Conservative Media Use and Childhood COVID-19 Vaccine Information: A Test of the Contradictory Health Information Processing Model.

The Contradictory Health Information Processing (CHIP) model explains individuals' processing of conflicting health claims. Tests of the model, while highly supportive, have been experimental and have relied upon low-familiar topics. Accordingly, a survey of parents with a child aged <12 years (N = 510) was conducted to test the application of the CHIP model to the controversial issue of childhood COVID-19 vaccination; such a vaccine had not yet been approved for this age group at the time of the survey. As hypothesized, reliance upon conservative news was associated with the perception that media information contradicted official guidance to vaccinate children, which led to issue uncertainty. Issue uncertainty prompted negative appraisals and decision uncertainty. Specifically, decision uncertainty partially mediated the effect of issue uncertainty on negative appraisals of vaccination, which in turn aroused threat emotions. However, threat emotions did not predict information-seeking, as specified in the model. This result may have been due to respondents having already decided to vaccinate their child, or not - a reflection of the partisan nature of the topic and the extensive coverage it had received. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

When Media Health Stories Conflict: Test of the Contradictory Health Information Processing (CHIP) Model.

Guided by Uncertainty Management Theory, UMT, we tested a model that explicates how uncertainty arising from contradictory health information is managed through information seeking. In an online experiment, 763 U.S. adults were randomly assigned to one of three message conditions: contradictory, non-contradictory, or control. Participants in the contradictory and non-contradictory conditions answered questions about their perceptions of contradiction, issue and decision uncertainty, negative appraisals and emotions, and information-seeking intentions. They also completed measures of several moderator variables, including information overload, intolerance for uncertainty, and health self-efficacy. Baseline levels of issue and decision uncertainty were measured in the control condition. Model tenets were confirmed: perceptions of contradiction led to issue uncertainty which, in turn, prompted cognitive appraisals directly, and indirectly through increased decision uncertainty. The effects of issue and decision uncertainty on information-seeking intentions were mediated by negative appraisals and threat emotions. Individuals with high health self-efficacy and positive outcome expectations of information search were more likely to manage uncertainty through information seeking. These results support the use of the CHIP model when perceptions of contradiction and decision uncertainty need to be accounted for, while also validating UMT for its original purposes. Model refinements and implications are discussed.

Effects of public versus media responsibility messages on stigmatization of people with schizophrenia in an American adult sample.

PURPOSE: People with mental illness suffer from the consequences of stigma. Interventions to reduce stigma should focus on alternative approaches that target false beliefs toward mental disorders. The effectiveness of two messages to reduce stigma toward schizophrenia was tested: a traditional public responsibility message that attributes stigma to public misunderstandings, and an alternative media responsibility message that attributes stigma to bias in media representations. METHODS: An experiment with Americans (N = 448) randomly assigned to a public responsibility message, a media responsibility message, or a control condition. Participants in the two message conditions completed measures of guilt and reactance toward the media. Perceptions of personal responsibility and dangerousness, and social rejection intentions were assessed for all participants. RESULTS: Both messages lowered perceptions of dangerousness and social rejection intentions, relative to control. The media responsibility generated more reactance toward the media than the public responsibility approach, but not more guilt. Reactance did not mediate message effects. Perceptions of personal responsibility were reduced after exposure to the public responsibility message, but only for participants with no prior contact with mental illness. CONCLUSIONS: Both approaches reduced perceptions of dangerousness and social rejection intentions. Stigma reduction campaigns might segment the audience based on prior contact.