# No evidence for causal effects of trust in science on intentions for health-related behavior

## TL;DR

This study finds that increasing trust in science does not cause people to adopt more health-related protective behaviors.

## Contribution

The study experimentally tests and challenges the assumption that trust in science causally influences health-related behavior intentions.

## Key findings

- A correlation between trust in science and health-related protection intentions was replicated.
- Experimental manipulation of trust in science showed no causal effect on protection intentions.
- Equivalence tests and machine learning confirmed the absence of meaningful causal effects.

## Abstract

Many researchers and policymakers assume that interventions targeting trust in science will be key for promoting health-related behaviors, including in the context of curbing the spread of disease. One central finding from the past pandemic is that trust in science predicted health-related protection intentions and behaviors, such as social distancing and vaccination. Yet, it is unclear whether the observed correlation between trust in science and protection intentions does indeed imply causation. Across our studies (total N = 5311), we successfully replicated this correlation. However, when experimentally manipulating self-reported trust in science, we found no evidence for causal effects on protection intentions. This absence of meaningful effects was confirmed by equivalence tests, an internal meta-analysis (N = 3761), and a machine learning algorithm. These results question the causal importance of short-term changes in trust in science for protection intentions. Drawing the right lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic will be essential for effective future policy responses.

Does trust in science drive intentions for health-related behaviour? Across four studies employing an experimental manipulation of trust in science, no evidence emerged to support a causal link between the two.