Sustaining positive perceptions of science in the face of conflicting health information: An experimental test of messages about the process of scientific discovery.

backgroundThe public is often exposed to conflicting health information, with evidence of concerning consequences, yet little attention has been paid to identifying strategies that can mitigate its effects.

objectiveThe current study tests whether three different approaches to communicating about the process of scientific discovery-a rational appeal using analogical evidence, a rational appeal using testimonial evidence, and a logic-based inoculation approach-could reduce the adverse effects of exposure to conflict by positively framing how people construe the scientific process, increasing their perceived knowledge about the scientific process, and helping them to respond to critiques about the scientific process, which, in turn, might make them less apt to counterargue the science they subsequently encounter in health news stories and other exposures to conflict.

methodsWe fielded a survey experiment in May 2022 with a national sample of U.S. adults (N = 1604).

resultsProviding any of the three messages about science prior to exposure to conflicting health information encouraged both positive construal of science and greater science knowledge perceptions and discouraged counterarguing science, compared to a control condition in which people were only exposed to conflict. Of the three messaging approaches tested, the testimonial evidence message was slightly more effective, but was also considered slightly more accurate, credible, and trustworthy.

conclusionsDeveloping and implementing messages that describe the process of scientific discovery could prove successful, not only in improving public perceptions of science but perhaps ultimately in better equipping people to make sense of conflicting information and its causes. However, additional research on such strategies is needed, particularly as part of larger interventions with multiple messages across multiple exposures, if they are to have implications for health and science communication.