Communicating Seismic Risk Information: The Effect of Risk Comparisons on Risk Perception Sensitivity

Communicating seismic risk to individuals can be difficult for an institution because it involves providing technical and scientific information, including the low probability of an adverse event, that is not always easy to understand. One way to facilitate understanding of low probabilities is to provide comparisons with the probability of occurrence of other more familiar events. In a randomized trials experiment, we investigated the effect of providing individuals with a set of risk comparisons on their sensitivity to different levels of seismic risk (1 in 100, 1 in 1,000, and 1 in 10,000). The findings show that providing risk comparisons increased individual risk sensitivity to information about the likelihood of experiencing a seismic event. Our findings are explained by the evaluability hypothesis, which states that a single probability value is better understood if the recipient is given some reference data to evaluate it. Our results have implications for disaster risk communication, providing ways to increase risk awareness and, consequently, disaster prevention

Lateral reading and monetary incentives to spot disinformation about science

Peer reviewe

Countering vaccine hesitancy through medical expert endorsement

Scientists and medical experts are among the professionals trusted the most. Are they also the most suitable figures to convince the general public to get vaccinated? In a pre-registered experiment, we tested whether expert endorsement increases the effectiveness of debunking messages about COVID-19 vaccines. We monitored a sample of 2,277 people in Italy through a longitudinal study along the salient phases of the vaccination campaign. Participants received a series of messages endorsed by either medical researchers (experimental group) or by generic others (control). In order to minimise demand effects, we collected participants’ responses always at ten days from the last debunking message. Whereas we did not find an increase in vaccination behaviour, we found that participants in the experimental group displayed higher intention to vaccinate, as well as more positive beliefs about the protectiveness of vaccines. The more debunking messages the participants received, the greater the increase in vaccination intention in the experimental group compared to control. This suggests that multiple exposure is critical for the effectiveness of expert-endorsed debunking messages. In addition, these effects are significant regardless of participants’ trust toward science. Our results suggest that scientist and medical experts are not simply a generally trustworthy category but also a well suited messenger in contrasting disinformation during vaccination campaigns

The preoccupied parent: How financial concerns affect child investment choices

We examine the hypothesis that low parental investments in children may be a consequence of the adverse cognitive effects of poverty: financial worries preoccupy low-income parents with immediate concerns, shifting their attention away from stimulating parenting tasks. We test this hypothesis in an online experiment studying the purchase decisions of UK parents, including their responsiveness to financial subsidies for child development products. Both low and higher-income parents respond to a subsidy on such products, increasing their demands. However, when primed with financial worries under the same budget, low-income parents respond less to the subsidy, prioritizing instead the purchase of products addressing immediate household needs. This lower responsiveness to subsidies appears to be driven by worried parents further away from their last payday. Stronger safety nets and better alignment of financial subsidies to payday cycles may help achieve more investment and better child outcomes in poorer families

Medical Expert Endorsement Fails to Reduce Vaccine Hesitancy in U.K. Residents

ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN THE JOURNAL OF TRIAL AND ERROR: https://doi.org/10.36850/e15 In this report we outline the null findings of a pre-registered experiment on vaccine hesitancy in the United Kingdom. The experiment targeted vaccine misconceptions common among participants by presenting a correction to such claims endorsed by a group of medical experts. The experiment had the aim to increase vaccination intention and actual uptake during the 2021 COVID-19 vaccination campaign. Our results revealed that, contrary to a similar study conducted with Italian residents, our intervention was unsuccessful in changing participants’ attitudes and behaviour towards COVID-19 vaccines. The report concludes with a discussion of the potential reasons for these null findings