Effects of Construal Level on Responses to Ambiguous Health Information about Alcohol Consumption.

Information about the health effects of alcohol consumption can be ambiguous (i.e., lacking in reliability, credibility, or adequacy) and thus may promote maladaptive health behavior. Guided by Construal Level Theory and a conceptual taxonomy of uncertainty in health care, we tested the hypothesis that manipulating construal level would promote adaptive responses to ambiguous health information. We examined the effects of ambiguous health information about alcohol on health cognitions, message responses, and intentions, as well as whether manipulating construal moderated these effects. Alcohol users (n = 135, Mage = 20.15, 68.9% female) were randomly assigned to either a high-level or low-level construal task and then to read either an ambiguous or unambiguous health communication about the health effects of alcohol. Participants responded similarly to ambiguous health information as they did to unambiguous health information and participants in a high-level construal did not generally report differences compared with those in a low-level construal. Findings suggest that ambiguous health information might not always lead to maladaptive effects. More research is needed to examine moderators of the relationship between ambiguous health information and health outcomes, as well as to understand how and when using construal manipulations are effective in different health contexts.

Uncertainty in healthcare and health decision making: Five methodological and conceptual research recommendations from an interdisciplinary team.

Uncertainty is prevalent in various health contexts. It is imperative to understand how health-related uncertainty can impact individuals' healthcare experiences and health decision making. The purpose of the present paper is to provide five overarching recommendations from an interdisciplinary team of experts to address gaps in the literature on health-related uncertainty. We present a case study of health-related uncertainty within the specific context of alcohol use to demonstrate these gaps and provide context for the recommendations. The five recommendations concerning health-related uncertainty include: (1) use common, consistent terminology to discuss uncertainty, (2) clarify measures of individual differences in response to uncertainty, (3) increase research on uncertainty and affect, (4) investigate the impact of the channel through which uncertainty is communicated, and (5) develop theory-driven interventions to improve uncertainty management. We conclude by reviewing health contexts in which health-related uncertainty exists and note how our recommendations complement existing reviews and data.

Psychological Impact of Ambiguous Health Messages about COVID-19.

Perceiving ambiguity in health information-that is, uncertainty elicited from believing information lacks credibility, reliability, or adequacy-is typically associated with pessimistic appraisals (e.g., high perceived disease risk) and behavioral avoidance. We examined the effect of ambiguous health information about COVID-19 on health cognitions and vaccination intentions, and tested a "normalized-uncertainty" intervention. Two studies with identical methodology (online adult sample: n = 299, undergraduate sample: n = 150) were conducted in March to April 2020. Participants were randomly assigned to read one of three health messages about COVID-19 that emphasized what was currently unknown (ambiguity condition), what was currently unknown but that scientific uncertainty is expected (intervention condition), or what was currently known (control condition). The ambiguity condition led to greater perceived ambiguity than the control condition and perceived ambiguity in the intervention condition was comparable to the ambiguity condition. There were few differences in health cognitions, and no differences in vaccination intentions, when examining pairwise comparisons across the three conditions. Correlational analyses collapsing across condition indicated evidence of pessimistic appraisal but not behavioral avoidance among individuals who perceived greater ambiguity. Future research should examine longer, more detailed normalized-uncertainty interventions.

What Drives Preventive Health Behavior During a Global Pandemic? Emotion and Worry.

BACKGROUND & PURPOSE: Primary prevention of COVID-19 has focused on encouraging compliance with specific behaviors that restrict contagion. This investigation sought to characterize engagement in these behaviors in U.S. adults early during the pandemic and to build explanatory models of the psychological processes that drive them. METHODS: US adults were recruited through Qualtrics Research Panels (N = 324; 55% female; Mage = 50.91, SD = 15.98) and completed 10 days of online reports of emotion, COVID-19 perceived susceptibility and worry, and recommended behaviors (social distancing, hand washing, etc.). Factor analysis revealed behaviors loaded on two factors suggesting distinct motivational orientations: approach and avoidance. RESULTS: Changes in approach and avoidance behaviors over the 10 days indicated large individual differences consistent with three types of participants. Discrete emotions, including fear, guilt/shame, and happiness were associated with more recommended behaviors. Fear and COVID-19 worry indirectly influenced each other to facilitate more behavioral engagement. While emotions and worry strongly predicted individual differences in behavior across the 10 days, they did not predict as well why behaviors occurred on one day versus another. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest how daily affective processes motivate behavior, improving the understanding of compliance and efforts to target behaviors as primary prevention of disease.

Math matters: A novel, brief educational intervention decreases whole number bias when reasoning about COVID-19.

At the onset of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) global pandemic, our interdisciplinary team hypothesized that a mathematical misconception-whole number bias (WNB)-contributed to beliefs that COVID-19 was less fatal than the flu. We created a brief online educational intervention for adults, leveraging evidence-based cognitive science research, to promote accurate understanding of rational numbers related to COVID-19. Participants from a Qualtrics panel (N = 1,297; 75% White) were randomly assigned to an intervention or control condition, solved health-related math problems, and subsequently completed 10 days of daily diaries in which health cognitions and affect were assessed. Participants who engaged with the intervention, relative to those in the control condition, were more accurate and less likely to explicitly mention WNB errors in their strategy reports as they solved COVID-19-related math problems. Math anxiety was positively associated with risk perceptions, worry, and negative affect immediately after the intervention and across the daily diaries. These results extend the benefits of worked examples in a practically relevant domain. Ameliorating WNB errors could not only help people think more accurately about COVID-19 statistics expressed as rational numbers, but also about novel future health crises, or any other context that involves information expressed as rational numbers. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Evidence that perceptions of and tolerance for medical ambiguity are distinct constructs: An analysis of nationally representative US data.

BACKGROUND: Medical information is often conflicting and consequently perceived as ambiguous. There are individual differences both in how much people perceive ambiguity and in their tolerance for such ambiguity. Little is known about how these constructs are related to each other and with other beliefs. OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between (a) perceived medical ambiguity, (b) tolerance for medical ambiguity and (c) their associations with various medical and cancer-specific judgement and decision-making correlates. METHOD AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted secondary data analyses using the cross-sectional, nationally representative Health Information National Trends Survey 4, Cycle 4 (n = 3,433, 51.0% female, Mage  = 46.5). Analyses statistically controlled for age, sex, race, education and health-care coverage. MAIN VARIABLES STUDIED: Perceived medical ambiguity, tolerance for medical ambiguity, cancer perceptions, health-care experiences and preferences, and information-seeking styles and beliefs. RESULTS: Perceived medical ambiguity and tolerance for medical ambiguity were statistically independent. Higher perceived ambiguity was associated with lower perceived cancer preventability, lower reliance on doctors, lower perceived health and information-seeking self-efficacy, lower perceived quality of the cancer information-seeking process, and greater cancer information avoidance. Lower tolerance for ambiguity was associated with lower cancer worry, lower trust in doctors, lower likelihood of seeking health information, and lower engagement in medical research. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Perceived medical ambiguity and tolerance for medical ambiguity seem to be distinct constructs. Findings have implications for how people make medical decisions when they perceive and prefer to avoid conflicting medical information.

Adapting a self-affirmation intervention for use in a mobile application for smokers.

Self-affirmation interventions can reduce defensive responses to threats to the self, but have had limited reach to the general population. We sought to create an effective and feasible version of the Kindness Questionnaire self-affirmation intervention for use on a mobile device outside the traditional university laboratory setting and by non-student participants. In an online experiment, 603 cigarette smokers (Mage= 37.5 years, SD = 10.2) were randomly assigned to one of six conditions in a 2 (Self-Affirmation: Self-Affirmation, No Self-Affirmation Control) × 3 (Example Type: Written, Imagined, No Examples) fully-crossed design. Participants read a message about the health harms of smoking. None of the self-affirmation variations were effective or feasible: the self-affirmation showed null effects on the primary outcomes of message acceptance, perceived message effectiveness, and reactance. It also backfired by reducing intentions to quit smoking and risk perceptions. Participants spent little time reading the health message, and those in the written self-affirmation condition infrequently provided detailed responses. Translating interventions developed and tested for efficacy in laboratory settings to "real-world" settings is necessary but challenging.