Using Normative Language When Describing Scientific Findings: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial of Effects on Trust and Credibility

Abstract

Background Trust in science and scientists has received renewed attention because of the “infodemic” occurring alongside COVID-19. A robust evidence basis shows that such trust is associated with belief in misinformation and willingness to engage in public and personal health behaviors. At the same time, trust and the associated construct of credibility are complex meta-cognitive concepts that often are oversimplified in quantitative research. The discussion of research often includes both normative language (what one ought to do based on a study’s findings) and cognitive language (what a study found), but these types of claims are very different, since normative claims make assumptions about people’s interests. Thus, this paper presents a protocol for a large randomized controlled trial to experimentally test whether some of the variability in trust in science and scientists and perceived message credibility is attributable to the use of normative language when sharing study findings in contrast to the use of cognitive language alone. Objective The objective of this trial will be to examine if reading normative and cognitive claims about a scientific study, compared to cognitive claims alone, results in lower trust in science and scientists as well as lower perceived credibility of the scientist who conducted the study, perceived credibility of the research, trust in the scientific information on the post, and trust in scientific information coming from the author of the post. Methods We will conduct a randomized controlled trial consisting of 2 parallel groups and a 1:1 allocation ratio. A sample of 1500 adults aged ≥18 years who represent the overall US population distribution by gender, race/ethnicity, and age will randomly be assigned to either an “intervention” arm (normative and cognitive claims) or a control arm (cognitive claims alone). In each arm, participants will view and verify their understanding of an ecologically valid claim or set of claims (ie, from a highly cited, published research study) designed to look like a social media post. Outcomes will be trust in science and scientists, the perceived credibility of the scientist who conducted the study, the perceived credibility of the research, trust in the scientific information on the post, and trust in scientific information coming from the author of the post. Analyses will incorporate 9 covariates. Results This study will be conducted without using any external funding mechanisms. Conclusions If there is a measurable effect attributable to the inclusion of normative language when writing about scientific findings, it should generate discussion about how such findings are presented and disseminated. Trial Registration Open Science Framework n7yfc; https://osf.io/n7yfc International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) PRR1-10.2196/41747

Using Normative Language When Describing Scientific Findings: Randomized Controlled Trial of Effects on Trust and Credibility

“…Such participants then moved forward to the comprehension question page again. The comprehension questions were prespecified in our protocol [5]:…”

“…Participants whose data were used took an average of 7.37 (SD 9.61) minutes to complete the study. This study was preregistered using the Open Science Framework and the protocol was published in full prior to any data collection [ 5 ].…”

“…The COVID-19 “infodemic” [ 1 ] has served as a stark reminder of the complexities of how people communicate and understand scientific information [ 2 , 3 ], and the importance of studying such information exchanges during public health crises [ 4 ]. “When people are presented with a high volume of information of varying accuracy, we propose that there exists a broad social interest in people making decisions based on the best available evidence ” [ 5 ]. To that end, we endorse 2 premises: (1) the scientific method can produce knowledge about the world, and (2) no one can independently generate empirical knowledge about everything [ 6 ].…”

“…In addition, perceptions of trust and credibility may not solely rely on scientists’ epistemic (cognitive) claims. In our protocol [ 5 ] for this study, we outline our reasons for separating “cognitive” claims (eg, statements about what is likely true of reality ) from “normative” claims (eg, recommendations about what should be done given certain information) [ 19 ].…”

“…Specifically, this paper reports the results from a highly granular, causal assessment of the effect of a single exposure to normative language from a scientist. For transparency, we use much of the language from our study protocol verbatim [ 5 ].…”