IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v20y2023i10p5842-d1148735.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Influence of News Consumption Habits and Dispositional Traits on Trust in Medical Scientists

Author

Listed:
  • Meng Zhen Larsen

    (Global Health Policy and Data Institute, San Diego, CA 92123, USA
    S-3 Research LLC, San Diego, CA 92123, USA)

  • Michael R. Haupt

    (Global Health Policy and Data Institute, San Diego, CA 92123, USA
    Department of Cognitive Science, University of California, San Diego, CA 92093, USA)

  • Tiana McMann

    (Global Health Policy and Data Institute, San Diego, CA 92123, USA
    S-3 Research LLC, San Diego, CA 92123, USA
    Global Health Program, Department of Anthropology, University of California, San Diego, CA 92093, USA)

  • Raphael E. Cuomo

    (Global Health Policy and Data Institute, San Diego, CA 92123, USA
    Department of Anesthesiology, School of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, CA 94720, USA)

  • Tim K. Mackey

    (Global Health Policy and Data Institute, San Diego, CA 92123, USA
    S-3 Research LLC, San Diego, CA 92123, USA
    Global Health Program, Department of Anthropology, University of California, San Diego, CA 92093, USA)

Abstract

Public trust in medical institutions is essential for ensuring compliance with medical directives. However, the politicization of public health issues and the polarized nature of major news outlets suggest that partisanship and news consumption habits can influence medical trust. This study employed a survey with 858 participants and used regression analysis to assesses how news consumption habits and information assessment traits (IATs) influence trust in medical scientists. IATs included were conscientiousness, openness, need for cognitive closure (NFCC), and cognitive reflective thinking (CRT). News sources were classified on the basis of factuality and political bias. Initially, readership of liberally biased news was positively associated with medical trust ( p < 0.05). However, this association disappeared when controlling for the news source’s factuality ( p = 0.28), while CRT ( p < 0.05) was positively associated with medical trust. When controlling for conservatively biased news sources, factuality of the news source ( p < 0.05) and NFCC ( p < 0.05) were positively associated with medical trust. While partisan media bias may influence medical trust, these results suggest that those who have higher abilities to assess information and who prefer more credible news sources have a greater trust in medical scientists.

Suggested Citation

  • Meng Zhen Larsen & Michael R. Haupt & Tiana McMann & Raphael E. Cuomo & Tim K. Mackey, 2023. "The Influence of News Consumption Habits and Dispositional Traits on Trust in Medical Scientists," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(10), pages 1-13, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:10:p:5842-:d:1148735
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/10/5842/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/10/5842/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. De keersmaecker, Jonas & Roets, Arne, 2017. "‘Fake news’: Incorrect, but hard to correct. The role of cognitive ability on the impact of false information on social impressions," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 107-110.
    2. Alessandro Bessi & Mauro Coletto & George Alexandru Davidescu & Antonio Scala & Guido Caldarelli & Walter Quattrociocchi, 2015. "Science vs Conspiracy: Collective Narratives in the Age of Misinformation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(2), pages 1-17, February.
    3. Vincenzo Carrieri & Leonardo Madio & Francesco Principe, 2019. "Vaccine hesitancy and (fake) news: Quasi‐experimental evidence from Italy," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(11), pages 1377-1382, November.
    4. Shane Frederick, 2005. "Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(4), pages 25-42, Fall.
    5. Andrew M. Guess & Brendan Nyhan & Jason Reifler, 2020. "Exposure to untrustworthy websites in the 2016 US election," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 4(5), pages 472-480, May.
    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. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:2:p:484-504 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Robert M. Ross & David G. Rand & Gordon Pennycook, 2021. "Beyond “fake news†: Analytic thinking and the detection of false and hyperpartisan news headlines," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(2), pages 484-504, March.
    3. João Pedro Baptista & Anabela Gradim, 2020. "Understanding Fake News Consumption: A Review," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-22, October.
    4. Jonas R. Kunst & Aleksander B. Gundersen & Izabela Krysińska & Jan Piasecki & Tomi Wójtowicz & Rafal Rygula & Sander van der Linden & Mikolaj Morzy, 2024. "Leveraging artificial intelligence to identify the psychological factors associated with conspiracy theory beliefs online," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-17, December.
    5. Sven Grüner & Felix Krüger, 2021. "The intention to be vaccinated against COVID-19: stated preferences before vaccines were available," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(21), pages 1847-1851, December.
    6. Justin F. Landy, 2016. "Representations of moral violations: Category members and associated features," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 11(5), pages 496-508, September.
    7. Insoo Cho & Peter F. Orazem, 2021. "How endogenous risk preferences and sample selection affect analysis of firm survival," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 56(4), pages 1309-1332, April.
    8. David J. Cooper & Krista Saral & Marie Claire Villeval, 2021. "Why Join a Team?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(11), pages 6980-6997, November.
    9. Zakaria Babutsidze & Nobuyuki Hanaki & Adam Zylbersztejn, 2019. "Digital Communication and Swift Trust," Post-Print halshs-02409314, HAL.
    10. Brice Corgnet & Roberto Hernán Gonzalez & Ricardo Mateo, 2015. "Cognitive Reflection and the Diligent Worker: An Experimental Study of Millennials," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(11), pages 1-13, November.
    11. Francesco Capozza & Ingar Haaland & Christopher Roth & Johannes Wohlfart, 2021. "Studying Information Acquisition in the Field: A Practical Guide and Review," CEBI working paper series 21-15, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics. The Center for Economic Behavior and Inequality (CEBI).
    12. Luigi Guiso, 2015. "A Test of Narrow Framing and its Origin," Italian Economic Journal: A Continuation of Rivista Italiana degli Economisti and Giornale degli Economisti, Springer;Società Italiana degli Economisti (Italian Economic Association), vol. 1(1), pages 61-100, March.
    13. Breaban, Adriana & van de Kuilen, Gijs & Noussair, Charles, 2016. "Prudence, Personality, Cognitive Ability and Emotional State," Other publications TiSEM 9a01a5ab-e03d-49eb-9cd7-4, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    14. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Mjelde, James W., 2020. "Product availability in discrete choice experiments with private goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    15. Fabian Herweg & Svenja Hippel & Daniel Müller & Fabio Römeis, 2024. "Axiom Preferences and Choice Mistakes under Risk," ECONtribute Discussion Papers Series 326, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.
    16. Fuchsman, Dillon & McGee, Josh B. & Zamarro, Gema, 2023. "Teachers’ willingness to pay for retirement benefits: A national stated preferences experiment," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    17. Giulietti, Corrado & Vlassopoulos, Michael & Zenou, Yves, 2021. "When Reality Bites: Local Deaths and Vaccine Take-Up," GLO Discussion Paper Series 999, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    18. Prokudina, Elena & Renneboog, Luc & Tobler, Philippe, 2015. "Does Confidence Predict Out-of-Domain Effort?," Discussion Paper 2015-055, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    19. Jordi Brandts & Isabel Busom & Cristina Lopez-Mayan & Judith Panadés, 2023. "Images Say More than Just Words: Effectiveness of Visual and Text Communication in Dispelling the Rent-Control Misconception," CESifo Working Paper Series 10537, CESifo.
    20. Noussair, C.N. & Tucker, S. & Xu, Yilong, 2014. "A Future Market Reduces Bubbles but Allows Greater Profit for More Sophisticated Traders," Other publications TiSEM 43ded173-9eee-48a4-8a15-6, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    21. Johannes Abeler & Felix Marklein, 2017. "Fungibility, Labels, and Consumption," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 15(1), pages 99-127.

    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:20:y:2023:i:10:p:5842-:d:1148735. 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.