Seite - 196 - in VULNERABLE - The Law, Policy and Ethics of COVID-19

VULNERABLE196 Fifth, be nice and be authentic. Research has found that an aggressive language style is perceived to be both less credible and less trustworthy.56 Don’t shame, ridicule, or marginalize members of the public who are looking for answers (though I have less patience for those pushing bunk for profit, brand enhancement, and ideological spin).57 In addition, messaging that comes from someone who is seen to be a unique and authentic individual—that is, not just a talking head associated with an institution—can also enhance trust, credibil- ity, and the persuasiveness of the message.58 Sixth, consider using a narrative. Humans are wired to respond to stories.59 Indeed, there is some evidence that an engaging anec- dote can overwhelm our ability to think scientifically.60 This is one reason that testimonials are such an effective strategy for marketing unproven therapies.61 But a narrative can also be used to convey sci- ence—and information about critical thinking and the scientific pro- cess62—in a way that is compelling and memorable.63 on Vaccine Safety” (2016) 21:3 Evidence Based Medicine 119, DOI: <10.1136/ ebmed-2016-110435>. 56. See Lars König & Regina Jucks, “Hot Topics in Science Communication: Aggressive Language Decreases Trustworthiness and Credibility in Scientific Debates” (2019) 28:4 Public Understanding of Science 401. See also Fisk & Dupree, supra note 52. 57. Anand Ram, “How to (Tactfully) Discourage Spread of False Pandemic Information”, CBC News (19 April 2020), online: <https://www.cbc.ca/news/can- ada/covid-19-misinformation-rumour-1.5532302>, where misinformation expert Claire Wardle notes the value of being empathetic and using words that “put yourself in the same perspective.” 58. See Lise Saffran et al, “Constructing and Influencing Perceived Authenticity in Science Communication” (2020) 15:1 PLoS ONE e0226711; Sara Reardon, “Adding a Personal Backstory Could Boost Your Scientific Credibility with the Public”, Nature Career News (2020), DOI: <10.1038/d41586-020-00857-0>. 59. Michael F Dahlstrom, “Using Narratives and Storytelling to Communicate Science with Nonexpert Audiences” (2014) 111:4 PNAS 13614. 60. Fernando Rodriguez et al, “Examining the Influence of Anecdotal Stories and the Interplay of Individual Differences on Reasoning” (2016) 22:3 Thinking & Reasoning 274 at 274: “[A]necdotal stories decreased the ability to reason scien- tifically even when controlling for education level and thinking dispositions.” 61. Bethany Hawke et al, “How to Peddle Hope: An Analysis of YouTube Patient Testimonials of Unproven Stem Cell Treatments” (2019) 12:6 Stem Cell Reports 1186. 62. See Michael F Dahlstrom & Dietram A Scheufele, “(Escaping) the Paradox of Scientific Storytelling” (2018) 16:10 PLoS Biology e2006720: “[N]arratives might have most of their power not in conveying facts or building excitement but in rebuilding the foundation of understanding scientific reasoning.” 63. For an overview of the evidence on point, see Timothy Caulfield et al, “Health Misinformation and the Power of Narrative Messaging in the Public Sphere”