Kolloquium mit Josef Lolacher
Das Leibniz-Institut für Psychologie (ZPID) lädt Interessierte im Rahmen seiner Kolloquiumsreihe herzlich ein. Am Dienstag, dem 24. November 2026 von 14:00 - 15:00 Uhr spricht Josef Lolacher, University of Oxford, UK. Sein Thema lautet: "Expertise or Majority Opinion? How Citizens and Politicians Weigh Scientific Evidence Against Public Opinion".
Das Kolloquium findet in englischer Sprache im Leibniz-Institut für Psychologie (ZPID) an der Universität Trier (Gebäude D, Raum D141, Universitätsring 15, 54296 Trier) und auch online statt. Nach der Anmeldung unter madr@leibniz-psychology.org versenden wir gerne den Link zur-Online-Veranstaltung. Vor Ort ist die Teilnahme ohne Anmeldung möglich.
Abstract
Modern democracies increasingly rely on scientific expertise to tackle complex problems from climate change to public health. Yet on many salient policy questions, expert recommendations and majority opinion point in opposite directions, forcing decision-makers to weigh what experts advise against what citizens want. How do citizens and the politicians who represent them navigate this tension? How much weight do they give to scientific expertise, and how do their broader views about science and the role of experts in politics differ?
The talk approaches these questions from a political-psychological perspective, drawing on an original parallel citizen–elite research design. Survey experiments present citizens in Austria, Germany, the UK, and the US, alongside sitting national and regional parliamentarians in the three European countries, with truthful information about expert judgement and majority opinion across real-world policy controversies. By confronting both groups with comparable information, the design provides a direct comparison of how citizens and politicians respond to these two sources, particularly when they conflict. Additional measures of trust in scientists and attitudes toward technocratic governance extend the analysis beyond individual policy choices to citizens’ and politicians’ broader relationships with science and expertise. Together, the findings illuminate how citizens and political elites weigh expert knowledge against public opinion, how their broader orientations toward science and expertise differ, and what these similarities and differences imply for the role of scientific expertise in democratic decision-making.