Speaking truth in power: Scientific evidence as motivation for policy activism

Abstract

Unelected administrative policymakers rely on the domain expertise and technical integrity of scientific information to maintain perceptions of legitimacy. The necessity that regulatory policymakers rely on sound scientific evidence has been formalized at the US federal level through executive order. Yet, the practical impact of scientific evidence on public support and mobilization for policies remains unclear. We investigate whether individual policy activists are more likely to participate in regulatory policymaking when a policy recommendation is substantiated by scientific evidence. We investigate how two separate groups within the public—policy advocates and policy experts—may be affected differentially by scientific evidence. In collaboration with a nationally active policy advocacy group, we conducted a randomized messaging experiment in which members of the group’s e-mail list are sent one of three versions of a policy advocacy message. Results indicate that reference to evidence published in peer reviewed scientific sources increased activism by roughly 1 percentage point among general activists, and decreased activism by 4-5 percentage points among scientific experts.

Government reputational effects of COVID-19 public health actions: A job opportunity evaluation conjoint experiment

“…Thus, citizens are certainly aware of these choices. The public seems to value adherence to scientific evidence (Bergner et al, 2019), and public health experts have almost uniformly recommended social distancing as the best way to contain the spread of COVID-19. Indeed, as of this writing we see very high approval of government mandated social distancing among the public.…”

“…These factors have led some state governors to not mandate or to prematurely abandon social distancing. Because many people value government adherence to scientific evidence (Bergner, Desmarais, & Hird, 2019), however, state elected officials that deviate from these recommendations may pay reputational costs. Therefore, we ask: do individuals evaluate job opportunities more (less) favorably if they are located in a state where the governor (did not) more aggressively mandated social distancing?…”