Accepted for/Published in: Journal of Medical Internet Research
Date Submitted: Jan 3, 2023
Date Accepted: Feb 26, 2023
Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited. Preprints - unless they show as "accepted" - should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.
Effects of using normative language when describing scientific findings on trust and credibility: Randomized controlled trial
ABSTRACT
Background:
Scientists often make cognitive claims (e.g., the results of their work) and normative claims (e.g., what should be done based on those results). Yet, these types of statements contain very different information and implications. This randomized controlled trial sought to characterize the granular effects of using normative language in science communication.
Objective:
Our study examined whether viewing a social media post containing scientific claims about face masks for COVID-19 using both normative and cognitive language (intervention arm) would reduce perceptions of trust and credibility in science and scientists compared to an identical post using only cognitive language (control arm). We also examined whether effects were mediated by political orientation.
Methods:
This was a two-arm, parallel group, randomized controlled trial. We aimed to recruit 1,500 US adults (age 18+) from the Prolific platform who were representative of the US population census by cross-sections of age, race/ethnicity, and gender. Participants were randomly assigned to view one of two images of a social media post about face masks to prevent COVID-19. The control image described the results of a real study (cognitive language), and the intervention image was identical, but also included recommendations from the same study about what people should do based on the results (normative language). Primary outcomes were trust in science and scientists (21-item scale) and 4 individual items related to trust and credibility. Nine additional covariates (e.g., sociodemographics, political orientation) were measured and included in analyses.
Results:
From September 4, 2022 to September 6, 2022, 1,526 individuals completed the study. For the sample as a whole (e.g., without interaction terms), there was no evidence that a single exposure to normative language affected perceptions of trust or credibility in science or scientists. When including the interaction term (study arm*political orientation), there was some evidence of differential effects, such that individuals with liberal political orientation were more likely to trust scientific information from the social media post’s author if it included normative language, and political conservatives were more likely to trust scientific information from the post’s author if it included only cognitive language (β = 0.05, 95% CI = 0.00 to 0.10, p = .039).
Conclusions:
This study does not support the authors’ original hypotheses that single exposures to normative language can reduce perceptions of trust or credibility in science or scientists for all people. However, the secondary preregistered analyses indicate the possibility that political orientation may differentially mediate the effect of normative and cognitive language from scientists on people’s perceptions. We do not submit this paper as definitive evidence thereof but do believe that there is sufficient evidence to support additional research into this topic, which may have implications for effective scientific communication. Clinical Trial: This study was preregistered using the Open Science Framework (direct link to registration: https://osf.io/n7yfc).
Citation
