Prevalence and Potential Consequences of Exposure to Conflicting Information about Mammography: Results from Nationally-Representative Survey of U.S. Adults

"Cultural and conceptual knowledge": Reformulation and conceptual analysis of a key component of the health literacy model

Extensive evidence of health disparities and systemic racism has prompted scholars to examine constructs that may account for differences in the burden of disease. One such construct is health literacy, which has been posited to have four components: print literacy, oral literacy, numeracy, and cultural and conceptual knowledge. Consistent with historical trends related to culturally based constructs, the latter component has garnered the least attention in the published literature, despite its pervasive influence on health care outcomes. We engage in a reformulation and conceptual analysis of cultural and conceptual knowledge, defined as the filter through which individuals obtain, process, and understand health information and options for diagnosis and treatment. We propose the construct of cultural schema, and operationalize the construct as having cognitive (knowledge, beliefs) and affective (attitudes, emotions) components. As we strive to achieve a more complex understanding of influences on behavioral outcomes, a greater focus on these culturally based factors is essential. In this article, we present a conceptual analysis that seeks to advance the field by: (a) providing distinct definitions for each component that can be applied across fields of study and theoretical frameworks, (b) offering measurement considerations consistent with their conceptualizations, and (c) making recommendations for future theory, research, and practice. We hope that with greater conceptual and measurement clarity of cultural schema, more consistent results will be obtained, constructs and processes that affect health outcomes will be identified, and more personalized intervention will be possible, optimizing the limited resources available for health promotion efforts.

Deciphering Discord: How Conflicting Information and Political Ideology Shape Public Attitude Toward PFAS Regulation

Per- and polyfluorinated substances (PFAS) contamination is an emerging environmental and health risk facing the world. This study examines the impact of conflicting information on Americans' attitude toward PFAS regulation and intention to engage in mitigation behaviors through a one-way, between-subjects experiment. Participants were 1,062 U.S. adults recruited from CloudResearch. Results showed that compared to participants exposed to consistent information, those exposed to conflicting information displayed less favorable attitude toward existing regulation, which led to lower intention to support related policies and to engage in mitigation behaviors. Political ideology moderated these relationships, with stronger experimental effects among conservatives. These findings underscore the importance of conveying consistent risk messages, especially when multiple stakeholders are involved.

Effects of Exposure to Conflicting Health Information on Topic-Specific Information Sharing and Seeking Intentions

Despite considerable evidence that exposure to conflicting health information can have undesirable effects on outcomes including public understanding about and trust in health recommendations, comparatively little is known about whether such exposure influences intentions to engage in two communication behaviors central to public health promotion: information sharing and information seeking. The purpose of the current study is to test whether exposure to conflicting information influences intentions to share and seek information about six health topics. We analyzed data from two waves of a longitudinal survey experiment with a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults (N = 3,920). Participants were randomly assigned to either a conflict or no-conflict message condition, in which they read news stories and social media posts about three (of six) randomly selected health topics at Time 1 and the remaining three at Time 2. The dependent variables, which were measured at Time 2, asked participants whether they intended to share or seek information about the three topics they had just viewed. Linear mixed effects models showed that exposure to conflict reduced intentions to share and seek information, regardless of health topic. These findings suggest that exposure to conflicting health information discourages two important types of health information engagement, thus adding to the growing evidence base documenting the adverse consequences of conflicting information for public health.

Effects of Exposure to Conflicting Information About Mammography on Cancer Information Overload, Perceived Scientists' Credibility, and Perceived Journalists' Credibility

Conflicting recommendations about mammography screening have received ample media coverage, emphasizing scientists' debate over the value of breast cancer screening and differences in professional organizations' guidelines about the appropriate starting age and frequency of routine mammograms. Whereas past research suggests that exposure to such media coverage of conflicting recommendations can have undesirable consequences, both on topic-specific (e.g., ambivalence about mammography) and more general outcomes (e.g., backlash toward cancer prevention recommendations), experimental evidence, especially for effects on more general health cognitions, is limited. Using data from a population-based sample of U.S. women aged 35-55 years (N = 1467), the current study experimentally tested whether exposure to news stories that varied in the level of conflict about mammography (no, low, medium, and high conflict) affected three general health cognitions-cancer information overload (CIO), perceived scientists' credibility, and perceived journalists' credibility. We further tested whether these effects varied by research literacy. Results showed that exposure to conflict increased women's perceived CIO and reduced their perceptions of journalists' credibility, and that these effects tapered off at higher levels of conflict. Exposure to conflict also reduced perceptions of scientists' credibility, but only among participants with lower levels of research literacy. Directions for future research and implications for mitigating these potentially adverse effects on public health are discussed.

Assessing and Understanding Reactance, Self-Exemption, Disbelief, Source Derogation and Information Conflict in Reaction to Overdiagnosis in Mammography Screening: Scale Development and Preliminary Validation

PURPOSE

Overdiagnosis is a concept central to making informed breast cancer screening decisions, and yet some people may react to overdiagnosis with doubt and skepticism. The present research assessed 4 related reactions to overdiagnosis: reactance, self-exemption, disbelief, and source derogation (REDS). The degree to which the concept of overdiagnosis conflicts with participants' prior beliefs and health messages (information conflict) was also assessed as a potential antecedent of REDS. We developed a scale to assess these reactions, evaluated how those reactions are related, and identified their potential implications for screening decision making.

METHODS

Female participants aged 39 to 49 years read information about overdiagnosis in mammography screening and completed survey questions assessing their reactions to that information. We used a multidimensional theoretical framework to assess dimensionality and overall domain-specific internal consistency of the REDS and Information Conflict questions. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were performed using data randomly split into a training set and test set. Correlations between REDS, screening intentions, and other outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

Five-hundred twenty-five participants completed an online survey. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses identified that Reactance, Self Exemption, Disbelief, Source Derogation, and Information Conflict represent unique constructs. A reduced 20-item scale was created by selecting 4 items per construct, which showed good model fit. Reactance, Disbelief, and Source Derogation were associated with lower intent to use information about overdiagnosis in decision making and the belief that informing people about overdiagnosis is unimportant.

CONCLUSIONS

REDS and Information Conflict are distinct but correlated constructs that are common reactions to overdiagnosis. Some of these reactions may have negative implications for making informed screening decisions.

HIGHLIGHTS

Overdiagnosis is a concept central to making informed breast cancer screening decisions, and yet when provided information about overdiagnosis, some people are skeptical.This research developed a measure that assessed different ways in which people might express skepticism about overdiagnosis (reactance, self-exemption, disbelief, source derogation) and also the perception that overdiagnosis conflicts with prior knowledge and health messages (information conflict).These different reactions are distinct but correlated and are common reactions when people learn about overdiagnosis.Reactance, disbelief, and source derogation are associated with lower intent to use information about overdiagnosis in decision making as well as the belief that informing people about overdiagnosis is unimportant.

Vulnerability to the Effects of Conflicting Health Information: Testing the Moderating Roles of Trust in News Media and Research Literacy

BACKGROUND

Exposure to conflicting health information can produce negative affective and cognitive responses, including confusion and backlash, and the effects of this exposure can even "carry over" and reduce people's receptivity to subsequent messages about health behaviors for which there is scientific consensus. What is not known is whether certain population subgroups are more vulnerable to such carryover effects.

AIMS

This study investigates whether carryover effects of exposure to conflicting information are moderated by two factors, trust in news media and research literacy, testing the hypothesis that lower trust and higher literacy could protect against such effects.

METHOD

The analysis draws on data from a longitudinal population-based experiment (N = 2,716), in which participants were randomly assigned to view health news stories and social media posts that either did or did not feature conflicting information, and subsequently exposed to ads from existing health campaigns about behaviors for which there is scientific consensus. Structural equation modeling was used to test study hypotheses.

RESULTS

Neither lower trust in news media nor higher research literacy protected against carryover effects, as effects were observed across levels of both trust and literacy. Although level of research literacy did not affect whether carryover effects were observed, it did shape how those effects emerged.

CONCLUSION

The public, regardless of their level of trust in news media or research literacy, is vulnerable to the downstream effects of exposure to conflicting health information. Targeted health communication interventions are needed to improve messaging about evolving science and, in turn, increase receptivity to public health recommendations.

Effects of politicized media coverage: Experimental evidence from the HPV vaccine and COVID-19

Although concerns about politicization of health and science are not new, the COVID-19 pandemic has amplified attention to how political disagreement over scientific guidelines and recommendations might influence attitudes and behaviors about the health topics in question and might even spill or carry over to affect other attitudes important to public health. The literature employs differing definitions of politicization-at times referring to controversy in the public sphere, at others referring to the exploitation of the uncertainty inherent in science, and at still others referring to whether the issue enters political discourse-all of which are viewed as distinct dimensions by the public. What is not known is how these different aspects of politicization influence public attitudes about the health topics and or broader attitudes about scientific guidelines, and-assuming adverse effects-what strategies might be effective at mitigating the consequences. This paper draws on a survey experiment of 3012U.S. respondents fielded in summer 2020 that was designed as a pilot study to assess the effects of different dimensions of politicization. Findings do not suggest that one type of politicization is necessarily more pernicious than the others. In fact, all types of politicization increased negative emotional responses and confusion, both with respect to the health topic in question (HPV vaccine and COVID-19) but also on other domains, although opinions about policy were unaffected. The findings also suggest that inoculation may have potential as a messaging strategy for blunting the adverse effects of exposure to politicization.