Abstract
This paper studies whether and how inconsistency in communication from government and public experts influences perceived credibility and competence. Drawing on an information experiment with a representative sample of German citizens (N=10,500), we find that inconsistent advice adversely affects perceptions of credibility and competence. We find no evidence that more trusted institutions are less vulnerable to these adverse effects. To study how to overcome negative attitudes towards inconsistency, we examine effects of reminding people about the normalcy of scientific processes leading to changing evidence. We find this treatment has an insignificant positive effect on perceived credibility and competence of the sender and does not remove negative effects of inconsistent messaging. We complement this analysis with an observational analysis of public health policy changes in the context of the Covid-19 crisis and document that incumbents who can run for re-election change their recommendations less often. Taken together, the results suggests that governments face a difficult-to-resolve trade-off between electoral support and public welfare once new, inconsistent evidence becomes available.