Deference to scientific authority theoretically captures the belief that scientists and not publics should make decisions on science in society. Few studies examine deference, however, and none test this central theoretical claim. The result is deference is often conflated with concepts such as trust in scientists and belief in the authority of science. This study examines two claims key to conceptualizing deference: that deference (1) predicts anti-democratic views of decision-making and (2) relates to but is distinct from beliefs of science as authoritative knowledge. Analyzing US nationally representative data, we find deference to scientific authority does predict anti-democratic views, and this is its distinct conceptual value: trust in scientists and belief in science as authoritative knowledge strongly relate to deference, but both predict pro-democratic views, unlike deference. We discuss how these findings highlight deference as vital for understanding perceptions of science and societal decision-making and how we can better develop the concept.

尊重科学权威从理论上抓住了这样一种信念，即科学家而不是公众应该在社会中就科学做出决定。然而，很少有研究考察服从，也没有人检验这一核心理论主张。结果是顺从常常与对科学家的信任和对科学权威的信仰等概念混为一谈。本研究探讨了将尊重概念化的两个关键主张：尊重 (1) 预测了反民主的决策观点，以及 (2) 与作为权威知识的科学信仰相关但不同于科学信仰。分析美国具有全国代表性的数据，我们发现对科学权威的尊重确实预示着反民主观点，这是其独特的概念价值：对科学家的信任和对科学作为权威知识的信仰与尊重密切相关，但两者都预测民主观点，不同于顺从。我们讨论了这些发现如何强调尊重对于理解科学和社会决策的看法至关重要，以及我们如何更好地发展这一概念。