Effects of Prior Exposure to Conflicting Health Information on Responses to Subsequent Unrelated Health Messages

NCT04247529 | Completed

• 2 other identifiers: 2019NTLS140R21CA218054
• Study Type: interventional
• Target: 6,046
• Locations: 1 country
• Sites: 1

Brief Summary

Many population-level public health strategies-including media campaigns and other behavioral interventions, screening recommendations, and vaccination policies-rely on messaging to promote cancer prevention and control. These strategies do not take place in a vacuum; rather, they occur in the context of a broader public information environment, which is increasingly characterized by conflicting and often controversial health information. Although studies have documented that such information is prevalent, a critical question remains unanswered: does exposure to conflicting health information in people's routine interactions with the broader information environment threaten the success of message-based population-level public health strategies? And, if so, who is most susceptible to the effects of such exposure? This study will provide a rigorous empirical test of these critical answered questions, guided by two specific aims: First, to evaluate whether prior exposure to conflicting health information influences responses to subsequent unrelated and uncontested health messages, a phenomenon that has been described as "carryover effects" (Primary Aim); and second, to identify whether there are individual-level differences in how conflict affects responses to these unrelated and uncontested health messages (Secondary Aim).

Conditions

Communication Research

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (6)

• Negative affective responses

  * Participants are asked to indicate how "the ad you just saw made you feel" * 7 affective responses are randomly ordered: interested, frustrated, surprised, annoyed, distressed, optimistic, worried (response options: 1 "very slightly or not at all" to 5 "extremely")

  Up to 42 days

• Counterarguing

  • Participants are asked to indicate the extent to which they agree or disagree with 4 statements (randomly ordered; response options: 1 "strongly disagree" to 5 "strongly agree"): * "I found myself agreeing with the ad" (reverse coded) * "I thought of points that went against what the ad was saying" * "I accepted the ad's claims" (reverse coded) * "While reading the ad, I was skeptical of its claims"

  Up to 42 days

• Reactance/threat to freedom

  • Participants are asked to indicate the extent to which they agree or disagree with the following statement (response options: 1 "strongly disagree" to 5 "strongly agree"): "I felt like the ad was trying to manipulate me"

  Up to 42 days

• Other negative cognitive responses to ad claims

  • Participants are asked to indicate whether "the claims in the ad I just saw are" (randomly ordered; response options: 1 "strongly disagree" to 5 "strongly agree"): exaggerated, flawed, believable (reverse coded), reasonable (reverse coded)

  Up to 42 days

• Perceived argument strength

  • Participants are asked to indicate the extent to which they agree or disagree with 2 statements (randomly ordered; response options: 1 "strongly disagree" to 5 "strongly agree"): * "The ad was convincing" * "The ad gave me a strong reason to \[engage in the behavior specified in the ad\]"

  Up to 42 days

• Response efficacy

  • Participants are asked to respond to two items, presented in random order: * "How confident are you that there is evidence to support the ad's claims?" (1 "not confident at all" to 7 "extremely confident") * "How much do you think your health would benefit if you \[engaged in the behavior specified in the ad\]?" (1 "not at all" to 7 "extremely")

  Up to 42 days

Study Arms (2)

No exposure to conflict

PLACEBO COMPARATOR

Other: No exposure to conflicting health information

Exposure to conflict

EXPERIMENTAL

Other: Exposure to conflicting health information

Interventions

Exposure to conflicting health information OTHER

At 2 time points across a \~28-day period, participants will be exposed to news stories and social media posts about 6 health topics: mammography screening, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, Vitamin D supplementation, carbohydrate consumption, alcohol consumption, and breastfeeding. Participants in the conflict (experimental) group will have conflicting information added to these news and social media posts.

Exposure to conflict

No exposure to conflicting health information OTHER

At 2 time points across a \~28-day period, participants will be exposed to news stories and social media posts about 6 health topics: mammography screening, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, Vitamin D supplementation, carbohydrate consumption, alcohol consumption, and breastfeeding. Participants in the no conflict (comparator) group will have no conflicting information included in these news and social media posts.

No exposure to conflict

Eligibility Criteria

• Age: 18 Years+
• Sex: all
• Healthy Volunteers: Yes
• Age Groups: Adult (18-64), Older Adult (65+)

You may qualify if:

• + U.S. adults
• Members of NORC's AmeriSpeak Panel (https://amerispeak.norc.org/Pages/default.aspx)
• Able to complete web-based survey
• Able to read in English

You may not qualify if:

• None

Sponsors & Collaborators

• University of Minnesota: lead
• National Cancer Institute (NCI): collaborator

Study Sites (1)

NORC at the University of Chicago (online only)

Chicago, Illinois, 60603, United States

Location

Study Design

• Study Type: interventional
• Phase: not applicable
• Allocation: RANDOMIZED
• Masking: DOUBLE
• Who Masked: PARTICIPANT, INVESTIGATOR
• Purpose: OTHER
• Intervention Model: PARALLEL
• Sponsor Type: OTHER
• Responsible Party: SPONSOR

Study Record Dates

• First Submitted: January 16, 2020
• First Posted: January 30, 2020
• Study Start: July 20, 2020
• Primary Completion: August 31, 2020
• Study Completion: August 31, 2020
• Last Updated: November 10, 2020

Record last verified: 2020-11

Locations

US (1)