Communicating the Evidence: Understanding Individual-Level Responses to Increased Transparency of the Evidence in Evidence-Informed Policy

As movements to use evidence to inform policy have gained traction, so have calls for greater transparency of that evidence. Indeed, transparency research suggests that disclosing the evidence justifying a new policy may positively impact citizens’ support for the policy, voluntary compliance, and even coproduction. Still, outcomes of transparency are nuanced. Research indicates that citizens’ understanding of government information is critical for enhancing outcomes and that more information, especially when it is visually dense and contains a high level of detail, can hinder their understanding and, in turn, policy support. These findings leave open to question what impact transparency efforts in an evidence-intensive context might have. Drawing on communications scholarship, this study tested the effect of two strategies for communicating the evidence informing a local climate action policy – scientific evidence-based policy justifications and anecdotal evidence-based – on individuals’ perceived understanding of and support for the policy. Results suggest that while greater transparency of the evidence justifying the policy decision increased individuals’ support for the policy, anecdotal evidence operates through competing pathways when used to communicate evidence-informed policy. These findings suggest that each strategy was effective in a different way and, thus, different communication strategies may be more or less effective at different points of the policy process.