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

Abstract

Background Scientists often make cognitive claims (eg, the results of their work) and normative claims (eg, what should be done based on those results). Yet, these types of statements contain very different information and implications. This randomized controlled trial sought to characterize the granular effects of using normative language in science communication. Objective Our study examined whether viewing a social media post containing scientific claims about face masks for COVID-19 using both normative and cognitive language (intervention arm) would reduce perceptions of trust and credibility in science and scientists compared with an identical post using only cognitive language (control arm). We also examined whether effects were mediated by political orientation. Methods This was a 2-arm, parallel group, randomized controlled trial. We aimed to recruit 1500 US adults (age 18+) from the Prolific platform who were representative of the US population census by cross sections of age, race/ethnicity, and gender. Participants were randomly assigned to view 1 of 2 images of a social media post about face masks to prevent COVID-19. The control image described the results of a real study (cognitive language), and the intervention image was identical, but also included recommendations from the same study about what people should do based on the results (normative language). Primary outcomes were trust in science and scientists (21-item scale) and 4 individual items related to trust and credibility; 9 additional covariates (eg, sociodemographics, political orientation) were measured and included in analyses. Results From September 4, 2022, to September 6, 2022, 1526 individuals completed the study. For the sample as a whole (eg, without interaction terms), there was no evidence that a single exposure to normative language affected perceptions of trust or credibility in science or scientists. When including the interaction term (study arm × political orientation), there was some evidence of differential effects, such that individuals with liberal political orientation were more likely to trust scientific information from the social media post’s author if the post included normative language, and political conservatives were more likely to trust scientific information from the post’s author if the post included only cognitive language (β=0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.10; P=.04). Conclusions This study does not support the authors’ original hypotheses that single exposures to normative language can reduce perceptions of trust or credibility in science or scientists for all people. However, the secondary preregistered analyses indicate the possibility that political orientation may differentially mediate the effect of normative and cognitive language from scientists on people’s perceptions. We do not submit this paper as definitive evidence thereof but do believe that there is sufficient evidence to support additional research into this topic, which may have implications for effective scientific communication. Trial Registration OSF Registries osf.io/kb3yh; https://osf.io/kb3yh International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) RR2-10.2196/41747

How do the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s Technology Transfer Centers Decide What Evidence-Based Practices to Disseminate and Determine How to Do So? A Cross-Sectional Study of a National Network

“…They also point to a funding environment that fosters “conservative projects with predictable results,” which may not include implementation effectiveness studies (Bauer et al, 2015). Further, there is a fundamental philosophical difference between knowing something is likely to be true of “intervention A” (e.g., intervention A works to reduce incidence of health issue B) and believing that intervention A should be implemented, or that it is in a given organization’s interests to do so (e.g., see Background of Agley et al (2023) for discussion of normative and cognitive claims around scientific findings). Multiple factors beyond efficacy are involved in decision-making about EBP implementation, such as cost, feasibility, and readiness – these questions of uptake are core elements of implementation science (Bauer & Kirchner, 2020).…”