IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i10p6234-d820264.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Impact of Information Presentation and Cognitive Dissonance on Processing Systematic Review Summaries: A Randomized Controlled Trial on Bicycle Helmet Legislation

Author

Listed:
  • Benoît Béchard

    (PolitiCo, School of Psychology, Université Laval, Québec, QC G1V 0A6, Canada)

  • Joachim Kimmerle

    (Leibniz-Institut für Wissensmedien, 72076 Tübingen, Germany)

  • Justin Lawarée

    (International Observatory on the Societal Impact of AI and Digital Technology, Department of Political Science, Université Laval, Québec, QC G1V 0A6, Canada)

  • Pierre-Oliver Bédard

    (GC Experimentation Team, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, Government of Canada, Ottawa, ON K1A OR5, Canada)

  • Sharon E. Straus

    (Knowledge Translation Program, St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, ON M5B 1W8, Canada)

  • Mathieu Ouimet

    (PolitiCo, Department of Political Science, Université Laval, Québec, QC G1V 0A6, Canada)

Abstract

Background : Summaries of systematic reviews are a reference method for the dissemination of research evidence on the effectiveness of public health interventions beyond the scientific community. Motivated reasoning and cognitive dissonance may interfere with readers’ ability to process the information included in such summaries. Methods : We conducted a web experiment on a panel of university-educated North Americans ( N = 259) using a systematic review of the effectiveness of bicycle helmet legislation as a test case. The outcome variables were the perceived tentativeness of review findings and attitude toward bicycle helmet legislation. We manipulated two types of uncertainty: (i) deficient uncertainty (inclusion vs. non-inclusion of information on limitations of the studies included in the review) and (ii) consensus uncertainty (consensual findings showing legislation effectiveness vs. no evidence of effectiveness). We also examined whether reported expertise in helmet legislation and the frequency of wearing a helmet while cycling interact with the experimental factors. Results : None of the experimental manipulations had a main effect on the perceived tentativeness. The presentation of consensual efficacy findings had a positive main effect on the attitude toward the legislation. Self-reported expertise had a significant main effect on the perceived tentativeness, and exposing participants with reported expertise to results showing a lack of evidence of efficacy increased their favorable attitude toward the legislation. Participants’ helmet use was positively associated with their attitude toward the legislation (but not with perceived tentativeness). Helmet use did not interact with the experimental manipulations. Conclusions : Motivated reasoning and cognitive dissonance influence a reader’s ability to process information contained in a systematic review summary.

Suggested Citation

  • Benoît Béchard & Joachim Kimmerle & Justin Lawarée & Pierre-Oliver Bédard & Sharon E. Straus & Mathieu Ouimet, 2022. "The Impact of Information Presentation and Cognitive Dissonance on Processing Systematic Review Summaries: A Randomized Controlled Trial on Bicycle Helmet Legislation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(10), pages 1-17, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:10:p:6234-:d:820264
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/10/6234/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/10/6234/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rufibach, Kaspar, 2009. "reporttools: R Functions to Generate LaTeX Tables of Descriptive Statistics," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 31(c01).
    2. Jennifer Petkovic & Vivian Welch & Marie Helena Jacob & Manosila Yoganathan & Ana Patricia Ayala & Heather Cunningham & Peter Tugwell, 2018. "Do evidence summaries increase health policy‐makers' use of evidence from systematic reviews? A systematic review," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(1), pages 1-52.
    3. Edoardo Masset & Marie Gaarder & Penelope Beynon & Christelle Chapoy, 2013. "What is the impact of a policy brief? Results of an experiment in research dissemination," Journal of Development Effectiveness, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(1), pages 50-63, March.
    4. Cronin, Matthew A. & Gonzalez, Cleotilde & Sterman, John D., 2009. "Why don't well-educated adults understand accumulation? A challenge to researchers, educators, and citizens," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 108(1), pages 116-130, January.
    5. Kazuya Nakayachi & Branden B. Johnson & Kazuki Koketsu, 2018. "Effects of Acknowledging Uncertainty about Earthquake Risk Estimates on San Francisco Bay Area Residents’ Beliefs, Attitudes, and Intentions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(4), pages 666-679, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Varun Dutt & Cleotilde Gonzalez, 2013. "Enabling Eco-Friendly Choices by Relying on the Proportional-Thinking Heuristic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(1), pages 1-15, January.
    2. Hazhir Rahmandad & Nelson Repenning, 2016. "Capability erosion dynamics," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(4), pages 649-672, April.
    3. O'Keefe, Robert M., 2016. "Experimental behavioural research in operational research: What we know and what we might come to know," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 899-907.
    4. Luoma, Jukka, 2016. "Model-based organizational decision making: A behavioral lens," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 816-826.
    5. Guido A. Veldhuis & Hubert Korzilius, 2017. "Seeing with the Mind: The Relationship Between Spatial Ability and Inferring Dynamic Behaviour from Graphs," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(6), pages 710-727, November.
    6. Legovini, Arianna & Di Maro, Vincenzo & Piza, Caio, 2015. "Impact evaluation helps deliver development projects," Policy Research Working Paper Series 7157, The World Bank.
    7. Arash Baghaei Lakeh & Navid Ghaffarzadegan, 2015. "Does analytical thinking improve understanding of accumulation?," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 31(1-2), pages 46-65, January.
    8. Juliette N. Rooney-Varga & Florian Kapmeier & John D. Sterman & Andrew P. Jones & Michele Putko & Kenneth Rath, 2020. "The Climate Action Simulation," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 51(2), pages 114-140, April.
    9. Frances M. Wijnen & Yvonne G. Mulder & Stephen M. Alessi & Lars Bollen, 2015. "The potential of learning from erroneous models: comparing three types of model instruction," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 31(4), pages 250-270, October.
    10. Erik O. Sterner & Tom Adawi & U. Martin Persson & Ulrika Lundqvist, 2019. "Knowing how and knowing when: unpacking public understanding of atmospheric CO2 accumulation," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 154(1), pages 49-67, May.
    11. Navid Ghaffarzadegan & Richard C. Larson, 2018. "SD meets OR: a new synergy to address policy problems," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 34(1-2), pages 327-353, January.
    12. Strohhecker, Jürgen & Leyer, Michael, 2019. "How stock-flow failure and general cognitive ability impact performance in operational dynamic control tasks," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 276(3), pages 1044-1055.
    13. Hazhir Rahmandad & Jerker Denrell & Drazen Prelec, 2021. "What makes dynamic strategic problems difficult? Evidence from an experimental study," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(5), pages 865-897, May.
    14. Irfan Kanat & T. S. Raghu & Ajay Vinzé, 2020. "Heads or Tails? Network Effects on Game Purchase Behavior in The Long Tail Market," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 22(4), pages 803-814, August.
    15. Paul Fenton Villar & Hugh Waddington, 2019. "Within study comparisons and risk of bias in international development: Systematic review and critical appraisal," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(1-2), June.
    16. Becker, Kai Helge, 2016. "An outlook on behavioural OR – Three tasks, three pitfalls, one definition," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 806-815.
    17. David C. Lane & Birgit Kopainsky & David C. Lane, 2017. "‘Behavioural System Dynamics’: A Very Tentative and Slightly Sceptical Map of the Territory," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(4), pages 414-423, July.
    18. Arthur Kary & Guy E. Hawkins & Brett K. Hayes & Ben R. Newell, 2017. "A Bayesian latent mixture model approach to assessing performance in stock-flow reasoning," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 12(5), pages 430-444, September.
    19. Rogger, Daniel & Somani, Ravi, 2023. "Hierarchy and Information," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 219(C).
    20. Martin F. G. Schaffernicht & Stefan N. Groesser, 2016. "A competence development framework for learning and teaching system dynamics," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 32(1), pages 52-81, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:10:p:6234-:d:820264. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.