Lessons learned: Prepare people for conflicting health information to help them see why taking action still matters
You’re reading Lessons Learned, which distills practical takeaways from standout campaigns and peer-reviewed research in health and science communication. Want more Lessons Learned? Subscribe to our Call to Action newsletter.
Imagine you just found out you were at higher risk for a certain type of cancer. Many of us might start searching for prevention strategies, or talking to friends and family about it. Along the way, there’s a good chance you’d run into conflicting information. See enough of it, you might eventually start thinking, “what’s the point of trying? No one really knows what to do.”
Scientists have long studied how to help people resist misleading messages by warning them and giving them tools to push back — a strategy called ‘inoculation.’ But could this strategy prevent people from developing a fatalistic mindset (i.e., that there’s no point in trying to prevent disease)? And if so, what tactics are most effective?
A recent study published in the Journal of Communication explored these questions through a two-phase experiment:
- Phase one: 572 adults were randomly assigned to read one of three messages. Two warned about conflicting cancer information and explained why taking steps to reduce cancer risk still matters. One presented this through a first-person story about someone who worked through their confusion with a doctor’s help; the other explained it without using a story. A control message provided only an overview of the cancer information landscape. Participants then reported their cancer fatalism, confidence in their ability to reduce cancer risk, and intentions to take preventive actions.
- Phase two: Two weeks later, 332 participants returned to read a message presenting conflicting research about either red meat or hair dye and cancer risk, followed by fatalistic statements. Participants reported how much they wanted to push back against the message and answered questions about their beliefs and intentions again.
What they learned: Compared to the control, both inoculation formats reduced fatalism and increased people’s confidence in reducing their risk, both immediately afterwards and two weeks later. People who received the inoculation story were more likely to push back against the conflicting information than the people who received the non-story inoculation. Otherwise, the strategies weren’t significantly different in how they affected fatalism, prevention confidence, or intention to take preventive action.
Why it matters: Preparing people to navigate conflicting information can help prevent fatalism from setting in. This study suggests that multiple formats, including stories, are effective for helping people resist fatalism in the face of uncertainty.
➡️ Idea worth stealing: Pair a warning about conflicting information with a response to the discouraging conclusion people might draw from it. For example: “You may see studies that seem to disagree about what causes cancer. That doesn’t mean efforts to reduce your risk are pointless.” You could say this directly or through a story about someone working through that confusion.
What to watch: If more research reveals the best tactics for using this strategy to influence actual behavior and for extending how long intervention impacts last.
-Elissa Scherer
