Empirically testing a shared assumption: the usefulness of science education to science-informed decision-making in the context of COVID-19

The claim that science education is useful for people’s everyday engagement with science is often repeated but has little evidence. In an attempt to empirically test this shared assumption, we examined whether the level of science education people received predicted indicators of science-informed decision-making: adherence to experts’ recommendations, using science to justify science-related decisions, and relying on credible sources. Real-life COVID-19 dilemmas were used to examine this question in three studies: Study I involved a convenience sample of sports fans (n = 412); Study II involved a representative sample of the general population (n = 500), and Study III involved a sample of a religious minority group of Ultra-Orthodox Jews (n = 800) who do not receive mandatory level science education. In the three studies, science education did not predict adherence to social distancing guidelines, the use of science and health-related reasoning to justify one’s stance, or, for the most part, the ability of participants to choose credible information sources. Scientific knowledge played a role in predicting adherence to social distancing guidelines; however, this relationship disappeared when other commitments dominated. This study provides a starting point for a quantitative empirical research approach for testing the long-term transferability of science education to the personal lives of non-scientists.