Science skepticism in times of COVID-19

In the current paper, we argue that to get a better understanding of the psychological antecedents of COVID-related science skepticism, it is pivotal to review what is known about the (social) psychology of science skepticism. Recent research highlighting the role of ideologies and worldviews in shaping science skepticism can inform research questions as well as pandemic responses to COVID-19. It is likely that the antecedents of general COVID-19-related skepticism substantially overlap with the antecedents of climate change skepticism. Additionally, skepticism about a potential vaccine in particular will likely be fueled by similar worries and misperceptions to those shaping more general antivaccination attitudes, of which conspiracy thinking is particularly worth highlighting. We conclude by reflecting on how the COVID-19 crisis may shape future social-psychological research aimed at understanding trust in science and science skepticism. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved)

Transparent communication of evidence does not undermine public trust in evidence.

Does clear and transparent communication of risks, benefits, and uncertainties increase or undermine public trust in scientific information that people use to guide their decision-making? We examined the impact of reframing messages written in traditional persuasive style to align instead with recent "evidence communication" principles, aiming to inform decision-making: communicating a balance of risks and benefits, disclosing uncertainties and evidence quality, and prebunking misperceptions. In two pre-registered experiments, UK participants read either a persuasive message or a balanced and informative message adhering to evidence communication recommendations about COVID-19 vaccines (Study 1) or nuclear power plants (Study 2). We find that balanced messages are either perceived as trustworthy as persuasive messages (Study 1), or more so (Study 2). However, we note a moderating role of prior beliefs such that balanced messages were consistently perceived as more trustworthy among those with negative or neutral prior beliefs about the message content. We furthermore note that participants who had read the persuasive message on nuclear power plants voiced significantly stronger support for nuclear power than those who had read the balanced message, despite rating the information as less trustworthy. There was no difference in vaccination intentions between groups reading the different vaccine messages.

Social media behavior is associated with vaccine hesitancy.

Understanding how vaccine hesitancy relates to online behavior is crucial for addressing current and future disease outbreaks. We combined survey data measuring attitudes toward the COVID-19 vaccine with Twitter data in two studies (N 1 = 464 Twitter users, N 2 = 1,600 Twitter users) with preregistered hypotheses to examine how real-world social media behavior is associated with vaccine hesitancy in the United States (US) and the United Kingdom (UK). In Study 1, we found that following the accounts of US Republican politicians or hyper-partisan/low-quality news sites were associated with lower confidence in the COVID-19 vaccine-even when controlling for key demographics such as self-reported political ideology and education. US right-wing influencers (e.g. Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson) had followers with the lowest confidence in the vaccine. Network analysis revealed that participants who were low and high in vaccine confidence separated into two distinct communities (or "echo chambers"), and centrality in the more right-wing community was associated with vaccine hesitancy in the US, but not in the UK. In Study 2, we found that one's likelihood of not getting the vaccine was associated with retweeting and favoriting low-quality news websites on Twitter. Altogether, we show that vaccine hesitancy is associated with following, sharing, and interacting with low-quality information online, as well as centrality within a conservative-leaning online community in the US. These results illustrate the potential challenges of encouraging vaccine uptake in a polarized social media environment.

Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media.

Online misinformation continues to have adverse consequences for society. Inoculation theory has been put forward as a way to reduce susceptibility to misinformation by informing people about how they might be misinformed, but its scalability has been elusive both at a theoretical level and a practical level. We developed five short videos that inoculate people against manipulation techniques commonly used in misinformation: emotionally manipulative language, incoherence, false dichotomies, scapegoating, and ad hominem attacks. In seven preregistered studies, i.e., six randomized controlled studies (n = 6464) and an ecologically valid field study on YouTube (n = 22,632), we find that these videos improve manipulation technique recognition, boost confidence in spotting these techniques, increase people's ability to discern trustworthy from untrustworthy content, and improve the quality of their sharing decisions. These effects are robust across the political spectrum and a wide variety of covariates. We show that psychological inoculation campaigns on social media are effective at improving misinformation resilience at scale.

Inoculating Against Fake News About COVID-19.

The outbreak of the SARS-CoV-2 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) has been accompanied by a large amount of misleading and false information about the virus, especially on social media. In this article, we explore the coronavirus "infodemic" and how behavioral scientists may seek to address this problem. We detail the scope of the problem and discuss the negative influence that COVID-19 misinformation can have on the widespread adoption of health protective behaviors in the population. In response, we explore how insights from the behavioral sciences can be leveraged to manage an effective societal response to curb the spread of misinformation about the virus. In particular, we discuss the theory of psychological inoculation (or prebunking) as an efficient vehicle for conferring large-scale psychological resistance against fake news.

Misinformation: susceptibility, spread, and interventions to immunize the public.

The spread of misinformation poses a considerable threat to public health and the successful management of a global pandemic. For example, studies find that exposure to misinformation can undermine vaccination uptake and compliance with public-health guidelines. As research on the science of misinformation is rapidly emerging, this conceptual Review summarizes what we know along three key dimensions of the infodemic: susceptibility, spread, and immunization. Extant research is evaluated on the questions of why (some) people are (more) susceptible to misinformation, how misinformation spreads in online social networks, and which interventions can help to boost psychological immunity to misinformation. Implications for managing the infodemic are discussed.

Prebunking messaging to inoculate against COVID-19 vaccine misinformation: an effective strategy for public health

Background Objective Method Results Conclusion Vaccination coverage needs to reach more than 80% to resolve the COVID-19 pandemic, but vaccine hesitancy, fuelled by misinformation, may jeopardize this goal. Unvaccinated older adults are not only at risk of COVID-19 complications but may also be misled by false information. Prebunking, based on inoculation theory, involves ‘forewarning people [of] and refuting information that challenges their existing belief or behavior’.To assess the effectiveness of inoculation communication strategies in countering disinformation about COVID-19 vaccines among Canadians aged 50 years and older, as measured by their COVID-19 vaccine intentions.Applying an online experiment with a mixed pre–post design and a sample size of 2500 participants, we conducted a national randomized survey among English and French-speaking Canadians aged 50 years and older in March 2021. Responses to two different disinformation messages were evaluated. Our primary outcome was the intention to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, with attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccine a secondary outcome. The McNemar test and multivariate logistic regression analysis on paired data were conducted when the outcome was dichotomized. Wilcoxon sign rank test and Kruskal–Wallis were used to test difference scores between pre- and post-tests by condition.Group comparisons between those who received only disinformation and those who received the inoculation message show that prebunking messages may safeguard intention to get vaccinated and have a protective effect against disinformation.Prebunking messages should be considered as one strategy for public health communication to combat misinformation. [ FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Journal of Communication in Healthcare is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full . (Copyright applies to all s.)

Call for papers for a Special Issue of ACP entitled: The Truth is Out There: the Psychology of Conspiracy Theories and How to Counter Them

All papers will be fully peer reviewed with publication of the full issue scheduled for later in the same year. Belief in conspiracy theories has become widespread, from COVID-19 and vaccinations to climate change and QAnon. [Extracted from the article] Copyright of Applied Cognitive Psychology is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full . (Copyright applies to all s.)

The effects of quality of evidence communication on perception of public health information about COVID-19: Two randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: The quality of evidence about the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical health interventions is often low, but little is known about the effects of communicating indications of evidence quality to the public. METHODS: In two blinded, randomised, controlled, online experiments, US participants (total n = 2140) were shown one of several versions of an infographic illustrating the effectiveness of eye protection in reducing COVID-19 transmission. Their trust in the information, understanding, feelings of effectiveness of eye protection, and the likelihood of them adopting it were measured. FINDINGS: Compared to those given no quality cues, participants who were told the quality of the evidence on eye protection was 'low', rated the evidence less trustworthy (p = .001, d = 0.25), and rated it as subjectively less effective (p = .018, d = 0.19). The same effects emerged compared to those who were told the quality of the evidence was 'high', and in one of the two studies, those shown 'low' quality of evidence said they were less likely to use eye protection (p = .005, d = 0.18). Participants who were told the quality of the evidence was 'high' showed no statistically significant differences on these measures compared to those given no information about evidence quality. CONCLUSIONS: Without quality of evidence cues, participants responded to the evidence about the public health intervention as if it was high quality and this affected their subjective perceptions of its efficacy and trust in the provided information. This raises the ethical dilemma of weighing the importance of transparently stating when the evidence base is actually low quality against evidence that providing such information can decrease trust, perception of intervention efficacy, and likelihood of adopting it.

Communicating expert consensus increases personal support for COVID-19 mitigation policies.

The Gateway Belief Model (GBM) places perception of a scientific consensus as a key "gateway cognition" with cascading effects on personal beliefs, concern, and ultimately support for public policies. However, few studies seeking to evaluate and extend the model have followed the specification and design of the GBM as originally outlined. We present a more complete test of the theoretical model in a novel domain: the COVID-19 pandemic. In a large multi-country correlational study (N = 7,206) we report that, as hypothesized by the model, perceptions of scientific consensus regarding the threat of COVID-19 predict personal attitudes toward threat and worry over the virus, which are in turn positively associated with support for mitigation policies. We also find causal support for the model in a large pre-registered survey experiment (N = 1,856): experimentally induced increases in perceived consensus have an indirect effect on changes in policy support mediated via changes in personal agreement with the consensus. Implications for the role of expert consensus in science communication are discussed.

Correlates of intended COVID-19 vaccine acceptance across time and countries: results from a series of cross-sectional surveys.

OBJECTIVE: Describe demographical, social and psychological correlates of willingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. SETTING: Series of online surveys undertaken between March and October 2020. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 25 separate national samples (matched to country population by age and sex) in 12 different countries were recruited through online panel providers (n=25 334). PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Reported willingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccination. RESULTS: Reported willingness to receive a vaccine varied widely across samples, ranging from 63% to 88%. Multivariate logistic regression analyses reveal sex (female OR=0.59, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.64), trust in medical and scientific experts (OR=1.28, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.34) and worry about the COVID-19 virus (OR=1.47, 95% CI 1.41 to 1.53) as the strongest correlates of stated vaccine acceptance considering pooled data and the most consistent correlates across countries. In a subset of UK samples, we show that these effects are robust after controlling for attitudes towards vaccination in general. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that the burden of trust largely rests on the shoulders of the scientific and medical community, with implications for how future COVID-19 vaccination information should be communicated to maximise uptake.

How Accurate Are Accuracy-Nudge Interventions? A Preregistered Direct Replication of Pennycook et al. (2020).

As part of the Systematizing Confidence in Open Research and Evidence (SCORE) program, the present study consisted of a two-stage replication test of a central finding by Pennycook et al. (2020), namely that asking people to think about the accuracy of a single headline improves "truth discernment" of intentions to share news headlines about COVID-19. The first stage of the replication test (n = 701) was unsuccessful (p = .67). After collecting a second round of data (additional n = 882, pooled N = 1,583), we found a small but significant interaction between treatment condition and truth discernment (uncorrected p = .017; treatment: d = 0.14, control: d = 0.10). As in the target study, perceived headline accuracy correlated with treatment impact, so that treatment-group participants were less willing to share headlines that were perceived as less accurate. We discuss potential explanations for these findings and an unreported change in the hypothesis (but not the analysis plan) from the preregistration in the original study.

A media intervention applying debunking versus non-debunking content to combat vaccine misinformation in elderly in the Netherlands: A digital randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: As several COVID-19 vaccines are rolled-out globally, it has become important to develop an effective strategy for vaccine acceptance, especially in high-risk groups, such as elderly. Vaccine misconception was declared by WHO as one of the top 10 health issues in 2019. Here we test the effectiveness of applying debunking to combat vaccine misinformation, and reduce vaccine hesitancy. METHODS: Participants were recruited via a daily news show on Dutch Television, targeted to elderly viewers. The study was conducted in 980 elderly citizens during the October 2020 National Influenza Vaccination Campaign. Borrowing from the recent literature in behavioural science and psychology we conducted a two-arm randomized blinded parallel study, in which participants were allocated to exposure to a video containing social norms, vaccine information plus debunking of vaccination myths (intervention group, n = 505) or a video only containing vaccine information plus social norm (control group, n = 475). Participants who viewed either of the video's and completed both a pre- and post-intervention survey on vaccination trust and knowledge, were included in the analysis. The main outcomes of this study were improvement on vaccine knowledge and awareness. FINDINGS: Participants were recruited from the 13th of October 2020 till the 16th of October 2020 and could immediately participate in the pre-intervention survey. Subsequently, eligible participants were randomly assigned to an interventional video and the follow-up survey, distributed through email on the 18th of October 2020, and available for participation till the 24th of October 2020. We found that exposure to the video with addition of debunking strategies on top of social norm modelling and information resulted in substantially stronger rejection of vaccination misconceptions, including the belief that: (1) vaccinations can cause Autism Spectrum Disorders; (2) vaccinations weaken the immune system; (3) influenza vaccination would hamper the COVID-19 vaccine efficacy. Additionally, we observed that exposure to debunking in the intervention resulted in enhanced trust in government. INTERPRETATION: Utilizing debunking in media campaigns on top of vaccine information and social norm modeling is an effective means to combat misinformation and distrust associated with vaccination in elderly, and could help maximize grounds for the acceptance of vaccines, including the COVID-19 vaccines. FUNDING: Dutch Influenza Foundation.

Inoculation theory in the post‐truth era: Extant findings and new frontiers for contested science, misinformation, and conspiracy theories

Although there has been unprecedented attention to inoculation theory in recent years, the potential of this research has yet to be reached. Inoculation theory explains how immunity to counter‐attitudinal messages is conferred by preemptively exposing people to weakened doses of challenging information. The theory has been applied in a number of contexts (e.g., politics, health) in its 50+ year history. Importantly, one of the newest contexts for inoculation theory is work in the area of contested science, misinformation, and conspiracy theories. Recent research has revealed that when a desirable position on a scientific issue (e.g., climate change) exists, conventional preemptive (prophylactic) inoculation can help to protect it from misinformation, and that even when people have undesirable positions, “therapeutic” inoculation messages can have positive effects. We call for further research to explain and predict the efficacy of inoculation theory in this new context to help inform better public understandings of issues such as climate change, genetically modified organisms, vaccine hesitancy, and other contested science beliefs such as conspiracy theories about COVID‐19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Social & Personality Psychology Compass is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Political polarization on COVID-19 pandemic response in the United States.

Despite calls for political consensus, there is growing evidence that the public response to the COVID-19 pandemic has been politicized in the US. We examined the extent to which this polarization exists among the US public across two national studies. In a representative US sample (N = 699, March 2020) we find that liberals (compared to conservatives) perceive higher risk, place less trust in politicians to handle the pandemic, are more trusting of medical experts such as the WHO, and are more critical of the government response. We replicate these results in a second, pre-registered study (N = 1000; April 2020), and find that results are similar when considering partisanship, rather than political ideology. In both studies we also find evidence that political polarization extends beyond attitudes, with liberals consistently reporting engaging in a significantly greater number of health protective behaviors (e.g., wearing face masks) than conservatives. We discuss the possible drivers of polarization on COVID-19 attitudes and behaviors, and reiterate the need for fostering bipartisan consensus to effectively address and manage the COVID-19 pandemic.