A brief forewarning intervention overcomes negative effects of salient changes in COVID-19 guidance
During the COVID-19 pandemic, public health guidance (e.g., regarding the use of non-medical masks) changed over time. Although many revisions were a result of gains in scientific understanding, we nonetheless hypothesized that making changes in guidance salient would negatively affect evaluations o...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
Society for Judgment and Decision Making
2021
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/128222dd7c114b78b3031a55fdcbe49e |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | During the COVID-19
pandemic, public health guidance (e.g., regarding the use of non-medical masks)
changed over time. Although many revisions were a result of gains in scientific
understanding, we nonetheless hypothesized that making changes in guidance
salient would negatively affect evaluations of experts and health-protective
intentions. In Study 1 (N = 300), we demonstrate that describing COVID-19
guidance in terms of inconsistency (versus consistency) leads people to
perceive scientists and public health authorities less favorably (e.g., as less
expert). For participants in Canada (N = 190), though not the U.S. (N = 110),
making guidance change salient also reduced intentions to download a contact
tracing app. In Study 2 (N = 1399), we show that a brief forewarning
intervention mitigates detrimental effects of changes in guidance. In the
absence of forewarning, emphasizing inconsistency harmed judgments of public
health authorities and reduced health-protective intentions, but forewarning
eliminated this effect. |
|---|