Transparent communication of evidence does not undermine public trust in evidence

Abstract

Does clear and transparent communication of risks, benefits, and uncertainties increase or undermine public trust in scientific information that people use to guide their decision-making? We examined the impact of reframing messages written in traditional persuasive style to align instead with recent “evidence communication” principles, aiming to inform decision-making: communicating a balance of risks and benefits, disclosing uncertainties and evidence quality, and prebunking misperceptions. In two pre-registered experiments, UK participants read either a persuasive message or a balanced and informative message adhering to evidence communication recommendations about COVID-19 vaccines (Study 1) or nuclear power plants (Study 2). We find that balanced messages are either perceived as trustworthy as persuasive messages (Study 1), or more so (Study 2). However, we note a moderating role of prior beliefs such that balanced messages were consistently perceived as more trustworthy among those with negative or neutral prior beliefs about the message content. We furthermore note that participants who had read the persuasive message on nuclear power plants voiced significantly stronger support for nuclear power than those who had read the balanced message, despite rating the information as less trustworthy. There was no difference in vaccination intentions between groups reading the different vaccine messages.

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

“…21,25,26 In addition, balanced messages have been perceived as more trustworthy than persuasive messages among people with a negative or neutral prior belief about the message content. 27,28 This finding may indicate that using transparent messaging and acknowledging uncertainty may be even more effective than other messages tested among those who are skeptical or lean against vaccination. 26,[29][30][31] Limitations Our study had several potential limitations.…”

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

“…This highlights that debunking messages should be particularly targeted and tailored to distrusting individuals that are also more susceptible to misinformation. For instance, this group may be more accepting of messages that also disclose uncertainties and evidence quality (Kerr et al, 2022). In addition, previous research has found identity‐affirming tasks before presenting corrections to be effective for developing more accurate beliefs especially when corrections contradicted existing attitudes (Carnahan et al, 2018).…”

“…For instance, refutation messages should include an explanation on why the myth is incorrect (Ecker et al, 2020), provide an alternative causal explanation for a false belief and make the corrective statement more salient (Paynter et al, 2019). However, there is still a lack of research comparing different debunking strategies on their effect on misperceptions in detail (van der Linden, 2022). Therefore, the present study focuses on the impacts of different text structures and headline formats of such refutation texts on the belief of misinformation.…”

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

“…Lazarus et al, 2021). While some strategies for persuading the vaccine hesitant have been proposed, prior research has shown that negative expectations and convictions are difficult to change (Giese et al, 2020; Kerr et al, 2022). In this study, we are contrasting different approaches in an unvaccinated sample in order to learn how vaccine hesitancy may be successfully addressed by public health interventions.…”

“…As a maximally transparent provision of information also fully discloses all given knowledge about the potential harms of a vaccine or treatment, it may not be the most effective approach to motivating skeptical subpopulations (Brewer et al, 2017; Brick et al, 2020; Rebitschek et al, 2022), potentially prompting officials to resort to more generic, nontransparent messaging. Nevertheless, transparent information may be particularly suited to target vaccine‐hesitant groups, as it addresses the group's high need for information on vaccination's benefits and harms (Wegwarth et al, 2020) and may thus be perceived as more balanced than mere appeals to rather nontransparent authoritative or normative arguments often resorted to by officials (Giese et al, 2023; Kerr et al, 2022; Petersen et al, 2021; Rebitschek et al, 2022). Thereby, a transparent visual message highlighting both benefits and harms may be best suited to particularly convince both the vaccine hesitant and the people resistant to a vaccination or at least increase their trust in health authorities and social sharing of evidence‐based information (Giese et al, 2021; Wegwarth et al, 2017; Wegwarth & Gigerenzer, 2013).…”