People who have more science education rely less on misinformation—Even if they do not necessarily follow the health recommendations

Recent research has highlighted the role of science education in reducing beliefs in science‐related misinformation and stressed its potential positive impact on decision‐making and behavior. This study implemented the Elaboration Likelihood Model to explore how individuals' abilities and motivation interact with the type of processing of scientific information in the peripheral vs. central persuasion routes. A representative sample of adults (N = 500) completed an online questionnaire during the second wave of COVID‐19 (November 2020) focused on two COVID‐19‐related dilemmas involving social distancing recommendations. First, we examined whether relying on misinformation was associated with participants' stances and the complexity of their arguments and found that relying on misinformation was associated with the intention to reject social distancing recommendations and with the use of simple arguments. Second, we explored how motivation, operationalized as personal relevance, and abilities, operationalized as the highest level of science education, science knowledge, and strategies to identify misinformation, were associated with viewpoints and justifications. We found that personal relevance was associated with the intention to reject the recommendations but also with more complex arguments, suggesting that people did not intend to reject scientific knowledge but rather tended to contextualize it. Abilities were not associated with stance but were positively correlated with argument complexity. Finally, we examined whether motivation and abilities are associated with relying on scientific misinformation when making science‐related decisions. Respondents with higher levels of science education and motivation relied less on misinformation, even if they did not necessarily intend to follow the health recommendations. This implies that motivation directs people to greater usage of the central processing route, resulting in more deliberative use of information. Science education, it appears, impacts the information evaluation decision‐making process more than its outcome.