Conflicting Health Information, Perceived Scientific Consensus, and Attribution-Dependent Links with Attitudes and General Orientations Toward Science.

Perceived scientific consensus is often invoked as a key mechanism underlying the effects of conflicting health information on public responses, yet direct empirical tests remain limited. Moreover, these relationships may depend on the informational contexts in which conflicting claims are encountered and the interpretive frameworks individuals use to understand scientific disagreement. Results from a survey of Black or African American adults (N = 419), an understudied population whose relationships with health and science institutions are shaped by longstanding inequalities in access to health information and healthcare, indicate that exposure to conflicting information was positively associated with perceived scientific consensus among individuals who primarily relied on healthcare providers and family or friends for health information. This relationship was absent among those primarily relying on mass media or the Internet. The associations between perceived scientific consensus and subsequent topic-specific and general responses further varied depending on individuals' attributions for scientific disagreement. Process/competence attributions strengthened the link between perceived consensus and topic-specific attitudes but also led to stronger backlash toward health research and recommendations in general as a function of consensus perceptions. In contrast, complexity/uncertainty attributions weakened the persuasiveness of perceived consensus for topic-specific attitudes while strengthening its relationship with general trust in science. These findings highlight the importance of information ecologies and attributional lenses in shaping how audiences respond to conflicting health information.