvers, interventions should aim at increasing discernment between substantiated and unsubstantiated claims.…”

Scientific consensus communication about contested science: A preregistered meta-analysis

“…First, regarding the three different topics, we found that the effects of scientific consensus communication were very similar for climate change and genetically modified food. We identified only two experiments that investigated scientific consensus communication in the context of vaccination (although more research might be upcoming due to the COVID-19 pandemic, e.g., Kerr & van der Linden, 2021), which prevents us from drawing conclusions regarding this topic specifically. Second, regarding extreme and influential cases, the main results related to perceived scientific consensus might be inflated somewhat (removal of extreme, influential, or potentially inflated effect sizes yielded g's of 0.44 and 0.46), while the effect related to belief in scientific facts is largely robust in this context.…”