Does more science education mean less reliance on misinformation, even when people may reject health advice?

Details

Recent research has highlighted science education’s role in reducing belief in science-related misinformation and its potential positive effects on decisions and behavior. This study used the Elaboration Likelihood Model to explore how abilities and motivation interact with the peripheral and central routes of processing scientific information.

A representative sample of 500 adults completed an online questionnaire in November 2020, during the second wave of COVID-19. It focused on two COVID-19-related dilemmas involving social distancing recommendations.

The researchers first examined whether reliance on misinformation was associated with participants’ stances and the complexity of their arguments. Reliance on misinformation was associated with an intention to reject social distancing recommendations and with the use of simple arguments.

They then examined how motivation and abilities related to viewpoints and justifications. Motivation was defined as personal relevance; abilities were defined by the highest level of science education, science knowledge, and strategies for identifying misinformation. Personal relevance was associated both with an intention to reject the recommendations and with more complex arguments, suggesting that people tended to contextualize scientific knowledge rather than intend to reject it. Abilities were not associated with stance but were positively correlated with argument complexity.

Finally, the researchers examined whether motivation and abilities were associated with reliance on scientific misinformation in science-related decisions. Respondents with higher levels of science education and motivation relied less on misinformation, even though they did not necessarily intend to follow the health recommendations. The authors suggest that motivation directs people toward greater use of the central processing route and more deliberative use of information. They conclude that science education appears to affect how information is evaluated in decision-making more than the decision outcome itself.