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.
Conflicting health information, including changing guidelines, inconsistent research findings, and disagreement on how to handle these inconsistencies are rampant in the media. Presenting conflicting information is known to lower trust in institutions and scientists. However, less is known about how conflicting health information affects people’s decisions to share and seek more information. A recent study, published in Health Communication, randomized 3,920 participants to receive conflicting or non-conflicting news stories and social media posts on six health topics: breast-cancer screening, prostate-cancer screening, vitamin D supplements, carbohydrate consumption, alcohol use, and breastfeeding (DOI: 10.1080/10410236.2024.2350844). After reading the stories/posts, participants were asked how likely they would be to share and seek information on each of the topics in the next month.
What they learned: Viewing messages with conflicting information made people less likely to share or seek more information, regardless of the topic.
Why it matters: The results suggest that federal, state, and local health agencies tailor their communications strategies to reflect these trust-drivers. For example, state and local health agencies could showcase how they are delivering care with compassion, whereas federal agencies could focus on communicating their scientific credibility.
➡️Idea to steal: Communicate agreement whenever possible to avoid audience confusion. When communicating disagreement, develop a strategy to manage the negative impact it will have on your audience.
What’s next: How communicators, educators, and scientists learn to improve their strategies for sharing conflicting information with the public.
