Dataset Information

Intervening on Trust in Science to Reduce Belief in COVID-19 Misinformation and Increase COVID-19 Preventive Behavioral Intentions: Randomized Controlled Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Trust in science meaningfully contributes to our understanding of people's belief in misinformation and their intentions to take actions to prevent COVID-19. However, no experimental research has sought to intervene on this variable to develop a scalable response to the COVID-19 infodemic.

Objective

Our study examined whether brief exposure to an infographic about the scientific process might increase trust in science and thereby affect belief in misinformation and intention to take preventive actions for COVID-19.

Methods

This two-arm, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial aimed to recruit a US representative sample of 1000 adults by age, race/ethnicity, and gender using the Prolific platform. Participants were randomly assigned to view either an intervention infographic about the scientific process or a control infographic. The intervention infographic was designed through a separate pilot study. Primary outcomes were trust in science, COVID-19 narrative belief profile, and COVID-19 preventive behavioral intentions. We also collected 12 covariates and incorporated them into all analyses. All outcomes were collected using web-based assessment.

Results

From January 22, 2021 to January 24, 2021, 1017 participants completed the study. The intervention slightly improved trust in science (difference-in-difference 0.03, SE 0.01, t₁₀₀₀=2.16, P=.031). No direct intervention effect was observed on belief profile membership, but there was some evidence of an indirect intervention effect mediated by trust in science (adjusted odds ratio 1.06, SE 0.03, 95% CI 1.00-1.12, z=2.01, P=.045) on membership in the "scientific" profile compared with the others. No direct nor indirect effects on preventive behaviors were observed.

Conclusions

Briefly viewing an infographic about science appeared to cause a small aggregate increase in trust in science, which may have, in turn, reduced the believability of COVID-19 misinformation. The effect sizes were small but commensurate with our 60-second, highly scalable intervention approach. Researchers should study the potential for truthful messaging about how science works to serve as misinformation inoculation and test how best to do so.

Trial registration

NCT04557241; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04557241.

International registered report identifier (irrid)

RR2-10.2196/24383.

SUBMITTER: Agley J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8519341 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundOnline misinformation proliferation during the COVID-19 pandemic has become a major public health concern.ObjectiveWe aimed to assess the prevalence of COVID-19 misinformation exposure and beliefs, associated factors including psychological distress with misinformation exposure, and the associations between COVID-19 knowledge and number of preventive behaviors.MethodsA cross-sectional online survey was conducted with 1049 South Korean adults in April 2020. Respondents were asked about receiving COVID-19 misinformation using 12 items identified by the World Health Organization. Logistic regression was used to compute adjusted odds ratios (aORs) for the association of receiving misinformation with sociodemographic characteristics, source of information, COVID-19 misinformation belief, and psychological distress, as well as the associations of COVID-19 misinformation belief with COVID-19 knowledge and the number of COVID-19 preventive behaviors among those who received the misinformation. All data were weighted according to the Korea census data in 2018.ResultsOverall, 67.78% (n=711) of respondents reported exposure to at least one COVID-19 misinformation item. Misinformation exposure was associated with younger age, higher education levels, and lower income. Sources of information associated with misinformation exposure were social networking services (aOR 1.67, 95% CI 1.20-2.32) and instant messaging (aOR 1.79, 1.27-2.51). Misinformation exposure was also associated with psychological distress including anxiety (aOR 1.80, 1.24-2.61), depressive (aOR 1.47, 1.09-2.00), and posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms (aOR 1.97, 1.42-2.73), as well as misinformation belief (aOR 7.33, 5.17-10.38). Misinformation belief was associated with poorer COVID-19 knowledge (high: aOR 0.62, 0.45-0.84) and fewer preventive behaviors (≥7 behaviors: aOR 0.54, 0.39-0.74).ConclusionsCOVID-19 misinformation exposure was associated with misinformation belief, while misinformation belief was associated with fewer preventive behaviors. Given the potential of misinformation to undermine global efforts in COVID-19 disease control, up-to-date public health strategies are required to counter the proliferation of misinformation.

Project description:BackgroundThe global spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been mirrored by diffusion of misinformation and conspiracy theories about its origins (such as 5G cellular networks) and the motivations of preventive measures like vaccination, social distancing, and face masks (for example, as a political ploy). These beliefs have resulted in substantive, negative real-world outcomes but remain largely unstudied.MethodsThis was a cross-sectional, online survey (n=660). Participants were asked about the believability of five selected COVID-19 narratives, their political orientation, their religious commitment, and their trust in science (a 21-item scale), along with sociodemographic items. Data were assessed descriptively, then latent profile analysis was used to identify subgroups with similar believability profiles. Bivariate (ANOVA) analyses were run, then multivariable, multivariate logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with membership in specific COVID-19 narrative believability profiles.ResultsFor the full sample, believability of the narratives varied, from a low of 1.94 (SD=1.72) for the 5G narrative to a high of 5.56 (SD=1.64) for the zoonotic (scientific consensus) narrative. Four distinct belief profiles emerged, with the preponderance (70%) of the sample falling into Profile 1, which believed the scientifically accepted narrative (zoonotic origin) but not the misinformed or conspiratorial narratives. Other profiles did not disbelieve the zoonotic explanation, but rather believed additional misinformation to varying degrees. Controlling for sociodemographics, political orientation and religious commitment were marginally, and typically non-significantly, associated with COVID-19 belief profile membership. However, trust in science was a strong, significant predictor of profile membership, with lower trust being substantively associated with belonging to Profiles 2 through 4.ConclusionsBelief in misinformation or conspiratorial narratives may not be mutually exclusive from belief in the narrative reflecting scientific consensus; that is, profiles were distinguished not by belief in the zoonotic narrative, but rather by concomitant belief or disbelief in additional narratives. Additional, renewed dissemination of scientifically accepted narratives may not attenuate belief in misinformation. However, prophylaxis of COVID-19 misinformation might be achieved by taking concrete steps to improve trust in science and scientists, such as building understanding of the scientific process and supporting open science initiatives.