High-profile political endorsements by scientific publications have become common in recent years, raising concerns about backlash against the endorsing organizations and scientific expertise. In a preregistered large-sample controlled experiment, I randomly assigned participants to receive information about the endorsement of Joe Biden by the scientific journal Nature during the COVID-19 pandemic. The endorsement message caused large reductions in stated trust in Nature among Trump supporters. This distrust lowered the demand for COVID-related information provided by Nature, as evidenced by substantially reduced requests for Nature articles on vaccine efficacy when offered. The endorsement also reduced Trump supporters’ trust in scientists in general. The estimated effects on Biden supporters’ trust in Nature and scientists were positive, small and mostly statistically insignificant. I found little evidence that the endorsement changed views about Biden and Trump. These results suggest that political endorsement by scientific journals can undermine and polarize public confidence in the endorsing journals and the scientific community.

Joint work with Avidit Acharya, Peter Buisseret, and Adam Meirowitz. We theoretically study how selective exposure to information by voters impacts electoral competition between two policy motivated candidates. Each candidate has stochastic valence that is realized after the candidates choose platforms. In our model of selective exposure voters receive information about the candidates’ valences that is slanted to reflect their ideological preferences. Existing work predicts that selective exposure intensifies platform polarization relative to settings where voters obtain information from a neutral source. We instead show that it can reduce platform polarization.