University of Southampton.
J Exp Psychol Appl. 2022 Sep;28(3):509-524. doi: 10.1037/xap0000415. Epub 2022 Feb 24.
In a preregistered experiment, we presented participants with information about the safety of traveling during a deadly pandemic and during a migration trip using five different sources (a news article, a family member, an official organization, someone with personal experience, and the travel organizer) and four different verbal descriptions of the likelihood of safety ( and ). We found that both for the pandemic and migration contexts, judgments about the likelihood of safely traveling and decisions to travel were most strongly influenced by information from the respective official organizations and that participants also indicated greater willingness to share information from official organizations with others. These results are consistent with the established finding that expert sources are more persuasive. However, we also found that, regardless of source, participants thought that it would be safe to travel even when told that it was or to be safe. Additionally, participants did not discriminate between the grades of likelihood description (such as between and or between and ), suggesting that in the contexts examined directionality matters much more than attempts to communicate more fine-grained likelihood information with verbal phrases. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
在一项预先注册的实验中,我们向参与者提供了有关在致命大流行期间和移民旅行期间旅行安全的信息,使用了五个不同的来源(新闻文章、家庭成员、官方组织、有个人经验的人以及旅行组织者)和四种不同的关于安全性可能性的口头描述(和)。我们发现,无论是在大流行还是移民的背景下,对安全旅行的可能性的判断和旅行的决定都受到来自各自官方组织的信息的强烈影响,而且参与者也表示更愿意与他人分享来自官方组织的信息。这些结果与专家来源更具说服力的既定发现一致。然而,我们还发现,无论来源如何,即使被告知旅行是或安全,参与者也认为旅行是安全的。此外,参与者并没有区分可能性描述的等级(例如,和或和),这表明在所研究的背景下,方向性比使用口头短语传达更精细的可能性信息的尝试更为重要。(PsycInfo 数据库记录(c)2022 APA,保留所有权利)。