Abstract
Abstract The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has underscored the importance of scientific knowledge and highlighted the challenge for politicians: They had to rely on expert advice and still had to make decisions under uncertainty due to the lack of long-term health data. This article investigates how expert judgments and expert advice affect the choices between programs that are proposed to combat the outbreak of a viral disease by means of a between-subjects design embedded in a survey. We use the classic Asian disease experiment and extend earlier applications by varying the professional background of the experts (virologists vs. social scientists) within the experimental set-up. We use data from a university wide web-survey to show the persistence of framing effects and that the disciplinary background of the expert is not related to individual decision-making under risk.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
