Search

Questions often heard echoing through classrooms are: 'Why do I need to know this?' and 'When will I use this in real life?'. Working with the Centre for Industry Education Collaboration (CIEC), the authors chose a curriculum segment that aligned with some of their own research -- microorganisms: how they can harm us, help us and how we can use them to our own advantage. The aim was to put this concept into a real-life context for the students to understand the application outside the classroom. The authors introduced the concepts of biotechnology and the development of new medicines, all within the classroom, whilst demonstrating the inclusivity and accessibility of science. The aim of this session was to encourage the children to see science as interesting and accessible. The intention was to provide an insightful and memorable experience for all, showing the importance of the scientific topics and how these can be utilised in a research laboratory.

People increasingly rely on social‐media platforms to access information; thus, understanding how platform characteristics influence belief in misinformation is important. Recent findings indicate perceived social endorsement of information (e.g., number of likes) can influence misinformation belief and correction acceptance. However, how the influence of endorsement may be modulated by concurrent disendorsement information (e.g., dislikes) is unclear. Across two experiments, we assessed the influence of relative endorsement on misinformation belief and correction acceptance. Experiment 1 exposed participants to claims and fact‐checks with a high or low likes‐to‐dislikes ratio. Experiment 2 simplified the relative‐endorsement information into a single value (i.e., a percentage). Results suggest high relative social endorsement of misinformation significantly increases misinformation belief, particularly when the endorsement information is presented as a single value. Conversely, relative endorsement had a negligible impact on correction effectiveness. This suggests perceived relative endorsement may influence belief primarily when other cues of information veracity are unavailable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Misinformation often has an ongoing effect on people's memory and inferential reasoning even after clear corrections are provided; this is known as the continued influence effect. In pursuit of more effective corrections, one factor that has not yet been investigated systematically is the narrative versus non-narrative format of the correction. Some scholars have suggested that a narrative format facilitates comprehension and retention of complex information and may serve to overcome resistance to worldview-dissonant corrections. It is, therefore, a possibility that misinformation corrections are more effective if they are presented in a narrative format versus a non-narrative format. The present study tests this possibility. We designed corrections that are either narrative or non-narrative, while minimizing differences in informativeness. We compared narrative and non-narrative corrections in three preregistered experiments (total N = 2279). Experiment 1 targeted misinformation contained in fictional event reports; Experiment 2 used false claims commonly encountered in the real world; Experiment 3 used real-world false claims that are controversial, in order to test the notion that a narrative format may facilitate corrective updating primarily when it serves to reduce resistance to correction. In all experiments, we also manipulated test delay (immediate vs. 2 days), as any potential benefit of the narrative format may only arise in the short term (if the story format aids primarily with initial comprehension and updating of the relevant mental model) or after a delay (if the story format aids primarily with later correction retrieval). In all three experiments, it was found that narrative corrections are no more effective than non-narrative corrections. Therefore, while stories and anecdotes can be powerful, there is no fundamental benefit of using a narrative format when debunking misinformation.

Reliance on misinformation often persists in the face of corrections. However, the role of social factors on people's reliance on corrected misinformation has received little attention. In two experiments, we investigated the extent to which social endorsement of misinformation and corrections influences belief updating. In both experiments misinformation and fact-checks were presented as social media posts, and social endorsement was manipulated via the number of "likes." In Experiment 1, social endorsement of the initial misinformation had a significant influence on belief; participants believed misinformation with high social endorsement more than misinformation with low endorsement. This effect was observed pre-fact-check and post-fact-check. High social endorsement of the fact-checks was associated with reduced misinformation belief; however, evidence for the persistence of this effect was mixed. These findings were replicated in Experiment 2. Our findings indicate that social endorsement can moderate our beliefs in misinformation and the fact-checks designed to correct these beliefs. General Audience Summary: Misinformation can be created and spread on social media platforms with relative ease. Additionally, unlike traditional media, common cues of information credibility, such as source expertise and trustworthiness, are often unavailable on social media platforms. As such, determining what to believe versus what to disregard can be difficult. To reduce the effort required to assess information credibility, people may rely on mental shortcuts (or heuristics). Specifically, it is well established that people often look to others, or the majority, when making decisions about what to believe and how to behave. As such, people may rely on engagement metrics on social media (e.g., the number of "likes" or "shares" a post has) to gauge information credibility. Across two experiments, we investigated how level of social endorsement (specifically, whether a social media post has a high or low number of "likes") influenced the extent to which people believed misinformation, and updated their belief based on subsequent fact-checks. We found that people had greater belief in misinformation with a high versus low level of likes, even after they received a fact-check. Further, fact-checks with a high number of likes reduced belief in misinformation more than fact-checks with a low number of likes. However, evidence for the persistence of the effect of fact-check endorsement on belief updating was mixed. These findings suggest that people may rely on engagement metrics, specifically number of likes, when appraising misinformation on social media. This influence of endorsement information may be reason for concern, particularly given that engagement information can be maliciously manipulated, and misleading and conspiratorial claims often have characteristics designed to enhance their level of endorsement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Couple therapy for depression (CTfD) is an intrinsically systemic, behaviourally‐based, interactional model. It is underused despite recommendation by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and data from Improving Access to Psychological Therapies Services (IAPTS) demonstrating its effectiveness compared with other therapies. In 2016/17, only 1,842 CTfD interventions were delivered nationally, compared with vastly greater cognitive behavioural therapy and counselling provision (NHS Digital, 2018). Depressed clients' access to CTfD is extremely restricted. IAPT CTfD service evaluation data for 81 couples indicated good outcomes for CTfD in terms of depression, anxiety and relationship satisfaction, despite mean interventions of 7.27 sessions. Recommendations for addressing the underuse of CTfD include increasing capacity through delivery targets, CTfD promotion and improved referral processes. Strengthened links between IAPTS, CTfD training courses and systemic therapists, and expanding systemic training and supervision, would support CTfD implementation and increase family inclusiveness and patient choice. Depressed clients deserve access to CTfD equivalent to individual therapies. Practitioner points: CTfD is a NICE‐recommended NHS couple therapy with equivalent effectiveness to other IAPT therapies yet is underused.A CTfD service evaluation showed good outcomes for depression, anxiety and relationship satisfaction, despite brief intervention lengths.Leadership, organisational change and training are required for IAPTS to widen patient choice and address barriers to CTfD implementation.Strengthened links between IAPTS and systemic therapists are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]