The Impact of Information Presentation and Cognitive Dissonance on Processing Systematic Review Summaries: A Randomized Controlled Trial on Bicycle Helmet Legislation

Abstract

Background: Summaries of systematic reviews are a reference method for the dissemination of research evidence on the effectiveness of public health interventions beyond the scientific community. Motivated reasoning and cognitive dissonance may interfere with readers’ ability to process the information included in such summaries. Methods: We conducted a web experiment on a panel of university-educated North Americans (N = 259) using a systematic review of the effectiveness of bicycle helmet legislation as a test case. The outcome variables were the perceived tentativeness of review findings and attitude toward bicycle helmet legislation. We manipulated two types of uncertainty: (i) deficient uncertainty (inclusion vs. non-inclusion of information on limitations of the studies included in the review) and (ii) consensus uncertainty (consensual findings showing legislation effectiveness vs. no evidence of effectiveness). We also examined whether reported expertise in helmet legislation and the frequency of wearing a helmet while cycling interact with the experimental factors. Results: None of the experimental manipulations had a main effect on the perceived tentativeness. The presentation of consensual efficacy findings had a positive main effect on the attitude toward the legislation. Self-reported expertise had a significant main effect on the perceived tentativeness, and exposing participants with reported expertise to results showing a lack of evidence of efficacy increased their favorable attitude toward the legislation. Participants’ helmet use was positively associated with their attitude toward the legislation (but not with perceived tentativeness). Helmet use did not interact with the experimental manipulations. Conclusions: Motivated reasoning and cognitive dissonance influence a reader’s ability to process information contained in a systematic review summary.

How to communicate science to the public? Recommendations for effective written communication derived from a systematic review

“…Similarly, using pessimistic framings (e.g., stating that a treatment was unsuccessful) led to higher perceived tentativeness of the findings than optimistic framings (e.g., stating that a treatment was successful; . A more recent study, however, did not corroborate these findings (Béchard et al, 2022); instead, mentioning limitations (vs not) and presenting non-significant findings (vs positive findings) did not influence perceived certainty (cf. also Broomell and Cane, 2017, for more mixed results).…”

Does correlation heuristic dependence reduce due to classroom teaching? A case study from India

“…Furthermore, the present study contributes to the research on stock-flow failure. Most studies on stock-flow failure have been carried out in western countries ( Sterman, 2010 ; Rooney-Varga et al, 2020 ; Rahmandad et al, 2021 ; Béchard et al, 2022 ). In relative terms, there is hardly any literature on stock-flow failures present in the educational institutes of the developing world (e.g., India).…”

“…Various stock-and-flow problems exhibit the correlation heuristic’s use as a guiding principle ( Gonzalez and Wong, 2012 ; Kumar and Dutt, 2018b ). Even though the underlying mathematics for all stock-and-flow problems is the same ( Cronin et al, 2009 ; Rooney-Varga et al, 2020 ; Béchard et al, 2022 ; Shin et al, 2022 ), i.e., the stock is accumulated due to the inflow rate and is depleted due to the outflow rate, the consequences for different stock-flow failures can still vary vastly.…”

“…Thus, dependence on faulty problem-solving techniques like the correlation heuristic for crucial systems such as Earth’s climatic system might lead to a wait-and-see behavior towards climate change, further worsening Earth’s atmospheric condition ( Kumar and Dutt, 2018a ). Due to the significance of stock-and-flow principles in governing essential issues such as climate change, it is necessary to educate and increase people’s conceptual understanding and knowledge of stock-and-flow problems and improve their decision-making abilities ( Richardson, 2011 ; Béchard et al, 2022 ).…”