Judgment and Decision Making (Nov 2021)

A brief forewarning intervention overcomes negative effects of salient changes in COVID-19 guidance

  • Jeremy D. Gretton,
  • Ethan A. Meyers,
  • Alexander C. Walker,
  • Jonathan A. Fugelsang,
  • Derek J. Koehler

Journal volume & issue
Vol. 16, no. 6
pp. 1549 – 1574

Abstract

Read online

During the COVID-19 pandemic, public health guidance (e.g., regarding the use of non-medical masks) changed over time. Although many revisions were a result of gains in scientific understanding, we nonetheless hypothesized that making changes in guidance salient would negatively affect evaluations of experts and health-protective intentions. In Study 1 (N = 300), we demonstrate that describing COVID-19 guidance in terms of inconsistency (versus consistency) leads people to perceive scientists and public health authorities less favorably (e.g., as less expert). For participants in Canada (N = 190), though not the U.S. (N = 110), making guidance change salient also reduced intentions to download a contact tracing app. In Study 2 (N = 1399), we show that a brief forewarning intervention mitigates detrimental effects of changes in guidance. In the absence of forewarning, emphasizing inconsistency harmed judgments of public health authorities and reduced health-protective intentions, but forewarning eliminated this effect.

Keywords