AbstractIn our society, people are often exposed to conflicting information about a scientific issue. However, our knowledge about the effects of exposure to conflicting scientific information is still highly limited. By combining paradigms of research on belief polarization and science communication, two experiments examined whether and how exposure to conflicting scientific arguments influences scientific belief change and behavioral intentions. Participants (Experiment 1, N = 102; Experiment 2, N = 115) received two conflicting arguments (favorable and unfavorable to the effects of vitamin C supplementation on the prevention and treatment of the common cold) or two nonconflicting arguments (unfavorable to and neutral on the vitamin C supplementation effects). Exposure to conflicting arguments changed participants' beliefs about the preventing and treating effects of vitamin C supplementation less than exposure to nonconflicting arguments but did not cause actual belief polarization. Compared with participants who received nonconflicting arguments, those who received conflicting arguments perceived the quality of unfavorable argument to be low and experts' opinions about the issues to be divided, resulting in modest belief change. Exposure to conflicting arguments also promoted the formation of moderate behavioral intentions to take a regular high dose of vitamin C as a result of the belief change.
Read full abstract