Do People Actually “Listen to the Experts”? A Cautionary Note on Assuming Expert Credibility and Persuasiveness on Public Health Policy Advocacy

ABSTRACT

The present work empirically explores whether experts are trusted more or more persuasive than an “average Joe” when engaging in policy advocacy on public health topics. I conducted a 2 (topic: climate change vs. COVID-19) X 2 (source: expert vs. nonexpert) experimental study with an US adult sample (N = 486). Using Bayes factors to quantify evidence for null and alternative hypothesis, I find substantial evidence that at least under the conditions present in the study, experts are perceived to be higher in expertise, but equal in trustworthiness to the “average Joe”. In turn, experts are equally persuasive to nonexperts on both topics. My work suggests that when engaging in policy advocacy on public health matters, the fact that an advocate is an expert on a topic can be acknowledged by audiences, but this may not necessarily help (nor necessarily harm) one’s perceived trustworthiness or ability to persuade an audience. More research is needed to understand how experts can bolster their trustworthiness and persuasiveness when advocating for public health policies.

Supplementary material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed on the publisher’s website.

Notes

1. In JASP, Bayesian ANOVA compares evidence for models with and without specific variables, while Bayesian t-tests compare evidence that two conditions are similar vs. different. Results were similar if I instead used Bayesian t-tests to quantify evidence for main effects.