Transparent communication of evidence does not undermine public trust in evidence

Psychological inoculation strategies to fight climate disinformation across 12 countries

Decades after the scientific debate about the anthropogenic causes of climate change was settled, climate disinformation still challenges the scientific evidence in public discourse. Here we present a comprehensive theoretical framework of (anti)science belief formation and updating to account for the psychological factors that influence the acceptance or rejection of scientific messages. We experimentally investigated, across 12 countries (N = 6,816), the effectiveness of six inoculation strategies targeting these factors-scientific consensus, trust in scientists, transparent communication, moralization of climate action, accuracy and positive emotions-to fight real-world disinformation about climate science and mitigation actions. While exposure to disinformation had strong detrimental effects on participants' climate change beliefs (δ = -0.16), affect towards climate mitigation action (δ = -0.33), ability to detect disinformation (δ = -0.14) and pro-environmental behaviour (δ = -0.24), we found almost no evidence for protective effects of the inoculations (all δ < 0.20). We discuss the implications of these findings and propose ways forward to fight climate disinformation.

How to convince the vaccine-hesitant? An ease-of-access nudge, but not risk-related information increased Covid vaccination-related behaviors in the unvaccinated

In this study, we contrast how different benefit and harm information formats and the presence or absence of an ease-of-access nudge may facilitate COVID vaccination uptake for a sample of 620 unvaccinated Dutch adults at a timepoint when the vaccine had been widely available for more than a month. Using a 2 × 2 between-subjects factorial design, we varied the information format on mRNA COVID vaccination statistics (generic text vs. facts box) and an affirmative nudge emphasizing the ease of making a vaccination appointment (absent vs. present). We assessed the acceptance of the vaccination information provided, perceptions on the vaccination, and whether participants directly visited a COVID vaccination appointment website. Whereas the facts box did not significantly affect participants' information acceptance, vaccination attitudes, intentions, and link clicking, the affirmative nudge alongside an online link systematically increased the likelihood of clicking on the link to make a vaccination appointment. A verbal nudge emphasizing the ease of vaccine accessibility is more likely to increase vaccination uptake in an unvaccinated population than informational campaigns on vaccine effectiveness.

Perceived experts are prevalent and influential within an antivaccine community on Twitter

Perceived experts (i.e. medical professionals and biomedical scientists) are trusted sources of medical information who are especially effective at encouraging vaccine uptake. The role of perceived experts acting as potential antivaccine influencers has not been characterized systematically. We describe the prevalence and importance of antivaccine perceived experts by constructing a coengagement network of 7,720 accounts based on a Twitter data set containing over 4.2 million posts from April 2021. The coengagement network primarily broke into two large communities that differed in their stance toward COVID-19 vaccines, and misinformation was predominantly shared by the antivaccine community. Perceived experts had a sizable presence across the coengagement network, including within the antivaccine community where they were 9.8% of individual, English-language users. Perceived experts within the antivaccine community shared low-quality (misinformation) sources at similar rates and academic sources at higher rates compared to perceived nonexperts in that community. Perceived experts occupied important network positions as central antivaccine users and bridges between the antivaccine and provaccine communities. Using propensity score matching, we found that perceived expertise brought an influence boost, as perceived experts were significantly more likely to receive likes and retweets in both the antivaccine and provaccine communities. There was no significant difference in the magnitude of the influence boost for perceived experts between the two communities. Social media platforms, scientific communications, and biomedical organizations may focus on more systemic interventions to reduce the impact of perceived experts in spreading antivaccine misinformation.

What Affects Perceived Trustworthiness of Online Medical Information and Subsequent Treatment Decision Making? Randomized Trials on the Role of Uncertainty and Institutional Cues

Background. Online, algorithmically driven prognostic tools are increasingly important in medical decision making. Institutions developing such tools need to be able to communicate the precision and accuracy of the information in a trustworthy manner, and so many attempt to communicate uncertainties but also use institutional logos to underscore their trustworthiness. Bringing together theories on trust, uncertainty, and psychological distance in a novel way, we tested whether and how the communication of uncertainty and the presence of institutional logos together affected trust in medical information, the prognostic tool itself, and treatment decisions. Methods. A pilot and 2 online experiments in which UK (experiment 1) and worldwide (experiment 2) participants (Ntotal = 4,724) were randomized to 1 of 12 arms in a 3 (uncertainty cue) × 4 (institutional cue) between-subjects design. The stimulus was based on an existing medical prognostic tool. Results. Institutional trust was consistently associated with trust in the prognostic tool itself, while uncertainty information had no consistent effect. Institutional trust predicted the amount of weight participants reported placing on institutional endorsements in their decision making and the likelihood of switching from passive to active treatment in a hypothetical scenario. There was also a significant effect of psychological distance to (perceived hypotheticality of) the scenario. Conclusions/Implications. These results underline the importance of institutions demonstrating trustworthiness and building trust with their users. They also suggest that users tend to be insensitive to communications of uncertainty and that communicators may need to be highly explicit when attempting to warn of low precision or quality of evidence. The effect of the perceived hypotheticality of the scenario underscores the importance of realistic decision-making scenarios for studies and the role of familiarity with the decision dilemma generally.

Highlights

In a world where information for medical decision making is increasingly going to be provided through digital, online tools, institutions providing such tools need guidance on how best to communicate about their trustworthiness and precision.We find that people are fairly insensitive to cues designed to communicate uncertainty around the outputs of such tools. Even putting "ATTENTION" in bold font or explicitly pointing out the weaknesses in the data did not appear to affect people's decision making using the tool's outputs. Institutions should take note, and further work is required to determine how best to communicate uncertainty in a way that elicits appropriate caution in lay users.People were much more sensitive to institutional logos associated with the outputs. Generalized institutional trust (rather than trust in the specific institution whose logo was shown) was associated with how trustworthy, accurate, and reliable the tool, its algorithm, and the numbers it produced were perceived to be. This underscores the role of societal trust in institutions at large.Finally, as a note to researchers, we found a significant effect of how hypothetical or believable participants felt the experimental scenario was. This is a variable that seems rarely controlled for in studies and yet played as much of a role as some of our variables of interest, so we suggest that it is measured in future experiments.

COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Among US Adults: Safety and Effectiveness Perceptions and Messaging to Increase Vaccine Confidence and Intent to Vaccinate

OBJECTIVE

Public health agencies have a critical role in providing effective messaging about mitigation strategies during a public health emergency. The objectives of this study were (1) to understand perceptions of COVID-19 vaccines, including concerns about side effects, safety, and effectiveness and how these perceptions influence vaccine decision-making among US adults and (2) to learn what messages might motivate vaccine uptake.

METHODS

In April and May 2021, we conducted 14 online focus groups with non-Hispanic English-speaking and English- and Spanish-speaking Hispanic adults (N = 99) not vaccinated against COVID-19. We oversampled adults aged 18-39 years and rural residents and systematically assessed 10 test messages. Researchers used a standardized guide and an a priori codebook for focus group discussions, coding transcripts, and thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Vaccine hesitancy factors included fear of the unknown; long-term side effects, including infertility; and beliefs that the vaccines were developed too quickly and were not sufficiently effective. Motivating factors for receiving vaccination included the ability to safely socialize and travel. Health care providers were considered important trusted messengers. Participants were critical of most messages tested. Messages that came across as "honest" about what is not yet known about COVID-19 vaccines were perceived more positively than other messages tested. Messages were seen as ineffective if perceived as vague or lacking in data and specificity.

CONCLUSIONS

Messages that were simple and transparent about what is unknown about vaccines relative to emerging science were viewed most favorably. Health care providers, friends, and family were considered influential in vaccination decision-making. Findings underscore the benefits of research-informed strategies for developing and disseminating effective messages addressing critical issues in a public health emergency.

How to debunk misinformation? An experimental online study investigating text structures and headline formats

OBJECTIVES

Misinformation is a crucial problem, particularly online, and the success of debunking messages has so far been limited. In this study, we experimentally test how debunking text structure (truth sandwich vs. bottom-heavy) and headline format (statement vs. questions) affect the belief in misinformation across topics of the safety of COVID vaccines and GMO foods.

DESIGN

Experimental online study.

METHODS

A representative German sample of 4906 participants were randomly assigned to reading one of eight debunking messages in the experimentally varied formats and subsequently rated the acceptance of this message and the agreement to misinformation statements about the mentioned topics and an unrefuted control myth.

RESULTS

While the debunking messages specifically decreased the belief in the targeted myth, these beliefs and the acceptance of the debunking message were unaffected by the text structures and headline formats. Yet, they were less successful when addressing individuals with strong pre-existing, incongruent attitudes and distrust in science.

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of backfire effects in debunking misinformation is low. Text structure and headline format are of relatively little importance for the effectiveness of debunking messages. Instead, writers may need to pay attention to the text being comprehensive, trustworthy and persuasive to maximize effectiveness.