Vulnerability to the Effects of Conflicting Health Information: Testing the Moderating Roles of Trust in News Media and Research Literacy

Abstract

Background

Exposure to conflicting health information can produce negative affective and cognitive responses, including confusion and backlash, and the effects of this exposure can even “carry over” and reduce people’s receptivity to subsequent messages about health behaviors for which there is scientific consensus. What is not known is whether certain population subgroups are more vulnerable to such carryover effects.

Aims

This study investigates whether carryover effects of exposure to conflicting information are moderated by two factors, trust in news media and research literacy, testing the hypothesis that lower trust and higher literacy could protect against such effects.

Method

The analysis draws on data from a longitudinal population-based experiment (N = 2,716), in which participants were randomly assigned to view health news stories and social media posts that either did or did not feature conflicting information, and subsequently exposed to ads from existing health campaigns about behaviors for which there is scientific consensus. Structural equation modeling was used to test study hypotheses.

Results

Neither lower trust in news media nor higher research literacy protected against carryover effects, as effects were observed across levels of both trust and literacy. Although level of research literacy did not affect whether carryover effects were observed, it did shape how those effects emerged.

Conclusion

The public, regardless of their level of trust in news media or research literacy, is vulnerable to the downstream effects of exposure to conflicting health information. Targeted health communication interventions are needed to improve messaging about evolving science and, in turn, increase receptivity to public health recommendations.

Keywords

conflicting health information carryover effects trust in news media research literacy survey-based experiment health communication

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Carpenter

D. M.

Elstad

E. A.

Blalock

S. J.

DeVellis

R. F.

(2014). Conflicting medication information: Prevalence, sources, and relationship to medication adherence. Journal of Health Communication, 19(1), 67–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2013.798380

Chang

(2015). Motivated processing: How people perceive news covering novel or contradictory health research findings. Science Communication, 37(5), 602–634. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547015597914

Clark

Nagler

R. H.

Niederdeppe

(2019). Confusion and nutritional backlash from news media exposure to contradictory information about carbohydrates and dietary fats. Public Health Nutrition, 22(18), 3336–3348. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980019002866

Gollust

S. E.

Fowler

E. F.

Nagler

R. H.

(2021). Prevalence and potential consequences of exposure to conflicting information about mammography: Results from a nationally-representative survey of U.S. adults. Health Communication. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2021.1951958

Gottfried

Liedke

(2021). Partisan divides in media trust widen, driven by a decline among Republicans. Pew Resource Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/08/30/partisan-divides-in-media-trust-widen-driven-by-a-decline-among-republicans/

Han

P. K.

Moser

R. P.

Klein

W. M.

(2006). Perceived ambiguity about cancer prevention recommendations: Relationship to perceptions of cancer preventability, risk, and worry. Journal of Health Communication, 11(Suppl. 1), 51–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730600637541

Hocevar

K. P.

Metzger

Flanagin

A. J.

(2017). Source credibility, expertise, and trust in health and risk messaging. In Parrott

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of health and risk message design and processing (pp. 1–23). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.287

Howell

E. L.

Brossard

(2021). (Mis)informed about what? What it means to be a science-literate citizen in a digital world. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(15), Article e1912436117. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1912436117

Ihekweazu

(2021). Is coffee the cause or the cure? Conflicting nutrition messages in two decades of online New York Times’ nutrition news coverage. Health Communication. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2021.1950291

10.

Iyengar

Simon

A. F.

(2000). New perspectives and evidence on political communication and campaign effects. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 149–169. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.149

11.

Lee

C. J.

Nagler

R. H.

Wang

(2018). Source-specific exposure to contradictory nutrition information: Documenting prevalence and effects on adverse cognitive and behavioral outcomes. Health Communication, 33(4), 453–461. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2016.1278495

12.

Lovelace

Jr. (2021, July 27). CDC reverses indoor mask policy, saying fully vaccinated people and kids should wear them indoors. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/27/cdc-to-reverse-indoor-mask-policy-to-recommend-them-for-fully-vaccinated-people-in-covid-hot-spots.html

13.

Lyons

B. A.

Merola

Reifler

(2020). Shifting medical guidelines: Compliance and spillover effects for revised antibiotic recommendations. Social Science and Medicine, 255, Article 112943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.112943

14.

Miller

J. D.

(1998). The measurement of civic scientific literacy. Public Understanding of Science, 7(3), 203–223. https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/7/3/001

15.

Nagler

R. H.

(2010). Steady diet of confusion: Contradictory nutrition messages in the public information environment [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania].

16.

Nagler

R. H.

(2014). Adverse outcomes associated with media exposure to contradictory nutrition messages. Journal of Health Communication, 19(1), 24–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2013.798384

17.

Nagler

R. H.

Fowler

E. F.

Marino

N. M.

Mentzer

K. M.

Gollust

S. E.

(2019). The evolution of mammography controversy in the news media: A content analysis of four publicized screening recommendations, 2009 to 2016. Womens Health Issues, 29(1), 87–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.whi.2018.09.005

18.

Nagler

R. H.

LoRusso

S. M.

(2018). Conflicting information and message competition in health and risk messaging. In Parrott

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of health and risk message design and processing (pp. 353–372). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.292

19.

Nagler

R. H.

Vogel

R. I.

Gollust

S. E.

Yzer

M. C.

Rothman

A. J.

(2022). Effects of prior exposure to conflicting health information on responses to subsequent unrelated health messages: Results from a population-based longitudinal experiment. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 56(5), 498–511. https://doi.org/10.1093/abm/kaab069

20.

Nagler

R. H.

Yzer

M. C.

Rothman

A. J.

(2019). Effects of media exposure to conflicting information about mammography: Results from a population-based survey experiment. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 53(10), 896–908. https://doi.org/10.1093/abm/kay098

21.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, & Medicine. (2016). Science literacy: Concepts, contexts, and consequences. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/23595

22.

Niederdeppe

Heley

Barry

C. L.

(2015). Inoculation and narrative strategies in competitive framing of three health policy issues. Journal of Communication, 65(5), 838–862. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12162

23.

NORC. (2021). Technical overview of the AmeriSpeak panel: NORC’s probability-based household panel. https://amerispeak.norc.org/Documents/Research/AmeriSpeak%20Technical%20Overview%202019%2002%2018.pdf

24.

O’Keefe

D. J.

(2015). Persuasion: Theory and research (3rd ed.). SAGE.

25.

Perloff

R. M.

(2020). The dynamics of persuasion: Communication and attitudes in the 21st century (7th ed.). Routledge.

26.

Ratcliff

C. L.

(2019). Characterizing reactance in communication research: A review of conceptual and operational approaches. Communication Research, 48(7), 1033–1058. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650219872126

27.

Strömbäck

Tsfati

Boomgaarden

Damstra

Lindgren

Vliegenthart

Lindholm

(2020). News media trust and its impact on media use: Toward a framework for future research. Annals of the International Communication Association, 44(2), 139–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2020.1755338

28.

Tan

A. S.

Lee

C. J.

Bigman

C. A.

(2015). Public support for selected e-cigarette regulations and associations with overall information exposure and contradictory information exposure about e-cigarettes: Findings from a national survey of U.S. adults. Preventive Medicine, 81, 268–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2015.09.009

29.

Thrasher

J. F.

Swayampakala

Borland

Nagelhout

Yong

H. H.

Hammond

Bansal-Travers

Thompson

Hardin

(2016). Influences of self-efficacy, response efficacy, and reactance on responses to cigarette health warnings: A longitudinal study of adult smokers in Australia and Canada. Health Communication, 31(12), 1517–1526. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2015.1089456

30.

Viswanath

Emmons

K. M.

(2006). Message effects and social determinants of health: Its application to cancer disparities. Journal of Communication, 56, S238–S264. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00292.x

31.

Wackowski

O. A.

Sontag

J. M.

Singh

King

Lewis

M. J.

Steinberg

M. B.

Delnevo

C. D.

(2020). From the deeming rule to JUUL—US news coverage of electronic cigarettes, 2015–2018. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 22(10), 1816–1822. https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntaa025

32.

Witte

(1994). Fear control and danger control: A test of the extended parallel process model (EPPM). Communication Monographs, 61(2), 113–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759409376328

33.

Yang

Herbert

Yang

Alber

Ophir

Cappella

J. N.

(2020). The role of information avoidance in managing uncertainty from conflicting recommendations about electronic cigarettes. Communication Monographs, 88, 263–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2020.1809685

34.

Zhao

Strasser

Cappella

J. N.

Lerman

Fishbein

(2011). A measure of perceived argument strength: Reliability and validity. Communication Methods and Measures, 5(1), 48–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2010.547822

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.03 MB