Nav: Home

People trust scientific experts more than the government even when the evidence is outlandish

July 11, 2018

Members of the public in the UK and US have far greater trust in scientific experts than the government, according to a new study by Queen Mary University of London.

In three large scale experiments, participants were asked to make several judgments about nudges -behavioural interventions designed to improve decisions in our day-to-day lives.

In three large scale experiments, participants were asked to make several judgments about nudges -behavioural interventions designed to improve decisions in our day-to-day lives.

The nudges were introduced either by a group of leading scientific experts or a government working group consisting of special interest groups and policy makers.

Some of the nudges were real and had been implemented, such as using catchy pictures in stairwells to encourage people to take the stairs, while others were fictitious and actually implausible like stirring coffee anti-clockwise for two minutes to avoid any cancerous effects.

The study, published in the journal Basic and Applied Social Psychology, found that trust was higher for scientists than the government working group, even when the scientists were proposing fictitious nudges.

Co-author Professor Norman Fenton, from Queen Mary's School of Electronic Engineering and Computer Science, said: "While people judged genuine nudges as more plausible than fictitious nudges, people trusted some fictitious nudges proposed by scientists as more plausible than genuine nudges proposed by government. For example, people were more likely trust the health benefits of coffee stirring than exercise if the former was recommended by scientists and the latter by government."

The results also revealed that there was a slight tendency for the US sample to find the nudges more plausible and more ethical overall compared to the UK sample.

Lead author Dr Magda Osman from Queen Mary's School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, said: "In the context of debates regarding the loss of trust in experts, what we show is that in actual fact, when compared to a government working group, the public in the US and UK judge scientists very favourably, so much so that they show greater levels of trust even when the interventions that are being proposed are implausible and most likely ineffective. This means that the public still have a high degree of trust in experts, in particular, in this case, social scientists."

She added: "The evidence suggests that trust in scientists is high, but that the public are sceptical about nudges in which they might be manipulated without them knowing. They consider these as less ethical and trust the experts proposing them less with nudges in which they do have an idea of what is going on."

Nudges have become highly popular decision-support methods used by governments to help in a wide range of areas such as health, personal finances, and general wellbeing.

The scientific claim is that to help people make better decisions regarding their lifestyle choices, and those that improve the welfare of the state, it is potentially effective to subtly change the framing of the decision-making context, which makes the option which maximises long term future gains more prominent.

In essence, the position adopted by nudge enthusiasts is that poor social outcomes are often the result of poor decision-making, and in order to address this, behavioural interventions such as nudges can be used to reduce the likelihood of poor decisions being made in the first place.

Dr Osman said: "Overall, the public make pretty sensible judgments, and what this shows is that people will scrutinise the information they are provided by experts, so long as they are given a means to do it. In other words, ask the questions in the right way, and people will show a level of scrutiny that is often not attributed to them. So, before there are strong claims made about public opinion about experts, and knee-jerk policy responses to this, it might be worth being a bit more careful about how the public are surveyed in the first place."
-end-


Queen Mary University of London

Related Decisions Articles:

How neurons use crowdsourcing to make decisions
When many individual neurons collect data, how do they reach a unanimous decision?
Diverse populations make rational collective decisions
Yes/no binary decisions by individual ants can lead to a rational decision as a collective when the individuals have differing preferences to the subject, according to research recently published in the journal Royal Society Open Science.
Understanding decisions: The power of combining psychology and economics
A new paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences shows how collaborations between psychologists and economists lead to better understanding of such decisions than either discipline can on its own.
Trading changes how brain processes selling decisions
Experience in trading changes how the human brain evaluates the sale of goods, muting an economic bias known as the endowment effect in which people demand a higher price to sell a good than they're willing to pay for it.
Modelling how the brain makes complex decisions
Researchers have built the first biologically realistic mathematical model of how the brain plans and learns when faced with a complex decision-making process.
Focus on treatment decisions: Doctor and patient should decide together
This edition of Deutsches Ă„rzteblatt International, which focuses on patient involvement, contains two original articles investigating the following questions: do patients benefit from shared decision making?
Surprise: Your visual cortex is making decisions
The part of the brain responsible for seeing is more powerful than previously believed.
Guam research reveals complications of conservation decisions
A Guam native insect impacts a native tree, posing a conundrum for conservationists.
Researchers determine how groups make decisions
Researchers from Carnegie Mellon University have developed a model that explains how groups make collective decisions when no single member of the group has access to all possible information or the ability to make and communicate a final decision.
Physicians should help families with decisions about end-of-life care
About 20 percent of Americans spend time in an intensive care unit around the time of their death, and most deaths follow a decision to limit life-sustaining therapies.

Related Decisions Reading:

Best Science Podcasts 2019

We have hand picked the best science podcasts for 2019. Sit back and enjoy new science podcasts updated daily from your favorite science news services and scientists.
Now Playing: TED Radio Hour

Climate Crisis
There's no greater threat to humanity than climate change. What can we do to stop the worst consequences? This hour, TED speakers explore how we can save our planet and whether we can do it in time. Guests include climate activist Greta Thunberg, chemical engineer Jennifer Wilcox, research scientist Sean Davis, food innovator Bruce Friedrich, and psychologist Per Espen Stoknes.
Now Playing: Science for the People

#527 Honey I CRISPR'd the Kids
This week we're coming to you from Awesome Con in Washington, D.C. There, host Bethany Brookshire led a panel of three amazing guests to talk about the promise and perils of CRISPR, and what happens now that CRISPR babies have (maybe?) been born. Featuring science writer Tina Saey, molecular biologist Anne Simon, and bioethicist Alan Regenberg. A Nobel Prize winner argues banning CRISPR babies won’t work Geneticists push for a 5-year global ban on gene-edited babies A CRISPR spin-off causes unintended typos in DNA News of the first gene-edited babies ignited a firestorm The researcher who created CRISPR twins defends...