Conflicting stories about public scientific controversies: Effects of news convergence and divergence on scientists' credibility

Communicating scientific uncertainty in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic: A message experiment

The World Health Organization (WHO) officially declared COVID-19 a pandemic on March 11, 2020. It was a time of significant uncertainty as experts were not yet certain whether social distancing behaviors were necessary to slow the spread of the virus. Some public communicators opted to acknowledge uncertainty based on the limited evidence, whereas others downplayed uncertainty. This situation provided researchers with an opportunity to advance theory by explicating and testing cognitive responses to message uncertainty. Immediately following the WHO declaration (March 13-19, 2020), U.S. adults (N = 1186) were randomly assigned to one of six conditions in a 2 (message uncertainty: low, high) × 3 (argument support: expert, threat, precedent) between-participants experiment. Overall, perceived uncertainty negatively mediated the impact of message uncertainty on intentions. However, participant education was a key moderator. For those with more than a high school education, uncertain messages were related to higher intentions to social distance through increased critical reflection. For those with a high school education or less, uncertain messages were related to lower intentions through decreased message credibility.

Self-Correction or Other-Correction: The Effects of Source Consistency and Ways of Correction on Sharing Intention of Health Misinformation Correction

The spread of misinformation, especially health-related misinformation has raised concerns globally. As an immediate remedy, fact-checking has been identified as an important solution. Adopting a 2 (source credibility: high vs. low) × 2 (source consistency: consistent vs. inconsistent) × 3 (ways of correction: human fact-checking vs. AI fact-checking vs. simple rebuttal) factorial design experiment (N = 754), this study examined how ways of correction and source consistency may affect individuals' intentions to share health misinformation correction on social media on two health topics: sunscreen safety and vaccine safety. Results showed that human and AI fact-checking correction elicited higher sharing intention compared to simple rebuttal. Correction coming from a different source than the original misinformation source elicited higher sharing intention, compared to correction from the same source. Perceived correction source credibility mediated the effects of ways of correction and source consistency on correction sharing intention. Theoretical and practical implications were discussed.

The Impact of Expert Opinions in COVID-19 News Coverage on Vaccination During the Fifth Outbreak in Hong Kong: A Time Series Analysis

The role of experts in news coverage has become increasingly prominent, but the evidence regarding the effectiveness of expert opinions in affecting public behavior remains mixed. This study seeks to examine the influence of expert opinions covered in the news on the public's response to public health crises. By adopting a macro-level framing perspective, we investigated how framing consistency, a macro-level concept indicating the agreement between expert opinions in news coverage and government policies or among peer experts, evolves over time and its temporal causal relationship with public behavior. Specifically, this study collected all press news coverage in Hong Kong over four months during the fifth outbreak, including 1,416 articles with 650 expert opinions, as well as the vaccination data that paralleled with this period. We constructed time series of expert opinions and vaccination behavior, and then conducted Vector Autoregressive (VAR) models with Granger causality analysis to examine how framing consistency of expert opinions in news coverage influenced vaccination. The results indicate that the consistent framing between expert opinions and government policies increased COVID-19 vaccination during the fifth outbreak in Hong Kong, while conflicting opinions responding to government policies had no significant effect on vaccination. Opinions among medical experts on COVID-19 issues also did not significantly impact vaccination. The implications for designing communication strategies and enhancing public behavioral support during public health crises are discussed.

Navigating the uncertainty: A novel taxonomy of vaccine hesitancy in the context of COVID-19

Vaccine hesitancy remains a significant and evolving public health challenge. The COVID-19 pandemic has created a unique decision context with significant uncertainty caused by the novelty of the disease being targeted, unfamiliarity with the vaccines being offered, misinformation, and strong handed government measures. In an effort to extend our understanding of vaccine hesitancy to the high uncertainty decision environment presented by COVID-19, we present a novel taxonomy of the determinants of vaccine hesitancy, based on an inductive analysis of qualitative data gathered during the COVID-19 pandemic. We report on focus group data from a purposive sample of 18 Canadians with varying sociodemographic characteristics and COVID-19 vaccination attitudes. An inductive thematic analysis of this data reveals eight core themes related to vaccine hesitancy: values, trust, social environment, personal anecdotes, environmental fluctuation, prior knowledge, perceived risk & systems of care. We explore these core themes as well as 25 sub-themes, contrasting them with previous models of vaccine hesitancy and suggesting potential strategies for public health professionals.

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.

Perceptions and tolerance of uncertainty: relationship to trust in COVID-19 health information and vaccine hesitancy

The COVID-19 crisis has exposed the public to considerable scientific uncertainty, which may promote vaccine hesitancy among individuals with lower tolerance of uncertainty. In a national sample of US adults in May-June 2020, we examined how both perceptions of uncertainty about COVID-19 and trait-level differences in tolerance of uncertainty arising from various sources (risk, ambiguity, and complexity) are related to vaccine hesitancy-related outcomes, including trust in COVID-19 information, COVID-19 vaccine intentions, and beliefs that COVID-19 vaccines should undergo a longer testing period before being released to the public. Overall, perceptions of COVID-19 uncertainty were not associated with trust in information, vaccine intentions, or beliefs about vaccine testing. However, higher tolerance of risk was associated with lower intentions to get vaccinated, and lower tolerance of ambiguity was associated with lower intentions to get vaccinated and preferring a longer period of vaccine testing. Critically, perceptions of COVID-19 uncertainty and trait-level tolerance for uncertainty also interacted as predicted, such that greater perceived COVID-19 uncertainty was more negatively associated with trust in COVID-19 information among individuals with lower tolerance for risk and ambiguity. Thus, although perceptions of uncertainty regarding COVID-19 may not reduce trust and vaccine hesitancy for all individuals, trait-level tolerance of uncertainty arising from various sources may have both direct and moderating effects on these outcomes. These findings can inform public health communication or other interventions to increase COVID-19 vaccination uptake.

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

As scientific evidence evolves and clinical guidelines change, a certain amount of conflicting health information in the news media is to be expected. However, research is needed to better understand the public's level of exposure to conflicting health information and the possible consequences of such exposure. This study quantifies levels of public exposure to one paradigmatic case: conflicting information about breast cancer screening for women in their 40s. Using a nationally-representative survey of U.S. adults aged 18-59 in 2016, we implemented four distinct types of measures of exposure to conflicting mammography information: an ecological measure based on keyword counts of local news closed-captioning, an inferred exposure measure based on a series of knowledge questions, a thought-listing exercise where respondents described their perceptions of mammography without prompting, and an explicit measure of self-assessed exposure to conflict. We examined the relationship between these exposure measures and four outcomes: confusion about mammography, backlash toward mammography recommendations, and confusion and backlash about health information more generally. We found moderate amounts of exposure to conflicting information about mammography, more among women than men. Exposure to conflicting information - across multiple measures - was associated with more confusion about mammography, more mammography-related backlash, and general health information backlash, but not general confusion about health information. These observational findings corroborate experimental-based findings that suggest potentially undesirable effects of exposure to conflicting health information. More research is needed to better understand how to mitigate these possible outcomes, in the context of a media landscape that proliferates exposure to multiple scientific perspectives.

Attitude towards Intranasal Vaccines and Psychological Determinants: Effects on the General Population in Northern Italy

Little is known about the use of intranasal vaccines, but some studies have shown that this innovative way of administration is preferred over needle injection as it is considered both less painful and intrusive to the body, equally effective, and associated with fewer side effects. This study aimed to investigate specific psychological determinants (intolerance of uncertainty, persecutory ideation, perceived control, vaccine hesitancy) of attitude toward nasal vaccine delivery. A convenience sample including 700 Italian participants took part in this cross-sectional study and completed an online questionnaire. A structural equation model with a latent variable was performed to study the relationship between psychological variables, vaccine hesitancy, and attitude toward nasal vaccine delivery. The results indicate that both a hesitant attitude toward vaccination (β = 0.20, p = 0.000) and low perceived control (β = -0.20, p = 0.005) may directly increase preference for nasal administration; furthermore, high levels of persecutory ideation may indirectly influence the propensity for intranasal vaccine. These findings suggest that pharmaceutical companies could implement nasal vaccines and provide detailed information on these vaccines through informational campaigns. Hesitant individuals with low levels of perceived control could more easily comply with these types of vaccines.

Randomized controlled trial: Quantifying the impact of disclosing uncertainty on adherence to hypothetical health recommendations

We conducted a randomized controlled trial to assess whether disclosing elements of uncertainty in an initial public health statement will change the likelihood that participants will accept new, different advice that arises as more evidence is uncovered. Proportional odds models were fit, stratified by the baseline likelihood to agree with the final advice. 298 participants were randomized to the treatment arm and 298 in the control arm. Among participants who were more likely to agree with the final recommendation at baseline, those who were initially shown uncertainty had a 46% lower odds of being more likely to agree with the final recommendation compared to those who were not (OR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.27-1.03). Among participants who were less likely to agree with the final recommendation at baseline, those who were initially shown uncertainty have 1.61 times the odds of being more likely to agree with the final recommendation compared to those who were not (OR: 1.61, 95% CI: 1.15-2.25). This has implications for public health leaders when assessing how to communicate a recommendation, suggesting communicating uncertainty influences whether someone will adhere to a future recommendation.

Meta-summaries effective for improving awareness and understanding of COVID-19 vaccine safety research

Despite the efficacy, safety, and availability of COVID-19 vaccines, a lack of awareness and trust of vaccine safety research remains an important barrier to public health. The goal of this research was to design and test online meta-summaries-transparent, interactive summaries of the state of relevant studies-to improve people's awareness and opinion of vaccine safety research. We used insights from a set of co-design interviews (n = 22) to develop meta-summaries to highlight metascientific information about vaccine safety research. An experiment with 863 unvaccinated participants showed that our meta-summaries increased participants' perception of the amount, consistency, and direction of vaccine safety research relative to the U.S. Center for Disease Control (CDC) webpage, and that participants found them more trustworthy than the CDC page as well. They were also more likely to discuss it with others in the week following. We conclude that direct summaries of scientific research can be a useful communication tool for controversial scientific topics.

Understanding responses to different types of conflicting information about cancer prevention

BACKGROUND

Individuals are regularly exposed to conflicting information about health; however, understanding of how individuals respond to different types of conflicting information is limited.

METHODS

In total, 1027 US adults were randomly assigned to 1 of 8 conflicting information messages about nutrition and cancer risk, depicting 1/4 conflicting information types (conflict in evidence - sources A and B agree the evidence is mixed; conflict between two expert sources - sources A and B present conflicting evidence about nutrition and cancer risk; conflict within the same expert source - source A changes its own recommendation about the evidence; no conflict control) crossed by 1/2 baseline recommendations with which new information conflicted (limit vs. do not limit red meat intake to reduce cancer risk).

RESULTS

Compared to the control, each conflicting information type led to lower perceived scientific consensus about how much red meat one should eat (p < .001); conflict in evidence (p = .004) and between sources (p = .006) led to lower trust in scientists. Intentions to consume red meat more frequently were higher in the conflicting information conditions than control in the group initially told to "limit red meat" and lower in the "do not limit red meat" group (p = .022). Conflict within the same source led to higher perceived scientific consensus compared to conflict in evidence (p = .007) and between sources (p = .013); it also lowered intentions to consume red meat more frequently compared to conflict in evidence, but only in the "do not limit red meat" condition (p = .033). Conflict in evidence (p = .007) and within the same source (p = .013) increased cancer fatalism compared to conflict between sources.

CONCLUSIONS

Conflict in scientific evidence and conflict arising from the same expert source (e.g., a changing public health guideline) may have pernicious effects. Future efforts could investigate how best to publicly communicate these instances of scientific conflict to minimize negative impact.

Communicating Uncertainties About the Effects of Medical Interventions Using Different Display Formats

Communicating uncertainties in scientific evidence is important to accurately reflect scientific knowledge , increase public understanding of uncertainty, and to signal transparency and honesty in reporting. While techniques have been developed to facilitate the communication of uncertainty, many have not been empirically tested, compared for communicating different types of uncertainty, or their effects on different cognitive, trust, and behavioral outcomes have not been evaluated. The present study examined how a point estimate, imprecise estimate, conflicting estimates, or a statement about the lack of evidence about treatment effects, influenced participant's responses to communications about medical evidence. For each type of uncertainty, we adapted three display formats to communicate the information: tables, bar graphs, and icon arrays. We compared participant's best estimates of treatment effects, as well as effects on recall, subjective evaluations (understandability and usefuleness), certainty perceptions, perceptions of trustworthiness of the information, and behavioral intentions. We did not find any detrimental effects from communicating imprecision or conflicting estimates relative to a point estimate across any outcome. Furthermore, there were more favorable responses to communicating imprecision or conflicting estimates relative to lack of evidence, where participants estimated the treatment would improve outcomes by 30-50% relative to a placebo. There were no differences across display formats, suggesting that, if well-designed, it may not matter which format is used. Future research on specific display formats or uncertainty types and with larger sample sizes would be needed to detect small effects. Implications for the communication of uncertainty are discussed.

Testing Strategies to Increase Source Credibility through Strategic Message Design in the Context of Vaccination and Vaccine Hesitancy

Health communicators in the United States face substantial challenges in their efforts to increase parent uptake of the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine for their children. One major set of challenges involves low levels of trust in medical science behind vaccination safety and effectiveness, pharmaceutical companies who produce these vaccines, and government health agencies who promote vaccination. We conducted a two-wave randomized experiment (N = 1,000 at time 1, t1, N = 803 at time 2, t2) to test whether messages designed to convey the expertise, trustworthiness, or caring/goodwill of a governmental source of information (the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) increased perceived source credibility, increased parent intentions to vaccinate their children, and/or reduced vaccine hesitancy. We found no support for any of the study's original, pre-registered hypotheses. However, post-hoc analyses reveal a variety of promising directions for future work on strategic messaging to increase source credibility in the context of vaccine hesitancy. A message designed to convey source expertise produced greater perceived caring/goodwill among parents overall. Furthermore, among parents who were vaccine hesitant at baseline, a message originally designed to convey source expertise produced greater perceived trustworthiness and reduced vaccine hesitancy among this group.

Effects of Prior Exposure to Conflicting Health Information on Responses to Subsequent Unrelated Health Messages: Results from a Population-Based Longitudinal Experiment

BACKGROUND

Accumulating evidence suggests that exposure to conflicting health information can adversely affect public understanding of and trust in health recommendations. What is not known is whether prior exposure to such information renders people less receptive to subsequent unrelated health messages about behaviors for which the evidence is clear and consistent.

PURPOSE

This study tests this "carryover" effects hypothesis, positing that prior exposure to conflict will reduce receptivity to subsequent unrelated health messages, and examines potential affective and cognitive pathways through which such effects might occur.

METHODS

A three-wave, online, population-based survey experiment (N = 2,716) assessed whether participants who were randomly assigned to view a series of health news stories and social media posts featuring conflict at Times 1 and 2 were ultimately less receptive at Time 3 to ads from existing health campaigns about behaviors for which there is scientific consensus, compared to those who saw the same series of stories and posts that did not feature conflict.

RESULTS

Structural equation modeling revealed evidence of carryover effects of exposure to conflict on two dimensions of message receptivity: greater resistance to the unrelated ads and lower perceptions of the health behaviors featured in the ads. Modeling indicated that carryover effects were a function of generalized backlash toward health recommendations and research elicited by prior exposure to conflicting information.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest that the broader public information environment, which is increasingly characterized by messages of conflict and controversy, could undermine the success of large-scale public health messaging strategies.

When Media Health Stories Conflict: Test of the Contradictory Health Information Processing (CHIP) Model

Guided by Uncertainty Management Theory, UMT, we tested a model that explicates how uncertainty arising from contradictory health information is managed through information seeking. In an online experiment, 763 U.S. adults were randomly assigned to one of three message conditions: contradictory, non-contradictory, or control. Participants in the contradictory and non-contradictory conditions answered questions about their perceptions of contradiction, issue and decision uncertainty, negative appraisals and emotions, and information-seeking intentions. They also completed measures of several moderator variables, including information overload, intolerance for uncertainty, and health self-efficacy. Baseline levels of issue and decision uncertainty were measured in the control condition. Model tenets were confirmed: perceptions of contradiction led to issue uncertainty which, in turn, prompted cognitive appraisals directly, and indirectly through increased decision uncertainty. The effects of issue and decision uncertainty on information-seeking intentions were mediated by negative appraisals and threat emotions. Individuals with high health self-efficacy and positive outcome expectations of information search were more likely to manage uncertainty through information seeking. These results support the use of the CHIP model when perceptions of contradiction and decision uncertainty need to be accounted for, while also validating UMT for its original purposes. Model refinements and implications are discussed.

Evaluating the Effects of News-following, Volume and Content of News Coverage on Americans' Risk Perceptions during the 2014-2016 Ebola Outbreak

We used the 2014-2016 Ebola outbreak to examine the relationships between risk perceptions and media coverage (volume and content). We analyzed how public opinion from longitudinal U.S. panel data related to the number of published news articles and the proportion that discussed risks. News following, volume and risk content were positively related to U.S. and global risk perceptions. Perceptions of U.S. risk declined at different rates, depending upon news attention and potential exposure to risk content. Both media volume and content were significant factors, suggesting scholars should focus more on combined effects of news media volume and content.

A review of the effects of uncertainty in public science communication

Uncertainty is inherent to science and science communication. However, the evidence appears mixed regarding whether portraying uncertainty in science communication has positive or negative effects. We review a diverse range of experimental literature (k = 48; from 40 searches and 8000 retrievals), summarize the extant findings, and observe how the effects vary across four different types of communicated uncertainty (deficient, technical, scientific, and consensus uncertainty). The results indicate that most findings of negative effects (such as reduced credibility and beliefs) are from experiments that operationalized uncertainty as disagreement or conflict in science (consensus uncertainty). In this review, consensus uncertainty was never found to have positive effects. In contrast, uncertainty in the form of quantified error ranges and probabilities (technical uncertainty) in these studies has had only positive or null effects, not negative effects. We also highlight frequent moderators of the effects of uncertainty, such as prior beliefs and worldviews.

Can scientists fill the science journalism void? Online public engagement with science stories authored by scientists

In many countries the public's main source of information about science and technology is the mass media. Unfortunately, in recent years traditional journalism has experienced a collapse, and science journalism has been a major casualty. One potential remedy is to encourage scientists to write for news media about science. On these general news platforms, scientists' stories would have to compete for attention with other news stories on hard (e.g. politics) and entertaining (e.g. celebrity news) topics written by professional writers. Do they stand a chance? This study aimed to quantitatively characterize audience interactions as an indicator of interest in science news stories authored by early career scientists (henceforth ‘scientists’) trained to function as science reporters, as compared to news items written by reporters and published in the same news outlets. To measure users' behavior, we collected data on the number of clicks, likes, comments and average time spent on page. The sample was composed of 150 science items written by 50 scientists trained to contribute popular science stories in the Davidson Institute of Science Education reporters’ program and published on two major Israeli news websites—Mako and Ynet between July 2015 to January 2018. Each science item was paired with another item written by the website’s organic reporter, and published on the same channel as the science story (e.g., tourism, health) and the same close time. Overall significant differences were not found in the public's engagement with the different items. Although, on one website there was a significant difference on two out of four engagement types, the second website did not have any difference, e.g., people did not click, like or comment more on items written by organic reporters than on the stories written by scientists. This creates an optimistic starting point for filling the science news void by scientists as science reporters.

Hierarchy of hair loss stigma: media portrayals of cancer, alopecia areata, and cancer in Israeli newspapers

BACKGROUND

Over 300,000 people in Israel cope with temporary or permanent hair loss (alopecia) that results from diseases and medical treatments. For women, hair loss can be a highly traumatic event that may lead to adverse psychosocial consequences and health outcomes. Nevertheless, this phenomenon has been mostly ignored by health professionals as it is primarily considered an aesthetic-rather than as a health-related issue. Only recently the Healthcare Basket Committee approved financial assistance for the purchase of wigs by patients coping with hair loss. Given the important role that the media plays in shaping health policies related to diagnoses, treatment and support services, the current study sought to enrich our understanding of how the media portrays disease-related hair-loss.

METHODS

Using framing and agenda-setting theories, this study examined the media portrayals of hair loss associated with three diseases-cancer, alopecia areata, and ringworm, depicted in Israeli newspapers in 1994-2016. The sample consisted of 470 articles about the three diseases: 306 on cancer, 36 on AA, and 128 on ringworm.

RESULTS

Textual and visual analysis revealed the ways media marginalize this physical flaw. Cancer was framed in medical terms, and patients were portrayed as older Israeli-born people whose hair loss was absent from their experience. Ringworm was framed as a fear-inducing disease; patients were portrayed as faceless, unidentified immigrants that coped with visible hair loss. Articles on AA provided the greatest focus on the patient's experience of hair loss, but patients were portrayed as young foreign people.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results revealed a hierarchy of stigmas against hair loss, in which the media coverage marginalized this experience. The omission of hair loss by the media may explain, at least in part, why health professionals often ignore the psychosocial needs of these patients. Health insurance funding of wigs is a helpful but nevertheless insufficient solution to coping with feminine hair loss. Our findings may encourage media leaders to conduct planned media interventions to increase awareness of clinicians and health policymakers about the unique challenges faced by women coping with hair loss and promote health policy-making aimed at the well-being of these women.

Effects of Media Exposure to Conflicting Information About Mammography: Results From a Population-based Survey Experiment

BACKGROUND

Although there is growing theoretical and empirical support for the proposition that media exposure to conflicting health information negatively influences public understanding and behavior, few studies have causally linked exposure to conflict with undesirable outcomes. Such outcomes might be particularly likely in the context of mammography, given widespread media attention to conflicting recommendations about the age at and frequency with which average-risk women should be screened for breast cancer.

PURPOSE

The current study tests whether exposure to conflicting information about mammography negatively influences women's affective and cognitive responses and examines whether effects vary by socioeconomic position.

METHODS

We conducted an online survey experiment in 2016 with a population-based sample of U.S. women aged 35-55 (N = 1,474). Participants were randomly assigned to one of four conditions that differed in the level of conflict about mammography presented in a news story (no, low, medium, or high conflict), stratifying by poverty level.

RESULTS

Greater exposure to conflict increased women's negative emotional responses to the story they read, their confusion about and backlash toward cancer prevention recommendations and research, and their ambivalence about mammography and other types of cancer screening, though ambivalence leveled off at high levels of exposure. There was little evidence that effects varied across socioeconomic position.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings add to the growing evidence base documenting undesirable outcomes of exposure to conflicting health information. Future research should examine whether the negative affective and cognitive responses observed translate into behavior, which could have implications for both health campaigns and patient-provider communication.

Communicating uncertainty about facts, numbers and science

Uncertainty is an inherent part of knowledge, and yet in an era of contested expertise, many shy away from openly communicating their uncertainty about what they know, fearful of their audience's reaction. But what effect does communication of such epistemic uncertainty have? Empirical research is widely scattered across many disciplines. This interdisciplinary review structures and summarizes current practice and research across domains, combining a statistical and psychological perspective. This informs a framework for uncertainty communication in which we identify three objects of uncertainty-facts, numbers and science-and two levels of uncertainty: direct and indirect. An examination of current practices provides a scale of nine expressions of direct uncertainty. We discuss attempts to codify indirect uncertainty in terms of quality of the underlying evidence. We review the limited literature about the effects of communicating epistemic uncertainty on cognition, affect, trust and decision-making. While there is some evidence that communicating epistemic uncertainty does not necessarily affect audiences negatively, impact can vary between individuals and communication formats. Case studies in economic statistics and climate change illustrate our framework in action. We conclude with advice to guide both communicators and future researchers in this important but so far rather neglected field.

Impact of messages about scientific uncertainty on risk perceptions and intentions to use electronic vaping products

BACKGROUND

The science surrounding e-cigarettes and other electronic vaping products (EVPs) is rapidly evolving, and the health effects of vaping are unclear. Little research has explored how individuals respond to information acknowledging scientific uncertainty. The aim of the present study was to understand the impact of messages about scientific uncertainty regarding the health effects of vaping on risk perceptions and behavioral intentions.

METHODS

Adults in an online experiment (n = 2508) were randomly exposed to view either a control message (a short factual statement about EVPs) or an uncertainty message (the control message plus additional information describing why EVP-related research is limited or inconclusive). Participants rated the risks of vaping and their intentions to try or stop vaping.

RESULTS

Individuals who viewed the uncertainty message rated vaping as less risky than those who viewed the control message. Message exposure did not impact intentions to try vaping soon or intentions to stop vaping in the next 6 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Acknowledging scientific uncertainty made EVP use seem less risky. Future research should explore possible drivers of this response, such as deeper message processing or emotional reactions. Researchers and practitioners designing public health campaigns about vaping might consider a cautious approach to presenting information about scientific uncertainty.

The effects of stakeholder involvement on perceptions of an evaluation's credibility

This article presents a study of the effects of stakeholder involvement on perceptions of an evaluation's credibility. Crowdsourced members of the public and a group of educational administrators read a description of a hypothetical program and two evaluations of the program: one conducted by a researcher and one conducted by program staff (i.e. program stakeholders). Study participants were randomly assigned versions of the scenario with different levels of stakeholder credibility and types of findings. Results showed that both samples perceived the researcher's evaluation findings to be more credible than the program staff's, but that this difference was significantly reduced when the program staff were described to be highly credible. The article concludes with implications for theory and research on evaluation dissemination and stakeholder involvement.

Source-specific Exposure to Contradictory Nutrition Information: Documenting Prevalence and Effects on Adverse Cognitive and Behavioral Outcomes

Communication scholars have raised concerns that the media present contradictory or conflicting information on health, science, and political issues, speculating that such information may have adverse effects on public cognitions, affect, and behaviors. However, the evidence base for the effects of contradictory messages remains thin. Using nutrition as a case example, this study builds upon this nascent literature by employing a three-wave panel dataset from a survey with a nationally representative sample of American adults. We found that exposure to contradictory nutrition messages from television increases nutrition confusion, whereas exposure from print media decreases confusion. Moreover, nutrition confusion was positively associated with nutrition backlash, and nutrition backlash decreased engagement in fruit and vegetable consumption. Implications for campaigns and other communication interventions are discussed.

To vape or not to vape? Effects of exposure to conflicting news headlines on beliefs about harms and benefits of electronic cigarette use: Results from a randomized controlled experiment

News coverage of novel tobacco products including e-cigarettes has framed the use of these products with both positive and negative slants. Conflicting information may shape public knowledge, perceptions of e-cigarettes, and their harms. The objective of this study is to assess effects of exposure to conflicting news coverage on US adults' beliefs about harms and benefits of e-cigarette use. We conducted a one-way between-subjects randomized controlled experiment in 2016 to compare the effects of viewing either 1) positive, 2) negative, 3) both positive and negative (conflicting) news headlines about the safety of using e-cigarettes, or 4) no-message. Participants were 2056 adults aged 18 and older from an online survey panel. Outcomes were beliefs about harms (3-item scale, α=0.76) and benefits (3-item scale, α=0.82) of using e-cigarettes. Participants who viewed negative headlines reported increased beliefs about harms (B=0.164, p=0.039) and lower beliefs about benefits of e-cigarette use (B=-0.216, p=0.009), compared with those in the positive headlines condition. These differences were replicated in subgroup analyses among never e-cigarette users. In addition, never e-cigarette users who viewed conflicting headlines reported lower beliefs about benefits of e-cigarette use (B=-0.221, p=0.030) than the positive headlines condition. Valence of news coverage about e-cigarettes (positive, negative, or conflicting) could influence people's beliefs about harms and benefits of e-cigarette use.

Fatalism and exposure to health information from the media: examining the evidence for causal influence

Fatalistic attitudes have a negative impact on a broad variety of health behaviors and behavioral determinants of health. A growing body of research has documented an association between media exposure and fatalism; however, scholarship has not been able to ascertain the causal direction. This review synthesizes the current state of the literature. A major finding is that most studies purporting to assess the relationship between media exposure and fatalism use conflated measures of fatalism. Among those that use an appropriate measure, there is some evidence that increased exposure to media increases fatalism. Although there is a substantive theoretical rationale for such effects, more research is needed to make a definitive claim and to explain the mechanism for such effects.

Poor replication validity of biomedical association studies reported by newspapers

Objective

To investigate the replication validity of biomedical association studies covered by newspapers.

Methods

We used a database of 4723 primary studies included in 306 meta-analysis articles. These studies associated a risk factor with a disease in three biomedical domains, psychiatry, neurology and four somatic diseases. They were classified into a lifestyle category (e.g. smoking) and a non-lifestyle category (e.g. genetic risk). Using the database Dow Jones Factiva, we investigated the newspaper coverage of each study. Their replication validity was assessed using a comparison with their corresponding meta-analyses.

Results

Among the 5029 articles of our database, 156 primary studies (of which 63 were lifestyle studies) and 5 meta-analysis articles were reported in 1561 newspaper articles. The percentage of covered studies and the number of newspaper articles per study strongly increased with the impact factor of the journal that published each scientific study. Newspapers almost equally covered initial (5/39 12.8%) and subsequent (58/600 9.7%) lifestyle studies. In contrast, initial non-lifestyle studies were covered more often (48/366 13.1%) than subsequent ones (45/3718 1.2%). Newspapers never covered initial studies reporting null findings and rarely reported subsequent null observations. Only 48.7% of the 156 studies reported by newspapers were confirmed by the corresponding meta-analyses. Initial non-lifestyle studies were less often confirmed (16/48) than subsequent ones (29/45) and than lifestyle studies (31/63). Psychiatric studies covered by newspapers were less often confirmed (10/38) than the neurological (26/41) or somatic (40/77) ones. This is correlated to an even larger coverage of initial studies in psychiatry. Whereas 234 newspaper articles covered the 35 initial studies that were later disconfirmed, only four press articles covered a subsequent null finding and mentioned the refutation of an initial claim.

Conclusion

Journalists preferentially cover initial findings although they are often contradicted by meta-analyses and rarely inform the public when they are disconfirmed.

Communicating Uncertain Science to the Public: How Amount and Source of Uncertainty Impact Fatalism, Backlash, and Overload

Public dissemination of scientific research often focuses on the finding (e.g., nanobombs kill lung cancer) rather than the uncertainty/limitations (e.g., in mice). Adults (n = 880) participated in an experiment where they read a manipulated news report about cancer research (a) that contained either low or high uncertainty (b) that was attributed to the scientists responsible for the research (disclosure condition) or an unaffiliated scientist (dueling condition). Compared to the dueling condition, the disclosure condition triggered less prevention-focused cancer fatalism and nutritional backlash.

Scientific uncertainty in media content: Introduction to this special issue

This introduction sets the stage for the special issue on the public communication of scientific uncertainty that follows by sketching the wider landscape of issues related to the communication of uncertainty and showing how the individual contributions fit into that landscape. The first part of the introduction discusses the creation of media content as a process involving journalists, scientific sources, stakeholders, and the responsive audience. The second part then provides an overview of the perception of scientific uncertainty presented by the media and the consequences for the recipients' own assessments of uncertainty. Finally, we briefly describe the six research articles included in this special issue.

Measuring the perceived uncertainty of scientific evidence and its relationship to engagement with science

Many scholars have argued for the need to communicate openly not only scientific successes to the public but also limitations, such as the tentativeness of research findings, in order to enhance public trust and engagement. Yet, it has not been quantitatively assessed how the perception of scientific uncertainties relates to engagement with science on an individual level. In this article, we report the development and testing of a new questionnaire in English and German measuring the perceived uncertainty of scientific evidence. Results indicate that the scale is reliable and valid in both language versions and that its two subscales are differentially related to measures of engagement: Science-friendly attitudes were positively related only to 'subjectively' perceived uncertainty, whereas interest in science as well as behavioural engagement actions and intentions were largely uncorrelated. We conclude that perceiving scientific knowledge to be uncertain is only weakly, but positively related to engagement with science.

Where civics meets science: building science for the public good through Civic Science

Public understanding of science and civic engagement on science issues that impact contemporary life matter more today than ever. From the Planned Parenthood controversy, to the Flint water crisis and the fluoridation debate, societal polarization about science issues has reached dramatic levels that present significant obstacles to public discussion and problem solving. This is happening, in part, because systems built to support science do not often reward open-minded thinking, inclusive dialogue, and moral responsibility regarding science issues. As a result, public faith in science continues to erode. This review explores how the field of Civic Science can impact public work on science issues by building new understanding of the practices, influences, and cultures of science. Civic Science is defined as a discipline that considers science practice and knowledge as resources for civic engagement, democratic action, and political change. This review considers how Civic Science informs the roles that key participants-scientists, public citizens and institutions of higher education-play in our national science dialogue. Civic Science aspires to teach civic capacities, to inform the responsibilities of scientists engaged in public science issues and to inspire an open-minded, inclusive dialogue where all voices are heard and shared commitments are acknowledged.

Message Variability and Heterogeneity: A Core Challenge for Communication Research

Messages are central to human social experience, and pose key conceptual and methodological challenges in the study of communication. In response to these challenges, we outline a systematic approach to conceptualizing, operationalizing, and analyzing messages. At the conceptual level, we distinguish between two core aspects of messages: message variability (the defined and operationalized features of messages) and message heterogeneity (the undefined and unmeasured features of messages), and suggest preferred approaches to defining message variables. At the operational level, we identify message sampling, selection, and research design strategies responsive to issues of message variability and heterogeneity in experimental and survey research. At the analytical level, we highlight effective techniques to deal with message variability and heterogeneity. We conclude with seven recommendations to increase rigor in the study of communication through appropriately addressing the challenges presented by messages.

Frames of scientific evidence: How journalists represent the (un)certainty of molecular medicine in science television programs

For laypeople, media coverage of science on television is a gateway to scientific issues. Defining scientific evidence is central to the field of science, but there are still questions if news coverage of science represents scientific research findings as certain or uncertain. The framing approach is a suitable framework to classify different media representations; it is applied here to investigate the frames of scientific evidence in film clips (n=207) taken from science television programs. Molecular medicine is the domain of interest for this analysis, due to its high proportion of uncertain and conflicting research findings and risks. The results indicate that television clips vary in their coverage of scientific evidence of molecular medicine. Four frames were found: Scientific Uncertainty and Controversy, Scientifically Certain Data, Everyday Medical Risks, and Conflicting Scientific Evidence. They differ in their way of framing scientific evidence and risks of molecular medicine.

Is extinction forever?

Mistrust of science has seeped into public perception of the most fundamental aspect of conservation-extinction. The term ought to be straightforward, and yet, there is a disconnect between scientific discussion and public views. This is not a mere semantic issue, rather one of communication. Within a population dynamics context, we say that a species went locally extinct, later to document its return. Conveying our findings matters, for when we use local extinction, an essentially nonsensical phrase, rather than extirpation, which is what is meant, then we contribute to, if not create outright, a problem for public understanding of conservation, particularly as local extinction is often shortened to extinction in media sources. The public that receives the message of our research void of context and modifiers comes away with the idea that extinction is not forever or, worse for conservation as a whole, that an extinction crisis has been invented.

Including "evidentiary balance" in news media coverage of vaccine risk

Journalists communicating risk-related uncertainty must accurately convey scientific evidence supporting particular conclusions. Scholars have explored how "balanced" coverage of opposing risk claims shapes uncertainty judgments. In situations where a preponderance of evidence points to a particular conclusion, balanced coverage reduces confidence in such a consensus and heightens uncertainty about whether a risk exists. Using the autism-vaccine controversy as a case study, we describe how journalists can cover multiple sides of an issue and provide insight into where the strength of evidence lies by focusing on "evidentiary balance." Our results suggest that evidentiary balance shapes perceived certainty that vaccines are safe, effective, and not linked to autism through the mediating role of a perception that scientists are divided about whether a link exists. Deference toward science, moreover, moderates these relationships under certain conditions. We discuss implications for journalism practice and risk communication.

The media and cancer: education or entertainment? An ethnographic study of European cancer journalists

The media plays a vital role in informing the public about new developments in cancer research and influencing cancer policy. This is no easy task, in view of the myriad of trials and wonder drugs that purport to be the 'magic bullet'. However, misrepresentation can have profound consequences. In this qualitative study, we sought to understand the interaction between the media and cancer through the perspective of European science journalists by defining their attitudes towards current cancer research and challenges faced when reporting science news. A total of 67 respondents took part in this online survey, which was distributed by the European CanCer Organisation (ECCO) to all its media contacts between June and September 2013. Fifty-three per cent had over 20 years experience in reporting science news stories. The respondents utilised a number of media formats, including newsprint, online services, and radio. Fifty per cent ranked public interest as the greatest influence on their selection of cancer research topics, followed by topicality. Respondents were conscious of being fed ambiguous and exaggerated results from trials by the research community. Sixty-five per cent of respondents would appreciate access to a forum of experts willing to provide comment on new research findings. Seventy per cent highlighted the importance of prompt responses from scientists and researchers during correspondence, and the need to have advance warning of new developments (49%). To conclude - coverage of cancer related issues and scientific advances require greater collaboration between the press and cancer healthcare community to provide both credibility and accountability for the health information disseminated. Key areas include a more precise definition of the research context and differentiation of absolute and relative risks, as well as individual and population risks and an informed discussion about the realities and limitations of cancer care and research.

I am right, you are wrong: how biased assimilation increases the perceived gap between believers and skeptics of violent video game effects

BACKGROUND

Despite hundreds of studies, there is continuing debate about the extent to which violent video games increase aggression. Believers argue that playing violent video games increases aggression, but this stance is disputed by skeptics. The present study addressed believers' and skeptics' responses to summaries of scientific studies that do or do not present evidence for increased aggression after violent video game play.

METHODS/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Participants (N = 662) indicated whether they believed that violent video games increase aggression. Afterwards, they evaluated two opposing summaries of fictitious studies on the effects of violent video play. They also reported whether their initial belief had changed after reading the two summaries and indicated again whether they believed that violent video games increase aggression. Results showed that believers evaluated the study showing an effect more favorably than a study showing no effect, whereas the opposite was observed for skeptics. Moreover, both believers and skeptics reported to become more convinced of their initial view. In contrast, for actual attitude change, a depolarization effect was found.

CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE

These results suggest that biased assimilation of new information leads believers and skeptics to become more rather than less certain of their views. Hence, even when confronted with mixed and inconclusive evidence, the perceived gap between both sides of the argument increases.

Against conventional wisdom: when the public, the media, and medical practice collide

BACKGROUND

In 2009, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force released new mammography screening guidelines that sparked a torrent of criticism. The subsequent conflict was significant and pitted the Task Force against other health organizations, advocacy groups, the media, and the public at large. We argue that this controversy was driven by the systematic removal of uncertainty from science communication. To increase comprehension and adherence, health information communicators remove caveats, limitations, and hedging so science appears simple and more certain. This streamlining process is, in many instances, initiated by researchers as they engage in dissemination of their findings, and it is facilitated by public relations professionals, journalists, public health practitioners, and others whose tasks involve using the results from research for specific purposes.

ANALYSIS

Uncertainty is removed from public communication because many communicators believe that it is difficult for people to process and/or that it is something the audience wants to avoid. Uncertainty management theory posits that people can find meaning and value in uncertainty. We define key terms relevant to uncertainty management, describe research on the processing of uncertainty, identify directions for future research, and offer recommendations for scientists, practitioners, and media professionals confronted with uncertain findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Science is routinely simplified as it is prepared for public consumption. In line with the model of information overload, this practice may increase short-term adherence to recommendations at the expense of long-term message consistency and trust in science.

Men's and women's responses to two-sided health news coverage: a moderated mediation model

This study explores how audiences respond to news coverage of food and nutrition topics when that coverage provides either 2-sided (positive and negative) information or 1-sided, unanimously positive information. A moderated mediation model helps clarify the different impacts of 2- and 1-sided news coverage and the psychological processes they elicit. Specifically, gender moderates the relative effects of 1- and 2-sided news stories; ambivalent feelings play a mediating role in the process. The findings confirm the model predictions: When reading 2-sided as opposed to 1-sided news, men experience more ambivalent feelings, less favorable attitudes toward the health issues, and lower intentions to adopt the advocated behaviors, whereas women do not exhibit such differences. Moreover, the ambivalent feelings mediate the interaction between gender and news presentation (i.e., 1- or 2-sided) on attitudes toward health issues and behavioral intentions to adopt advocated health behaviors.