A desire for authoritative science? How citizens’ informational needs and epistemic beliefs shaped their views of science, news, and policymaking in the COVID-19 pandemic

Abstract

The coronavirus pandemic created a situation in which virological and epidemiological science became highly politically relevant but was uncertain and fragmented. This raises the question as to how science could inform policymaking and public debate on societal crisis management. Based on an online survey of Germans ( N = 1513) representative for age, gender, education, and place of residence, we investigate citizens’ prescriptive views of the relationships between science, policymaking, and the media. Views differ depending on their informational needs and epistemic beliefs. People with a need for definite information and a view of scientific knowledge as static wanted scientists to dominate policymaking and journalists to deliver definite information about the coronavirus. People with an informational need to construct their own opinions wanted journalists to question policy and scientific advice. Furthermore, they rejected the idea of scientists dominating policymaking. Results are discussed with reference to theories of science and democracy.

An anchor in troubled times: Trust in science before and within the COVID-19 pandemic

“…This proportion was even larger than the proportion of respondents who claimed to have trust in science, and it did not decrease between April and November. Based on a representative online survey in Germany from April 2020, Post, Bienzeisler and Lohöfener [ 47 ] similarily reported very high agreement with the expectation that science should dominate policy-making. However, our findings do not suggest, that such strong endorsement of science-based politics necessarily implies a preference for mingling the differences between the roles of scientists and politicians.…”

Follow the scientists? How beliefs about the practice of science shaped COVID-19 views

“…This has practical implications as adherence to coronavirus mitigation measures and public health recommendations have been found to be lower among those with decreased confidence in science and scientists [Brzezinski et al, 2021;Calvillo et al, 2020;Eichengreen, Aksoy and Saka, 2021;Sanchez and Dunning, 2021]. Also, as science becomes more enmeshed with policy, lay people who are not familiar with the norms of scientific inquiry often expect presentation of alternative explanations or want to draw their own inferences rather than have scientists tell them the meaning of information [Post, Bienzeisler and Lohöfener, 2021]. Similarly, when scientific findings are marshalled to justify one policy option or the public is told simply to adhere to scientists' recommendations, their disinterestedness may be questioned [Bauer and Jensen, 2011;Besley and Nisbet, 2013;Fiske and Dupree, 2014;Hamilton and Safford, 2020a;Hamilton and Safford, 2020b;Leiserowitz et al, 2013;Motta, 2018a;Motta, 2018b;Safford, Hamilton and Whitmore, 2017;Safford, Whitmore and Hamilton, 2020;Vraga et al, 2018;Yamamoto, 2012].…”

“…As contentious health and environmental policies can hinge on scientific understanding, opponents have also forwarded anti-intellectual arguments, and focused on undermining the credibility of scientists to derail these initiatives [Chryssochoidis, Strada and Krystallis, 2009;Iyengar and Massey, 2019;Merkley, 2020;Millstone and van Zwanenberg, 2000;Motta, 2018a]. With scientists' public-facing behaviors and communication taking center stage, science-related assessments become less about the rigor of scientific inquiry and more about the character of scientists themselves and how science is being used for policy advocacy [Collins and Evans, 2002;Brossard and Nisbet, 2007;Gieryn, 1983;Post, Bienzeisler and Lohöfener, 2021;Wynne, 1995].…”

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

“…Given the myriad differences between countries—both in terms of culture and pandemic response—it is difficult to pinpoint moderating factors. However, possible explanations for further investigation include country‐level differences in deference to scientists regarding policy (Post et al., 2021 ) or variation in perceptions of the efficacy of government measures (Mækelæ et al., 2020 ). Purely as an example, it is possible that Spanish participants were more skeptical of the efficacy of a work from home policy and thus worry and perceived threat were not as strongly associated with support for this measure.…”