When evidence changes: Communicating uncertainty protects against a loss of trust.

IF 3.5 2区 文学 Q1 COMMUNICATION Public Understanding of Science Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-27 DOI:10.1177/09636625241228449
Charlotte Dries, Michelle McDowell, Felix G Rebitschek, Christina Leuker
{"title":"When evidence changes: Communicating uncertainty protects against a loss of trust.","authors":"Charlotte Dries, Michelle McDowell, Felix G Rebitschek, Christina Leuker","doi":"10.1177/09636625241228449","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Scientific findings can be overturned when new evidence arises. This study examines how communicating and explaining uncertainty around scientific findings affect trust in the communicator when findings change. In an online experiment (<i>N</i> = 800, convenience sample), participants read a fictitious statement from a public health authority announcing that there was no link between a new COVID-19 vaccine and heart muscle inflammation. The authority communicated (1) no uncertainty, (2) uncertainty without giving a reason, (3) uncertainty due to imprecision, or (4) uncertainty due to incomplete accounting of patients. Participants were then informed that the authority's statement was no longer correct as new data showed a link between the vaccine and heart muscle inflammation. Participants rated the authority's trustworthiness before and after the evidence update. Our findings indicate that communicating uncertainty buffers against a loss of trust when evidence changes. Moreover, explaining uncertainty does not appear to harm trust.</p>","PeriodicalId":48094,"journal":{"name":"Public Understanding of Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Understanding of Science","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625241228449","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Scientific findings can be overturned when new evidence arises. This study examines how communicating and explaining uncertainty around scientific findings affect trust in the communicator when findings change. In an online experiment (N = 800, convenience sample), participants read a fictitious statement from a public health authority announcing that there was no link between a new COVID-19 vaccine and heart muscle inflammation. The authority communicated (1) no uncertainty, (2) uncertainty without giving a reason, (3) uncertainty due to imprecision, or (4) uncertainty due to incomplete accounting of patients. Participants were then informed that the authority's statement was no longer correct as new data showed a link between the vaccine and heart muscle inflammation. Participants rated the authority's trustworthiness before and after the evidence update. Our findings indicate that communicating uncertainty buffers against a loss of trust when evidence changes. Moreover, explaining uncertainty does not appear to harm trust.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
当证据发生变化时:沟通不确定性,防止失去信任。
当出现新的证据时,科学发现可能会被推翻。本研究探讨了当科学发现发生变化时,围绕科学发现的不确定性进行交流和解释会如何影响人们对交流者的信任。在一项在线实验中(N = 800,方便抽样),参与者阅读了一份来自公共卫生机构的虚构声明,该机构宣布一种新的 COVID-19 疫苗与心肌炎之间没有联系。该机构的声明包括:(1)不确定;(2)不确定但未说明原因;(3)不确定是因为不精确;或(4)不确定是因为对患者的不完全统计。然后,参与者被告知权威机构的声明不再正确,因为新数据显示疫苗与心肌炎之间存在联系。参与者在证据更新前后对权威机构的可信度进行评分。我们的研究结果表明,当证据发生变化时,传达不确定性可以缓冲信任的丧失。此外,解释不确定性似乎并不会损害信任。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.30
自引率
9.80%
发文量
80
期刊介绍: Public Understanding of Science is a fully peer reviewed international journal covering all aspects of the inter-relationships between science (including technology and medicine) and the public. Public Understanding of Science is the only journal to cover all aspects of the inter-relationships between science (including technology and medicine) and the public. Topics Covered Include... ·surveys of public understanding and attitudes towards science and technology ·perceptions of science ·popular representations of science ·scientific and para-scientific belief systems ·science in schools
期刊最新文献
The plurivocal university: Typologizing the diverse voices of a research university on social media. Does exposure necessarily lead to misbelief? A meta-analysis of susceptibility to health misinformation. Gene editing in animals: What does the public want to know and what information do stakeholder organizations provide? The effects of self-disclosure and gender on a climate scientist's credibility and likability on social media. Complexity appreciated: How the communication of complexity impacts topic-specific intellectual humility and epistemic trustworthiness.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1