Table 1.
Overview of dependent measures for Experiments 1 and 2.
Fig 1.
Infographics used in Experiment 1 showing the chance of infection or transmission of COVID-19 without and with eye protection along with information on the underlying certainty/quality of evidence levels.
The four panels are depicting the infographics used for the four experimental conditions. (A) infographic shown to participants in the High Quality of evidence condition, (B) infographic shown to participants in the Low Quality of Evidence condition, (C) infographic shown to participants in the High Certainty of Evidence condition, (D) infographic shown to participants in the Low Certainty of Evidence condition.
Table 2.
Demographic details of participants in Experiment 1.
Fig 2.
The effects of giving a cue as to the certainty/quality of evidence (QoE) behind an effectiveness estimate on people’s perceptions of the trustworthiness of the information (A), the perceived effectiveness of the intervention (B), and the likelihood of them adopting it (C).
All dependent variables were measured on 7 point Likert scales ranging from 1-low to 7-high (please see Methods section for exact wording details for all measures). The three plots show mean effects and associated 95% confidence intervals (black horizontal lines and error bars), as well as underlying observed data distributions (coloured dotted points; red/left column = observations for high QoE groups, blue/right column = observations for low QoE groups). Data for all plots is depicted collapsed across wording conditions (quality/certainty).
Table 3.
Analysis of variance results for all outcome measures (Experiment 1).
Table 4.
Post hoc results for main effects of quality of evidence level and wording (Experiment 1).
Table 5.
Quality versus certainty of evidence wording on understanding (Experiment 1).
Fig 3.
Infographics used in Experiment 2 showing the chance of infection or transmission of COVID-19 without and with eye protection (in two information presentation formats) along with information on the underlying quality of evidence levels.
The six panels depict the infographics used for the six experimental conditions. (A) infographic shown to participants in the ‘With Icon Array High Quality of Evidence’ condition, (B) ‘Without Icon Array High Quality of Evidence’ condition, (C) ‘With Icon Array Low Quality of Evidence’ condition, (D) ‘Without Icon Array Low Quality of Evidence’ condition, (E) ‘With Icon Array No Quality of Evidence’ condition, (F) ‘Without Icon Array No Quality of Evidence’ condition.
Table 6.
Demographic details of participants in Experiment 2.
Fig 4.
The effects of giving a cue as to the quality of evidence (QoE) behind an effectiveness estimate on people’s perceptions of the trustworthiness of the information (A) and the perceived effectiveness of the intervention (B).
All dependent variables were measured on 7 point Likert scales ranging from 1-low to 7-high (please see Methods section for exact wording details for all measures). The two plots show mean effects and associated 95% confidence intervals (black horizontal lines and error bars), as well as underlying observed data distributions (coloured dotted points; red/left column = observations for high QoE groups, blue/middle column = observations for low QoE groups, green/right column = observations for no QoE groups). Data for both plots is depicted collapsed across formatting conditions (with/without icon arrays).
Table 7.
Analysis of variance results for all outcome measures (Experiment 2).
Table 8.
Post hoc results for main effects of quality of evidence level and presentation format (Experiment 2).