When freedom of choice leads to bias: How threat fosters selective exposure to health information.

Selective exposure to online health information can be ascribed to two related defense motives: the motivation to confirm one's subjective perceptions and the motivation to protect relevant parts of the self-image, such as physical integrity. Our aim was to identify how these motives come into effect in the context of a health threat (fictitious feedback on an alleged heart disease risk). In a preregistered online study with N = 763 participants, we analyzed the impact of perceived and suggested risk on the degree of bias in selecting risk-related information on a fictitious Google search results page. Applying a 2 × 2 design with the experimental factor "risk feedback" and the quasi-experimental factor "perceived risk," we formulated six hypotheses. First, we expected a main effect of perceived risk on selective exposure to information suggesting no risk, and second, we hypothesized a main effect of perceived risk on mean quality rating of information suggesting a risk. Third, we proposed a main effect of risk feedback on selective exposure to information which suggests no risk, and fourth, we proposed a main effect of risk feedback on mean quality rating of information suggesting a risk. Fifth, we expected an interaction effect between perceived and suggested risk, and sixth, we proposed an interaction effect between perceived and suggested risk in different forms for each of the four conditions on quality ratings. Only the third hypothesis was confirmed: Receiving information which suggested a health risk increased the tendency to select information denying the risk. Additional exploratory analyses revealed moderator effects of health information literacy and participant age on the aforementioned relationships. In sum, our results underline the crucial role of defense motives in the context of a suggested health threat.

Will COVID-19-related economic worries superimpose health worries, reducing nonpharmaceutical intervention acceptance in Germany? A prospective pre-registered study.

Nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPI) such as stay-at-home orders aim at curbing the spread of the novel coronavirus, SARS-COV-2. In March 2020, a large proportion of the German population supported such interventions. In this article, we analyse whether the support for NPI dwindle with economic worries superimposing virus-related worries in the months to follow. We test seven pre-registered1 hypotheses using data from the German COSMO survey (Betsch, Wieler, Habersaat, et al. 2020), which regularly monitors behavioural and psychological factors related to the pandemic. The present article covers the period from March 24, 2020 to July 7, 2020 (Ntotal  = 13,094), and, in addition, includes a validation study providing evidence for the reliability and validity of the corresponding COSMO measures (N = 612). Results revealed that virus-related worries decreased over time, whereas economic worries remained largely constant. Moreover, the acceptance of NPIs considerably decreased over time. Virus-related worries were positively associated with acceptance of NPIs, whereas this relationship was negative regarding economic worries (albeit smaller and less consistent). Unexpectedly, no interactions between virus-related worries and economic worries were found. We conclude that individual differences in virus-related and economic threat perceptions related to COVID-19 play an important role in the acceptance of NPIs.

Disentangling the process of epistemic change: The role of epistemic volition.

BACKGROUND: Many interventions on epistemic beliefs (i.e., individual beliefs about knowledge and knowing) are based on Bendixen and Rule's Integrative Model for Personal Epistemology Development. Empirically, however, the model is still insufficiently validated. This is especially true for its epistemic volition component - a will or desire to actively change one's beliefs. AIMS: To experimentally scrutinize the role of epistemic volition, we investigated (incremental) effects on epistemic change of an epistemic volition intervention. SAMPLE: 412 psychology students enrolled at German universities completed the study. METHODS: We employed a randomized pre-post design with three experimental groups that differed in the administered epistemic volition and resolvable controversies interventions. The purpose of the latter was to initiate an epistemic change process, thereby laying the foundation for the epistemic volition intervention. Both data collection and interventions were conducted online. In addition to self-report measures, we applied a complementary source evaluation task to analyse epistemic change. RESULTS: Even though we found small- to medium-sized changes in epistemic beliefs, these changes did not differ between experimental conditions. Exploratory analyses suggested, however, that source evaluation task performance might have been promoted by the epistemic volition intervention and that - across experimental groups - manipulation check measures on both interventions interacted positively. CONCLUSION: Ultimately, we failed to separate the effects that our epistemic volition intervention had on epistemic change from these of the resolvable controversies intervention. Nonetheless, our study makes some strong contributions to - and interconnects - the growing bodies of research on epistemic change and multiple source use.

Person- and Situation-Specific Factors in Discounting Science via Scientific Impotence Excuses.

Munro (2010, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00588.x) found that individuals, when confronted with belief-disconfirming scientific evidence, resist this information by concluding that the topic at hand is not amenable to scientific investigation-a scientific impotence excuse. We strived to replicate this finding and to extend this work by analyzing other factors that might lead to scientific impotence excuses. As a person-specific factor, we analyzed the role of epistemic beliefs, and as a situational factor, we focused on the contradictoriness of the evidence at hand. Three sets of hypotheses were preregistered. In an experimental 2 × 3 online study drawing on a general population sample of N = 901 participants, we first assessed our participants' prior beliefs on the effects of acupuncture versus massaging (pro acupuncture vs. no opinion). One experimental group then read fictitious empirical evidence claiming superiority of acupuncture, another group read evidence speaking against acupuncture, and a third group read conflicting evidence (i.e., a mix of pro- and contra-findings). Scientific impotence excuses were measured by a newly developed questionnaire. Our first hypothesis, which suggested that participants believing in the superiority of acupuncture would make stronger scientific impotence excuses when confronted with belief-disconfirming findings, was confirmed. A second hypothesis suggested that scientific impotence excuses would be stronger when individuals were confronted with evidence exhibiting a "nature" that contradicts their topic-specific epistemic beliefs. This hypothesis was partially supported. A third hypothesis suggested that individuals confronted with conflicting evidence would make stronger scientific impotence excuses, and this was again confirmed. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.

Why do we want health information? The goals associated with health information seeking (GAINS) questionnaire.

Objective: Individual goals of health information seeking have been widely neglected by previous research, let alone systematically assessed. The authors propose that these goals may be classified on two dimensions, namely coping focus (problem versus emotion oriented) and regulatory focus (promotion versus prevention oriented).Methods: Based on this classification, the authors developed the 16-item Goals Associated with Health Information Seeking (GAINS) questionnaire measuring the four goals 'understanding', 'action planning', 'hope' and 'reassurance' on four scales, and a superordinate general need for health information. Three studies were conducted to assess the psychometric properties of the questionnaire.Results: In the first two studies (N = 150 and N = 283), internal consistency of the scales was acceptable to very good, and all items had a satisfying discriminatory power. Factorial validity was corroborated by an acceptable model fit in confirmatory factor analyses. In the third study, which included a patient sample (N = 502), the questionnaire proved to be suitable for its target group and nomological relationships with personality as well as with situational variables providing evidence for construct validity.Conclusion: The GAINS is a reliable and valid assessment tool, which enables researchers and practitioners to identify an individual's goals related to health information seeking.