ArticleCommunications psychology2025
No evidence for causal effects of trust in science on intentions for health-related behavior.
Article in Communications psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Information Source-Message Effect on Consumers' Intentions to Adhere to Food Safety Practices When Handling and Preparing Raw Chicken.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Many researchers and policymakers assume that interventions targeting trust in science will be key for promoting health-related behaviors, including in the context of curbing the spread of disease. One central finding from the past pandemic is that trust in science predicted health-related protection intentions and behaviors, such as social distancing and vaccination. Yet, it is unclear whether the observed correlation between trust in science and protection intentions does indeed imply causation. Across our studies (total N = 5311), we successfully replicated this correlation. However, when experimentally manipulating self-reported trust in science, we found no evidence for causal effects on protection intentions. This absence of meaningful effects was confirmed by equivalence tests, an internal meta-analysis (N = 3761), and a machine learning algorithm. These results question the causal importance of short-term changes in trust in science for protection intentions. Drawing the right lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic will be essential for effective future policy responses.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.