Good, very concrete communications with examples of exactly how much of a difference an individual can make to prevent people from feeling overwhelmed and like they can't make a difference on the issue

Actually and "like I told you before"

Three of the best-known health messages are eating five portions a day of fruit and vegetables, getting 150 minutes of exercise a week and quitting smoking. But what evidence is there that these have worked?

The results lead to some useful messaging recommendations, such as active publics being more effectively moved to action through motivational frames, rather than diagnostic (i.e. problem-focused) or prognostic (i.e. solution-focused) frames.

A negatively framed message (i.e. which describes the behavior that should not be done) is more effective, at least in this context, than a positive framed message that describes the preferred behavior.

YouGov showed respondents a selection of adjectives from a list of 24 and asked them to score each on a scale from 0-10, with 0 being “very negative” and 10 being “very positive”. Compared US and UK.

Unfortunately for Mountain Dew The Scotsman didn’t include the fact that “chug” means “masturbation” in this particular part of the UK. And now, as Vice reports, the soft drink brand is being mercilessly ripped on Twitter for inadvertently telling everyone that they’re chronic masturbators. On Monday the company tweeted a .gif of a guy madly downing a bottle of Mountain Dew, with the slogan “epic thrills start with a chug”.

7 rules for conversational writing for chatbots

The next time you find yourself stating that a deal or other business outcome is “unlikely” or, alternatively, is “virtually certain,” stop yourself and ask: What percentage chance, in what time period, would I put on this outcome? Frame your prediction that way, and it’ll be clear to both yourself and others where you truly stand.

You need to show the other party that his beliefs are actually in conflict with his own values and goals, all without making him defensive. It sounds like a tall order, but Tsipurksy insists it is possible. Offering concrete examples of people who have changed their minds can help. So can suggesting that a person's previous opinion was understandable given the information he or she had at the time.

Technical experts and their peers are considered the most credible for information on social media, according to the latest 2018 Edelman Trust Barometer survey. By comparison, celebrities, corporate executives and journalists are considered far less credible.

New research finds that people tend toward appeals that aren't simply more positive or negative but are infused with emotionality, even when they're trying to sway an audience that may not be receptive to such language. The findings appear in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science

By eliminating just one word from your writing you can automatically avoid a major communication pitfall. The word? Not. Cut the Not!

In a study, people ate less meat and conserved more water when they thought those behaviors reflected how society is changing.

Comment from Daryl Mangosing who posted this on LinkedIn: To me, this isn't surprising, considering that those who take PrEP in *monogamous* relationships would be signaling that they either don't trust their primary partner OR that they themselves are having sex outside the primary relationship: "Men in monogamous relationships were significantly less likely both to think that PrEP is important for their partners and to be willing to convince their partner to use PrEP compared to men in monogamish and open relationships." Should we only focus PrEP uptake where there's a higher likelihood of success, i.e., among non-monogamous couples and not strictly monogamous couples?

Breast cancer prevention in the charedi community

https://www.k4health.org/resources/making-content-meaningful-guide-adapting-existing-global-health-content-different

Controversy in science news accounts attracts audiences and draws attention to important science issues. But sometimes covering multiple sides of a science issue does the audience a disservice. Counterbalancing a truth claim backed by strong scientific support with a poorly backed argument can unnecessarily heighten audience perceptions of uncertainty. At the same time, journalistic norms often constrain reporters to "get both sides of the story" even when there is little debate in the scientific community about which truth claim is most valid. In this study, we look at whether highlighting the way in which experts are arrayed across truth claims-a strategy we label "weight-of-evidence reporting"-can attenuate heightened perceptions of uncertainty that can result from coverage of conflicting claims. The results of our study suggest weight-of-evidence strategies can indeed play a role in reducing some of the uncertainty audiences may perceive when encountering lop-sided truth claims.

From Brian Cugelman

Parents had significantly higher odds of resisting vaccine recommendations if the provider used a participatory rather than a presumptive initiation format (adjusted odds ratio: 17.5; 95% confidence interval: 1.2–253.5). When parents resisted, 50% of providers pursued their original recommendations (eg, “He really needs these shots”), and 47% of initially resistant parents subsequently accepted recommendations when they did.

This clinical report provides information about addressing parental concerns about vaccination.

Pro-vaccine messages do not always work as intended. The effectiveness of those messages may vary depending on existing parental attitudes toward vaccines. For some parents, they may actually increase misperceptions or reduce vaccination intention.

One author has developed a practical approach to categorizing vaccine-hesitant parents into five groups, depending on the source and strength of their vaccine beliefs[9]: "Uninformed but educable" parents have been influenced by friends and relatives who have planted doubts about the safety of vaccines. They are unsure whether these messages are accurate and seek correct information and reassurance. "Misinformed but correctable" parents have heard only antivaccine messages, predominantly from media sources. They are open to provaccine messages and accurate information. "Well-read and open-minded" parents have researched pro- and antivaccine messages. They seek advice from a healthcare provider to assess the merits of the arguments and put them in a proper context. "Convinced and contented" parents have strong antivaccine views and go to the provider, sometimes owing to pressure from a family member, to listen to the other side of the argument. Although this group may change their attitudes over time, the chances of complete success are low. "Committed and missionary" parents hold firmly entrenched antivaccine views and may try and convince the provider to agree with them.

Assaults on the science behind climate change research and conservation policies are spreading from the U.S. to Europe and beyond. If this wave of “post-fact” thinking triumphs, the world will face a future dominated by pure ideology.