Navigating Conflicting Health Advice Amid Scientific Updates: Effects of Proactive Versus Reactive Messaging Strategies, Source Difference, and Open-Mindedness

Conflicting public-facing health recommendations can arise as scientific evidence evolves, impairing public decision-making. This web-based experimental study with a U.S. sample (N = 600) examined the effectiveness of communication strategies for presenting such conflicting recommendations, specifically proactive versus reactive messaging and source difference, in shaping message and source responses and, subsequently, behavioral intentions toward the updated recommendation. Results revealed that a proactive strategy preemptively acknowledging the possibility of future change preserved responses to the initial recommendation but carried costs once updates were introduced. A reactive strategy retrospectively explaining the change yielded limited benefits. Source difference improved responses to the updated recommendation. Some effects were moderated by open-mindedness, and message responses mediated the association between source perceptions and behavioral intentions. Together, the findings advance understanding of how individuals respond to strategic variations in communicating scientific updates and offer guidance for communicating evolving health recommendations.