Literacy training vs. psychological inoculation? Explicating and comparing the effects of predominantly informational and predominantly motivational interventions on the processing of health statistics

Abstract

Communicating statistics is challenging and fraught with mis-contextualization and causal misattributions. Can we train the public against statistical misrepresentations? Pre-emptive interventions against misinformation primarily include literacy tips/training and inoculation. In theory, inoculation has an additional motivational component (forewarning). However, forewarning has not been directly tested against literacy interventions, calling into question inoculation’s distinction. We critique the theoretical boundary work and compare these informational and motivational interventions in the context of health statistics. The longitudinal experiment compared the effects of interventions on processing accurate and inaccurate statistics about COVID-19 vaccines and/or genetically modified organisms across digital platforms. Both interventions prevented an elevation in risk perceptions following exposure to statistical misinformation at a later time. However, literacy intervention increased risk perceptions following exposure to accurate statistics too, suggesting an additional benefit of forewarning. Those with high levels of pre-existing misinformation concern exhibited inoculation effects more strongly. We discuss the theoretical, empirical, and practical implications.