This experiment examined whether conflict explanations (informant-based, uncertainty-based, vs. none) and conflict framing (alternative vs. opposing) mitigate negative responses to conflicting health advice. Both explanations reduced perceived conflict, with informant-based explanations effective only among individuals with lower perceived knowledge. No significant effect of conflict framing was observed. Perceived conflict was subsequently associated with greater confusion, uncertainty, anger, and anxiety. Uncertainty, in turn, was more strongly associated with topic-specific attitude ambivalence, whereas anger was more strongly associated with generalized health confusion and backlash. Mediation analysis further supported several indirect effects of conflict explanations on downstream outcomes through these pathways.
Overconfidence, explained by the Dunning-Kruger effect (DKE), hinders engagement with corrective health information. Integrating the DKE with Risk Information Seeking and Processing (RISP) model, a 2 (meta-cognitive vs. informational intervention) & times; 2 (simple rebuttal vs. factual elaboration) experiment examined human papillomavirus misperceptions. Results show that meta-cognitive interventions limited subjective knowledge, effectively boosting information insufficiency. Conversely, informational inoculation increased subjective knowledge, inadvertently suppressing the insufficiency gap essential for motivation. Path modeling confirmed that information insufficiency predicts seeking and preventive intentions. We demonstrate that overcoming overconfidence requires recalibrating knowledge perceptions rather than merely providing facts, establishing meta-cognition as a contingent condition for RISP.
Public campaigns use moral appeals to promote a plant-based meat diet, but such appeals can also backfire. We found that the animal welfare appeal prompted higher purchase intention only among individuals with lower meat attachment and was damaging among consumers with higher meat attachment, with meat attachment moderating the pathway from meat-related cognitive dissonance to the adoption of plant-based meat. The best strategy to appeal to consumers with higher meat attachment was a description that did not contain any messages. Our study clarifies when and why moral appeals may backfire when promoting plant-based meat, delineating the limits of their persuasiveness.
Scientists are increasingly expected to engage public audiences, yet little is known about how this work shapes their well-being. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with scientist communicators and guided by the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model, this study examines demands and resources scientists associate with public communication. Findings reveal that demands including time pressure, harassment, reputational risk, and unsupportive institutional practices substantially outweigh available resources, including training and institutional support. Evidence of burnout and disengagement suggests these conditions are unsustainable. We discuss implications for science communication infrastructure, pedagogy, and the utility of the JD-R model as an organizing framework for this inquiry.
This content analysis investigates the functions and types of narratives in German science news about genomic research as well as their degree of narrativity. The results show that nearly half of all articles contained at least one narrative. They were used predominantly to corroborate scientific findings. Narratives about the research process were most common, followed by narratives about researchers and personal fates of affected individuals. Personal-fate narratives displayed the highest levels of narrativity, research-process narratives the lowest. The findings highlight the value of a differentiated approach to studying narratives in science communication.
