Intervening on Trust in Science to Reduce Belief in COVID-19 Misinformation and Increase COVID-19 Preventive Behavioral Intentions: Randomized Controlled Trial

Abstract

Background Trust in science meaningfully contributes to our understanding of people’s belief in misinformation and their intentions to take actions to prevent COVID-19. However, no experimental research has sought to intervene on this variable to develop a scalable response to the COVID-19 infodemic. Objective Our study examined whether brief exposure to an infographic about the scientific process might increase trust in science and thereby affect belief in misinformation and intention to take preventive actions for COVID-19. Methods This two-arm, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial aimed to recruit a US representative sample of 1000 adults by age, race/ethnicity, and gender using the Prolific platform. Participants were randomly assigned to view either an intervention infographic about the scientific process or a control infographic. The intervention infographic was designed through a separate pilot study. Primary outcomes were trust in science, COVID-19 narrative belief profile, and COVID-19 preventive behavioral intentions. We also collected 12 covariates and incorporated them into all analyses. All outcomes were collected using web-based assessment. Results From January 22, 2021 to January 24, 2021, 1017 participants completed the study. The intervention slightly improved trust in science (difference-in-difference 0.03, SE 0.01, t1000=2.16, P=.031). No direct intervention effect was observed on belief profile membership, but there was some evidence of an indirect intervention effect mediated by trust in science (adjusted odds ratio 1.06, SE 0.03, 95% CI 1.00-1.12, z=2.01, P=.045) on membership in the “scientific” profile compared with the others. No direct nor indirect effects on preventive behaviors were observed. Conclusions Briefly viewing an infographic about science appeared to cause a small aggregate increase in trust in science, which may have, in turn, reduced the believability of COVID-19 misinformation. The effect sizes were small but commensurate with our 60-second, highly scalable intervention approach. Researchers should study the potential for truthful messaging about how science works to serve as misinformation inoculation and test how best to do so. Trial Registration NCT04557241; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04557241 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) RR2-10.2196/24383

Beliefs and misperceptions about naloxone and overdose among U.S. laypersons: a cross-sectional study

“…Participants were asked to indicate the believability [1 = Extremely unbelievable to 7 = Extremely believable] of six different statements about naloxone and overdose using the question formatting developed in our prior research [ 30 , 31 ]. Items 1 and 2 were from the Naloxone-Related Risk Compensation Beliefs scale [ 17 ], items 3 and 4 were declarative statements disagreeing in principle with findings from research on opioid overdose [ 23 – 26 ], item 5 reflected an impossibility (e.g., misinformation), and item 6 was a declarative statement agreeing in principle with research on naloxone training and access [ 28 , 29 ].…”

“… (3) Rurality (“Please identify the category that best describes your primary location of residence”), given prior research suggesting community rurality may impact use of naloxone for some providers [ 36 ]. (4) Religious commitment (“Please describe your level of religious commitment [this refers to any belief system]”) from 1 (low) to 10 (high), from our prior misinformation research [ 30 , 31 ]. (5) Political orientation (“Please describe your political orientation”) from 1 (liberal) to 10 (conservative), from our prior misinformation research [ 30 , 31 ].…”

“… (4) Religious commitment (“Please describe your level of religious commitment [this refers to any belief system]”) from 1 (low) to 10 (high), from our prior misinformation research [ 30 , 31 ]. (5) Political orientation (“Please describe your political orientation”) from 1 (liberal) to 10 (conservative), from our prior misinformation research [ 30 , 31 ]. (6) Political party orientation (“Regarding your political orientation, would you consider yourself to be…”) [Republican, Democrat, Other], based on recent research indicating face mask perceptions were more strongly associated with political party than general political orientation [ 37 ].…”

“…(4) Religious commitment (“Please describe your level of religious commitment [this refers to any belief system]”) from 1 (low) to 10 (high), from our prior misinformation research [ 30 , 31 ].…”

“…Our approach to understanding these beliefs was informed by our prior work on beliefs about COVID-19 [ 30 , 31 ]. There, we found that reported believability of statements about COVID-19 clustered.…”