Misperceptions and minipublics: does endorsement of expert information by a minipublic influence misperceptions in the wider public?
Misperceptions and minipublics: does endorsement of expert information by a minipublic influence misperceptions in the wider public?
As misperceptions undermine the factual basis for public debate, they pose a serious challenge to expert knowledge and the democratic legitimacy of public policy informed by expert evidence. In this paper, we theorize that in times of politicization and polarization of expertise, endorsement of expert information by a minipublic can serve to legitimize expert correction and render it more persuasive in the eyes of individuals. In developing our theoretical argument, we focus on the effect of a minipublic on individuals in the wider public – those who did not participate in such institutions. To test our theoretical predictions, we designed, pre-registered and fielded two experiments in the US (N = 2168) and one experiment in Ireland (N = 1125), during two different waves of COVID-19. The results show that minipublic endorsement significantly increases the uptake of expert information among (nonparticipating) citizens. Furthermore, when an expert correction explicitly asserts a scientific consensus, it is as effective as the minipublic endorsement. The findings have implications for the research on misperceptions, expertise and deliberative institutions.
555-575
Muradova, Lala
5f2595b4-c347-4e45-bae5-bb0f5b397fa4
Culloty, Eileen
1b7edb65-5288-4989-907a-34d4c45542c7
Suiter, Jane
b6e6fff4-b711-43e6-bbbd-a44ea614a71e
9 April 2023
Muradova, Lala
5f2595b4-c347-4e45-bae5-bb0f5b397fa4
Culloty, Eileen
1b7edb65-5288-4989-907a-34d4c45542c7
Suiter, Jane
b6e6fff4-b711-43e6-bbbd-a44ea614a71e
Muradova, Lala, Culloty, Eileen and Suiter, Jane
(2023)
Misperceptions and minipublics: does endorsement of expert information by a minipublic influence misperceptions in the wider public?
Political Communication, 40 (5), .
(doi:10.1080/10584609.2023.2200735).
Abstract
As misperceptions undermine the factual basis for public debate, they pose a serious challenge to expert knowledge and the democratic legitimacy of public policy informed by expert evidence. In this paper, we theorize that in times of politicization and polarization of expertise, endorsement of expert information by a minipublic can serve to legitimize expert correction and render it more persuasive in the eyes of individuals. In developing our theoretical argument, we focus on the effect of a minipublic on individuals in the wider public – those who did not participate in such institutions. To test our theoretical predictions, we designed, pre-registered and fielded two experiments in the US (N = 2168) and one experiment in Ireland (N = 1125), during two different waves of COVID-19. The results show that minipublic endorsement significantly increases the uptake of expert information among (nonparticipating) citizens. Furthermore, when an expert correction explicitly asserts a scientific consensus, it is as effective as the minipublic endorsement. The findings have implications for the research on misperceptions, expertise and deliberative institutions.
This record has no associated files available for download.
More information
e-pub ahead of print date: 9 April 2023
Published date: 9 April 2023
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 507108
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/507108
ISSN: 1058-4609
PURE UUID: 1bd5463a-a7c2-49b0-b3c8-3f33c5139b44
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 27 Nov 2025 17:33
Last modified: 28 Nov 2025 03:06
Export record
Altmetrics
Contributors
Author:
Lala Muradova
Author:
Eileen Culloty
Author:
Jane Suiter
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics