Actively open‐minded thinking (AOT) operates in three dimensions: it serves as a norm accounting for how one should search for and use information in judgment and decision making; it is a thinking style that one may adopt in accordance with the norm; and it sets standards for evaluating the thinking of others, particularly the trustworthiness of sources that claim authority. With the first and third dimensions in mind, we explore how AOT influences trust in public health experts, risk perceptions, and compliance with recommended behaviors aimed at slowing the spread and severity of the COVID‐19 pandemic. Using survey data from a nationally representative sample of Americans (N = 857), we tested whether AOT will lead people to place greater trust public health experts (H1). Because these experts have been consistently messaging that COVID‐19 is a real and serious threat to public health, we also hypothesized that trust in experts would be positively associated with high perceived risk (H2), which should have a positive influence on (self‐reported) compliance with CDC recommendations (H3). And because AOT is a self‐directed thinking style, we also expected it to directly influence risk perceptions and, by extension, compliance (H4). Our results support all four hypotheses. We discuss the implications of these results for how risk communication and risk management efforts are designed and practiced.

Nitrogen and phosphorus are essential ingredients in fertilizers used to produce food. Novel methods are emerging for more efficiently sourcing these nutrients, one of which is to recover them from recycled human urine; once recovered, N and P can be redirected to fertilizer production. While the technology for creating human urine-derived fertilizer (HUDF) exists, implementing it at scale will depend on public acceptance. Thus, this study examined U.S. consumers’ acceptance of HUDF across a range of applications and, in comparison, to other fertilizer types. Data were collected from a representative national sample, and analyses of variance with post-hoc comparisons were conducted to compare across fertilizer applications and types. A hierarchical regression was conducted to assess if demographics, psychological variables, and value orientations predict HUDF acceptance. Results suggest that HUDF and biosolid-based fertilizers are equally preferred and more strongly preferred than synthetic fertilizers. HUDF is not preferred as strongly as organic fertilizers. HUDF was deemed most acceptable when used on nonedible plants and least acceptable when used on crops for human consumption. Regression analysis revealed that judgments about risks and benefits were the strongest predictors of acceptance of UDF use. These results are promising for sanitation practitioners and regulators among others.

Ensuring long-term access to nutrients needed for food production is a growing global challenge. Human urine diversion and recycling is a viable and energy-efficient means of recovering nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium from wastewater. Before implementation, however, it is critical to understand how communicating differently about human urine-derived fertilizer may influence its public acceptance. This study tests how different strategies of communication (video compared to texts), as well as different amounts of information, impact public acceptance. We also explored how specific characteristics, such as age and education level, may impact the usefulness of the different strategies of communication. The results indicate that short and long videos are the most useful risk communication strategies, and age fully moderates this relationship. This research may serve as a jumping off point for future studies focused on how risk communication strategies may affect consumer acceptance of other emerging food technologies.

Actively open‐minded thinking (AOT) is a thinking style in which people engaged in judgment and decision‐making actively seek out and then evaluate information in a manner that is intentionally disconnected from their prior beliefs and motivations and in line with self‐perceptions of autonomy. Actively open‐minded thinkers have been observed to make both more accurate judgments about the magnitude of risks and more evidence‐based decisions under uncertainty in a wide range of situations such as climate change and politics. In addition, actively open‐minded thinkers functioning in domains where they lack a desired level of knowledge are open to “outsourcing” the job of critical reasoning thinking to credible experts; in other words, they are better able to gauge who is trustworthy and then rely on the insights of these trustworthy others to help them reach a conclusion. We report results from a follow‐up to research previously published in Risk Analysis that confirms these tenets in the context of COVID‐19. We then extend these results to offer a series of recommendations for strengthening the process and outcomes of risk analysis: leveraging the latent norm of autonomy and personal agency that underpins AOT, activating or engaging with approaches to reasoning—such as decision structuring—that are in line with AOT, and working upstream and downstream of risk analysis to establish AOT as a norm of its own.