Communicating statistics is challenging and fraught with mis-contextualization and causal misattributions. Can we train the public against statistical misrepresentations? Pre-emptive interventions against misinformation primarily include literacy tips/training and inoculation. In theory, inoculation has an additional motivational component (forewarning). However, forewarning has not been directly tested against literacy interventions, calling into question inoculation’s distinction. We critique the theoretical boundary work and compare these informational and motivational interventions in the context of health statistics. The longitudinal experiment compared the effects of interventions on processing accurate and inaccurate statistics about COVID-19 vaccines and/or genetically modified organisms across digital platforms. Both interventions prevented an elevation in risk perceptions following exposure to statistical misinformation at a later time. However, literacy intervention increased risk perceptions following exposure to accurate statistics too, suggesting an additional benefit of forewarning. Those with high levels of pre-existing misinformation concern exhibited inoculation effects more strongly. We discuss the theoretical, empirical, and practical implications.

中文翻译：

---

识字培训与心理接种？解释和比较以信息为主和以动机为主的干预措施对卫生统计数据处理的影响


传达统计数据具有挑战性，并且充满了错误的语境和因果错误归因。我们能否培训公众反对统计误报？针对错误信息的先发制人的干预措施主要包括识字提示/培训和预防接种。理论上，接种还有一个额外的动机成分（预警）。然而，预警尚未针对扫盲干预措施进行直接测试，这引发了对预防接种的区别的质疑。我们批评理论边界工作，并在健康统计背景下比较这些信息和动机干预措施。这项纵向实验比较了干预措施对跨数字平台处理有关 COVID-19 疫苗和/或转基因生物的准确和不准确统计数据的影响。这两种干预措施都防止了后来接触统计错误信息后风险认知的上升。然而，扫盲干预在接触准确的统计数据后也增加了风险认知，这表明预警的额外好处。那些对错误信息存在高度担忧的人表现出更强烈的接种效应。我们讨论理论、经验和实践的意义。