The Media School, Indiana University Bloomington.
Health Commun. 2022 May;37(6):677-684. doi: 10.1080/10410236.2020.1862449. Epub 2020 Dec 28.
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 ( = 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.
本研究通过实证探讨了在公共卫生议题的政策倡导中，相较于“普通人”，专家是否更值得信任或更有说服力。我进行了一项包含两个主题（气候变化与 COVID-19）和两个信息源（专家与非专家）的美国成年人样本实验研究（n=486）。通过贝叶斯因子来量化对零假设和备择假设的证据，我发现有充分证据表明，至少在本研究中所呈现的条件下，专家在专业知识上被认为更高，但在可信度上与“普通人”相当。反过来，专家在两个主题上对非专家的说服力是相等的。我的研究表明，在公共卫生事务的政策倡导中，受众可以承认倡导者在某个议题上是专家，但这并不一定有助于（也不一定有弊）提高其可信度或劝说受众的能力。需要进一步研究如何增强专家在倡导公共卫生政策时的可信度和说服力。
