Hendriks Friederike, Janssen Inse, Jucks Regina
Institute for Communication Science & Institute of Educational Psychology, Technische Universität Braunschweig.
Institute of Psychology for Education, Department of Psychology, University of Münster.
Health Commun. 2023 Dec;38(12):2757-2764. doi: 10.1080/10410236.2022.2111638. Epub 2022 Aug 18.
Public and private decision-making on health problems relies on scientific evidence. However, scientific knowledge includes uncertainty, as does knowledge about COVID-19. In an experimental study, we tested how the trustworthiness (on the three dimensions expertise, integrity, and benevolence) of a source of information (either a scientist or a politician), was affected when messages were either two-sided (including arguments pro and contra the effectiveness of mask-wearing) or one-sided (only pro arguments). Results showed that scientists were ascribed more expertise and integrity compared to politicians, and both sources were ascribed more expertise when they gave two-sided (instead of one-sided) information. Moreover, trustworthiness ratings on all three dimensions were affected by participants' prior topic attitudes and epistemic certainty beliefs. These findings underline that when a source provides two-sided information, this may increase people's willingness to trust that source. To use this strategy most effectively in health communication, more research should be done on how many and what types of counterarguments to include.
关于健康问题的公共和私人决策依赖于科学证据。然而，科学知识包含不确定性，关于新冠病毒的知识也是如此。在一项实验研究中，我们测试了信息来源（科学家或政治家）的可信度（在专业知识、正直和善意这三个维度上）在信息是双面的（包括支持和反对戴口罩有效性的论据）还是单面的（仅支持论据）时是如何受到影响的。结果表明，与政治家相比，科学家被赋予了更多的专业知识和正直品质，并且当这两种信息来源提供双面（而非单面）信息时，他们都被赋予了更多的专业知识。此外，所有三个维度上的可信度评级都受到参与者先前的话题态度和认知确定性信念的影响。这些发现强调，当一个信息来源提供双面信息时，这可能会增加人们对该来源的信任意愿。为了在健康传播中最有效地运用这一策略，应该就包含多少以及何种类型的反驳论据开展更多研究。
