Helge Giese

Artificial intelligence (AI) is becoming increasingly common for health information seeking, yet many people are still skeptical of its performance. This between‐subjects online experiment tested whether informing readers that a text was produced by AI influenced their ratings in 774 participants. They were randomly assigned to read one of six brief texts and rated trustworthiness, interest, and perceived understanding, as well as intention to act upon the received information and willingness to share the information with others. Source information did not influence ratings, but only 41.5% of participants in the AI source condition noticed the source. Source awareness was associated with higher education and greater nutrition knowledge. Nutrition information produced by AI chatbots is generally seen as trustworthy, although source information is often ignored. Our research highlights critical implications for public health messaging in the digital age as consumers may not differentiate between information generated by AI versus other sources, although future research is required to assess source perceptions in AI‐generated texts in more detail.

Background: Despite clear recommendations from evidence-based guidelines to restrict tonsillectomies for adult patients with infrequent tonsillitis, adoption among German otolaryngologists remains limited. Social influences, including opinion leaders and perceived social norms across peers, may shape practitioners’ adherence to these guidelines. Therefore, this study examined how German otolaryngologists perceive peer social norms and opinion leaders regarding tonsillectomy guidelines and how these perceptions relate to their own guideline adherence. Methods: In a cross-sectional online survey ( N = 100), otolaryngologists reported their tonsillectomy practices, attitudes toward relevant guidelines, and perceptions of both peer and opinion leader behaviors. Guideline adherence was assessed via self-reported clinical decisions. Social influences were analyzed using ordinal logistic regression. Results: While most otolaryngologists reported guideline-consistent attitudes and behavior, many perceived their peers and opinion leaders as less adherent. Guideline adherence was significantly associated with individual tonsillectomy attitudes (odds ratio [OR] = 0.18, P < 0.001) and perceived opinion leader attitudes (OR = 0.33, P = 0.013) but not with perceptions of the general peer group or demographics. Limitations: The study was cross-sectional and employed a convenience sample, limiting both causal inference and generalization. Conclusions: Otolaryngologists’ perceptions of opinion leaders are significantly associated with their adherence to tonsillectomy guidelines, even beyond their own attitudes. Misperceptions about peer and leader practices may hinder guideline diffusion. Implications: Interventions targeting opinion leaders and correcting misperceptions may accelerate guideline adoption in clinical practice.

Despite scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change, political orientation is often associated with climate beliefs, and such polarization may hinder mitigation efforts. Yet, few studies directly compare politicians’ climate beliefs with those of citizens. Here, we used a large cross-national sample of politicians ( N = 714) and citizens ( N = 18,281) to explore how political orientation predicts climate beliefs and policy support in Australia, Belgium (Flanders and Wallonia), the Czech Republic, Germany, Israel, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Norway. Our results show that right-leaning politicians and citizens express weaker beliefs in anthropogenic climate change than left-leaning individuals. Ideological polarization is substantially stronger among politicians. Notably, right-leaning politicians are even less convinced about climate change than their own voters. These ideological divides are reflected in policy preferences: in both groups, belief in anthropogenic climate change statistically mediates the association between political orientation and support for mitigation policies, with markedly stronger mediation among politicians. Together, the results suggest that ideological gaps in climate beliefs, especially among politicians, may contribute to polarization in support for mitigation measures.

Background: Time-to-event outcomes from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are often communicated without clearly conveying how treatment effects evolve over time. This can limit clinicians’ ability to interpret results and support patient decision making. Methods: We conducted an online experiment with 250 German general practitioners in April 2024. Participants evaluated treatment effects presented in 4 common formats: hazard ratios, prolongation of life, restricted mean survival time (RMST), and absolute risk reduction. We assessed 1) understanding, defined as the ability to correctly compare effect sizes (small, medium, large), and 2) acceptability of each format. We also tested whether providing baseline risk information (control group outcomes) improved performance. Results: Participants’ effectiveness ratings did not differ between small, medium, and large treatment effects in any format. RMST presentations were judged less effective but more acceptable than the other formats. Providing baseline risk information did not influence effectiveness ratings or acceptance. Limitations: The use of a convenience sample may limit generalizability. Conclusions: General practitioners struggled to interpret time-to-event treatment effects across all formats. Although RMST was preferred, no format supported accurate understanding of effect size. Implications: Current approaches may not adequately support communication of time-to-event outcomes in clinical practice. More effective strategies are needed, likely combining absolute time-based measures with clear contextual information such as baseline risk. Registration: OSF 10.17605/OSF.IO/U69YM Highlights: Time-to-event outcomes from randomized trials are difficult for clinicians to interpret. General practitioners were unable to distinguish between small, medium, and large treatment effects across formats. Restricted mean survival time was preferred but did not improve understanding of time-to-event effects. Current formats do not support communication of time-to-event outcomes in clinical decision making.

Effective risk communication depends on how probabilistic information is presented, especially in applied contexts with multiple outcomes. This study examined how features of simulated experience formats—presentation format (static, passive, or active sampling) and sampling generation process (with or without replacement)—influence risk perception and decision making. In an online experiment (N = 422), participants viewed visual probability representations for two options, each with two independent outcomes, and selected their preferred option. The main outcome was adherence to the expected value maximization strategy. We also measured preference, subjective values, probability estimates, confidence, and perceived informativeness. Passive sequential sampling without replacement produced the highest adherence to expected value maximization. Static formats yielded more accurate probability estimates and were rated as more informative. Active sampling offered no additional benefits and may have imposed extra cognitive load. About half of participants followed expected value principles, highlighting the importance of structured sampling in probabilistic reasoning.

Despite scientific consensus, beliefs in human-driven climate change are often influenced by political orientation. Although this political polarization of beliefs may stall mitigation policies, few studies have investigated politicians’ beliefs in human-driven climate change compared to citizens. This study explores how political orientation affects belief in climate change and policy support among politicians (N = 714) and citizens (N = 18,281) in eight developed democracies (Australia, Belgium (Flanders and Wallonia separately), Czechia, Germany, Israel, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Norway). In all countries, we find weaker belief in human-driven climate change among right-leaning politicians and citizens. This polarization was even stronger among politicians, with right-leaning politicians showing weaker climate change beliefs than their electorate. Furthermore, these politically polarized beliefs play a crucial role in policymaking, since belief in climate change mediates the impact of political orientation on mitigation policy support among politicians. Our findings highlight the need to debias beliefs and realign politicians’ and voters’ views about climate change, especially on the right-wing, to promote mitigation action.

Effective communication of health risks in the news media is essential for enabling informed decision-making among the public. To this end, health reporting should present baseline risks alongside the potential benefits and harms of interventions, using transparent numerical formats such as absolute risks and well-defined reference classes. Public concern over unclear risk communication during the COVID-19 pandemic highlights the need to assess reporting practices and identify areas for improvement. In this study, we analyzed 1,397 news articles from three major German outlets covering pandemic-related topics. Our findings indicate that while reports on mask-wearing rarely included numbers, articles on COVID-19-related mortality and vaccination frequently did —though often in nontransparent ways. The baseline risk of mortality was often reported as raw frequencies without standardized reference classes. Additionally, articles tended to emphasize either benefits or harms of vaccination, with benefits often framed as relative risks and harms as absolute risks, complicating direct comparison. These practices may hinder readers’ ability to accurately assess risks and make informed decisions. To enhance transparency and improve public understanding, journalists need targeted training and access to tools that support evidence-based risk communication. Supporting these practices could foster more informed choices and help strengthen public trust in health reporting.

Background: Selective processing of attitude-consistent information is a substantial obstacle in convincing vaccine-skeptical people of the benefits of vaccinations. Aims: This study tests (i) which types of information are particularly prone to such selective information processing, and (ii) whether a deliberative (vs. implemental) mindset focusing on potential benefits and harms may diminish its effects. Method: 612 Mturk participants were randomized into an implemental or deliberative mindset and received a flu vaccine-skeptical narrative, a flu vaccination facts box transparently summarizing risks and benefits, and a message by the Center for Disease Prevention and Control (CDC) in favor of the flu vaccine either referring to COVID-19 or not. We tested how these variations affected the acceptance of and the willingness to share each message. Furthermore, we evaluated their impact on flu vaccination attitudes and intentions. Results: The mindset manipulation failed to diminish generally prevalent selective information processing. While vaccine-skeptics did not accept and like the CDC message referring to COVID-19 (particularly in a deliberative mindset), they generally accepted the vaccination facts box more readily compared to both CDC messages. Limitations: Future studies should particularly focus on vaccine-skeptics and experimentally test the effects of facts boxes also on vaccination attitudes and intentions. Conclusion: While mindsets were ineffective, more general and transparent information may be more likely to reach an anti-vaccine audience.

Background: Despite clear recommendations from evidence-based guidelines to restrict tonsillectomies for adult patients with infrequent tonsillitis, adoption among German otolaryngologists remains limited. Social influences, including opinion leaders and perceived social norms across peers, may shape practitioners’ adherence to these guidelines. Purpose: This study examined how German otolaryngologists perceive peer social norms and opinion leaders regarding tonsillectomy guidelines, and how these perceptions relate to their own guideline adherence. Methods: In a cross-sectional online survey (N = 100), otolaryngologists reported their tonsillectomy practices, attitudes toward relevant guidelines, and perceptions of both peer and opinion leader behaviors. Guideline adherence was assessed via self-reported clinical decisions. Social influences were analyzed using ordinal logistic regression. Results: While most otolaryngologists reported guideline-consistent attitudes and behavior, many perceived their peers and opinion leaders as less adherent. Guideline adherence was significantly associated with individual tonsillectomy attitudes (OR = 0.18, p < .001) and perceived opinion leader attitudes (OR = 0.33, p = .013), but not with perceptions of the general peer group or demographics. Conclusions: Otolaryngologists’ perceptions of opinion leaders are significantly associated with their adherence to tonsillectomy guidelines, even beyond their own attitudes. Misperceptions about peer and leader practices may hinder guideline diffusion. Interventions targeting opinion leaders and correcting misperceptions may accelerate guideline adoption in clinical practice.