The biasing role of message trustworthiness expectancies in response to exposure to conflicting health information

Conflicting information is a feature of our social environment, and there continues to be a need to explore how communicators can ethically, and effectively, communicate health risks and behaviors. Although conflicting information and ambiguity have clear conceptual connections, no work has applied long-validated knowledge about the biasing properties of ambiguity to the study of conflicting health information. Drawing from decades of social psychological and cognitive science, I test whether ambiguity, as conceptualized as the ability of a message to be open to multiple interpretations, generated from conflicting health information biases interpretations in concordance with prior source-based expectancies. Within the framework of the heuristic systematic model (HSM), I introduce the concepts of assimilation and knowledge accessibility to frame this inquiry. In today's media landscape, conflicting information is inescapable, necessitating ongoing exploration into ethical and effective communication methods regarding health risks and behaviors. While the connection between conflicting information and ambiguity is evident, previous studies have not benefitted from established knowledge regarding the biasing impact of ambiguity in the context of conflicting health information and communication research. This dissertation extends recent work by exploring the role of perceived message ambiguity in two causal sequences resulting from exposure to conflicting health information: through expectancy-based biased assimilation and expectancy-based biased processing. I applied these hypotheses in the contexts of conflicting vaping and cannabidiol (CBD) health information. Through the investigation of perceived message ambiguity in the two aforementioned causal sequences, this work aims to forge a new, interdisciplinary approach to contradictory information. A survey experiment (N = 609) tested two conditional processes in a single mediation model: (a) the conditional effect of conflicting information on attitude change through ambiguity as a function of trustworthiness expectancies and (b) the conditional effect of conflicting information on attitude change through ambiguity and processing valence as a function of trustworthiness expectancies. While the conditional process models did not uncover evidence of biased information processing according to the HSM's bias hypothesis, the findings did support the serial mediation of all variables, as well as a conditional process in the vaping sample, indicating cautious support for biased interpretation of contradictory information. This dissertation uses the results to argue for a process of additivity, an alternative process of message processing. This study has several implications. Practically, it offers evidence-based suggestions for health communicators to tackle the challenges posed by contradictory information. Theoretically, it extends existing theories on ambiguity and biased processing to the realm of health communication and contradictory information.

Name thesis:degree_name

Ph.D.

Level thesis:degree_level

Dissertation

Discipline thesis:degree_discipline

Communication

Grantor

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Year dc:date

2024

Author dc:creator

• Wilson, Samuel Reed

Contributors dc:contributor

• Quick, Brian L
• Jackson, Sally
• Bigman, Cabral
• Wise, Kevin

• Persuasion
• Communication
• Attitude Change
• Information Processing
• Bias
• Expectancies

Statement dc:rights

• Copyright 2024 Samuel Wilson

Language dc:language

en, eng

Handle dc:identifier

https://hdl.handle.net/2142/125719

OAI record oai:identifier

https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/oai-pmh?verb=GetRecord&metadataPrefix=etdms&identifier=oai%3Awww.ideals.illinois.edu%3A2142%2F125719