Thames Water Utilities, Clearwater Court Vastern Rd, Reading, Berkshire, RG1 8DB, UK.
Department of Economics and Management "Marco Fanno", University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
Sci Rep. 2024 Aug 26;14(1):19732. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-70012-6.
We explore the impact of narratives on beliefs and policy opinions through a survey experiment that exposes US subjects to two media-based explanations of the causes of COVID-19. The Lab Narrative ascribes the pandemic to human error and scientific misconduct in a Chinese lab, and the Nature Narrative describes the natural causes of the virus. First, we find that both narratives influence individual beliefs about COVID-19 origins. More precisely, individual beliefs tend to be swayed in the direction of the version of the facts to which one is more exposed generating a potential source of polarization by exposure. Second, only the Nature Narrative unidirectionally affects policy opinions by increasing people's preferences toward climate protection and trust in science, therefore representing a channel for one-sided polarization by exposure. Finally, we also explore the existence of heterogeneous effects of our narratives, finding that the Lab Narrative leads to opinion polarization between Republican- and Democratic-leaning states on climate change and foreign trade. This indicates the existence of an additional channel that can lead policy opinions to diverge, which we denote polarization by social context.
我们通过一项调查实验来探究叙事对信仰和政策观点的影响,该实验让美国受试者接触两种基于媒体的关于 COVID-19 病因的解释。实验室叙事将大流行归因于中国实验室的人为错误和科学不当行为,而自然叙事则描述了病毒的自然原因。首先,我们发现这两种叙事都影响了个体对 COVID-19 起源的信念。更确切地说,个体的信念往往会朝着个人更易接触到的事实版本倾斜,从而通过接触产生潜在的极化根源。其次,只有自然叙事通过增加人们对气候保护和对科学的信任,单向地影响政策观点,因此代表了一种通过接触导致片面极化的渠道。最后,我们还探索了我们的叙事存在异质效应的可能性,发现实验室叙事导致了共和党参议员和民主党倾向的州在气候变化和对外贸易方面的观点极化。这表明存在另一种可以导致政策观点分歧的渠道,我们称之为社会背景导致的极化。