When and why do people act on flawed science? Effects of anecdotes and prior beliefs on evidence-based decision-making

Mindful mindfulness reporting: Media portrayals of scientific evidence for meditation mobile apps

Promoting mental health is a major global challenge. As mindfulness meditation apps can help maintain and restore good mental health, it is important to understand how their efficacy and safety are portrayed in the media. This study systematically evaluates whether evidence from academic research is used to communicate the health effects of two popular mindfulness apps, Calm and Smiling Mind. A scoping review mapped research findings from 16 relevant articles, and a media analysis examined the types of evidence used in news reporting. Analysing 105 news articles revealed that 98% did not use evidence from academic research on app-based meditation to support health claims. Only 28.5% of articles included advice from a health expert, and 9.5% mentioned potential risks and alternative treatments. Stronger evidence-based reporting on the health effects of mindfulness apps is needed to enable people to make more informed decisions for their health and wellbeing.

Causal theory error in college students' understanding of science studies

When reasoning about science studies, people often make causal theory errors by inferring or accepting a causal claim based on correlational evidence. While humans naturally think in terms of causal relationships, reasoning about science findings requires understanding how evidence supports—or fails to support—a causal claim. This study investigated college students’ thinking about causal claims presented in brief media reports describing behavioral science findings. How do science students reason about causal claims from correlational evidence? And can their reasoning be improved through instruction clarifying the nature of causal theory error? We examined these questions through a series of written reasoning exercises given to advanced college students over three weeks within a psychology methods course. In a pretest session, students critiqued study quality and support for a causal claim from a brief media report  suggesting an association between two variables. Then, they created diagrams depicting possible alternative causal theories. At the beginning of the second session, an instructional intervention introduced students to an extended example of a causal theory error through guided questions about possible alternative causes. Then, they completed the same two tasks with new science reports immediately and again 1 week later. The results show students’ reasoning included fewer causal theory errors after the intervention, and this improvement was maintained a week later. Our findings suggest that interventions aimed at addressing reasoning about causal claims in correlational studies are needed even for advanced science students, and that training on considering alternative causal theories may be successful in reducing casual theory error.