ABSTRACT
A plethora of research has highlighted that trust in science, political trust, and conspiracy theories are all important contributors to vaccine uptake behavior. In the current investigation, relying on data from 17 countries (N = 30,096) from the European Social Survey we examined how those who received (and wanted to receive the COVID-19 vaccine) compared to those who did not differ in their trust in: science, politicians and political parties, international organizations and towards people in general. We also examined whether they differed in how much they believed in conspiracy theories. Those who received (or wanted to receive) the COVID vaccine scored significantly higher in all forms of trust, and lower in conspiracy theory beliefs. A logistic regression suggested that trust in science, politicians, international organizations, as well as belief in conspiracy theories were significant predictors, even after accounting for key demographic characteristics.
ABSTRACT
Conservative religious ideologies have been linked to vaccine hesitancy. Yet, little is known about how paranormal beliefs relate to vaccine confidence and uptake. We hypothesize that paranormal beliefs will be negatively related to both confidence and uptake due to their association with lower levels of trust in science and a greater acceptance of conspiratorial beliefs. We test this hypothesis using a new nationally representative sample of U.S. adults fielded in May and June of 2021 by NORC. Using regression models with a sample of 1,734, we find that paranormal beliefs are negatively associated with general vaccine confidence, COVID-19 vaccine confidence, and COVID-19 vaccine uptake. These associations are partially or fully attenuated net of trust in science and conspiratorial belief. Although not a focus of the study, we also find that Christian nationalism's negative association with the outcomes is fully accounted for by measures of trust in science and conspiratorial beliefs. [ FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Sociology of Religion is the property of Oxford University Press / USA 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.)
ABSTRACT
Low public concern about anthropogenic climate change (ACC)-due in part to distrust in the scientific community-may decrease demand for policies aimed at mitigating its deleterious effects. Encouragingly, though, recent research finds that experiences with the COVID-19 pandemic has elevated trust in scientific expertise worldwide. We explore the possibility that positive attitudes toward the medical community are "spilling over" to increase ACC acceptance via globally representative survey data from 107 countries (N = 119,088) conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. We show that trust in medical experts' handling of the COVID-19 pandemic is associated with increased ACC acceptance, worldwide. Problematically, though, we also show that the effects of trust in medical professionals is strongest in countries experiencing the most positive change in attitudes toward the scientific community, which tend to be disproportionately wealthy, and less likely to bear the unequal effects of climate change.
ABSTRACT
The COVID-19 pandemic exposed extreme divisions in the social and political structure of the United States. When health organizations recommended strategies such as physical distancing, hand hygiene, sanitation of surfaces, and isolating when sick to slow the spread of the disease, Americans appeared to divide into two factions;those who followed the public health guidance and those who persistently ignored it, often voicing perceptions of loss of freedom due to the guidance. The purpose of this quantitative study was to examine the extent to which political affiliation moderated the relationship between conspiracy mindset, trust in science, and reactance responses to COVID-19 public health protocols. The social identity approach, a blend of social identity and self-categorization theories explains the polarization in the United States to public health guidance designed to slow the spread of disease. Online surveys were administered via Survey Monkey to 220 American citizens who were active politically. Results indicated that political conservatives were significantly more likely to endorse conspiracy theories and to resist compliance with COVID-19 public health protocols. Additionally, those who distrusted science were significantly more likely to resist compliance with COVID-19 mitigation practices. Findings from this study have the potential to promote positive social change through a better understanding of the reasons for resistance to public health protocols designed to thwart the spread of COVID-19. Importantly, these results can be used to develop messaging that targets those susceptible to conspiracy beliefs and instead direct their attention to the science that informs public safety protocols in the interest of us all. . (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved)
ABSTRACT
During the coronavirus pandemic, this study aimed to investigate the impact of conspiracy beliefs on Finnish attitudes toward vaccinations in general and COVID-19 vaccinations in particular. This study was a conceptual replication in Finland of a study by Pivetti et al. (2021). Some 529 Finnish participants responded to a self-report questionnaire during the partial lockdown in Finland in spring 2020. The hypothesized relationships between variables of interest were integrated in a serial multiple mediation model via structural equation modelling. Results showed that endorsing general conspiracy beliefs directly predicted (1) general attitudes toward vaccines and (2) COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs, and indirectly predicted (3) attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccines via the serial mediation of COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs and general attitudes toward vaccines. As for the antecedents of beliefs in conspiracy theories, political orientation and moral purity predicted beliefs in COVID-19 conspiracy theories. Trust in science was inversely related to general conspiracy beliefs. As for the consequences of conspiracy beliefs, COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs directly predicted support for governmental restrictions (negatively) and the perception of informational contamination (positively).
ABSTRACT
To understand the question why people obey or break rules, different approaches have focused on different theories and subsets of variables. The present research develops a cross-theoretical approach that integrates these perspectives. We apply this in a survey of compliance with COVID-19 pandemic mitigation rules in Israel. The data reveal that compliance in this setting was shaped by a combination of variables originating from legitimacy, capacity, and opportunity theories (but not rational choice or social theories). This demonstrates the importance of moving beyond narrow theoretical perspectives of compliance, to a cross-theoretical understanding—in which different theoretical approaches are systematically integrated.
ABSTRACT
While public health crises such as the coronavirus pandemic transcend national borders, practical efforts to combat them are often instantiated at the national level. Thus, national group identities may play key roles in shaping compliance with and support for preventative measures (e.g., hygiene and lockdowns). Using data from 25,159 participants across representative samples from 21 nations, we investigated how different modalities of ingroup identification (attachment and glorification) are linked with reactions to the coronavirus pandemic (compliance and support for lockdown restrictions). We also examined the extent to which the associations of attachment and glorification with responses to the coronavirus pandemic are mediated through trust in information about the coronavirus pandemic from scientific and government sources. Multilevel models suggested that attachment, but not glorification, was associated with increased trust in science and compliance with federal COVID-19 guidelines. However, while both attachment and glorification were associated with trust in government and support for lockdown restrictions, glorification was more strongly associated with trust in government information than attachment. These results suggest that both attachment and glorification can be useful for promoting public health, although glorification's role, while potentially stronger, is restricted to pathways through trust in government information.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Humans , Pandemics/prevention & control , Communicable Disease Control , Government , HygieneABSTRACT
A group of 156 virologists, including American Society of Microbiology journal editors-in-chief, has recently published across three ASM journals a "call for rational discourse" on such important topics as the origin of SARS-CoV-2 and gain of function research (e.g., F. Goodrum et al., mBio 14:e0018823, 2023, https://doi.org/10.1128/mbio.00188-23). Here, I answer the call, arguing that the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is unknown; that continued premature downplaying of a possible laboratory origin, now accompanied by a denial that this was ever so dismissed, undermines public trust in science; and that the benefits from risky gain-of-function research-of-concern are fewer than Goodrum et al. imply.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , United States , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Pandemics , COVID-19 TestingABSTRACT
During the coronavirus pandemic, this study aimed to investigate the impact of conspiracy beliefs on Finnish attitudes toward vaccinations in general and COVID-19 vaccinations in particular. This study was a conceptual replication in Finland of a study by Pivetti et al. (2021). Some 529 Finnish participants responded to a self-report questionnaire during the partial lockdown in Finland in spring 2020. The hypothesized relationships between variables of interest were integrated in a serial multiple mediation model via structural equation modelling. Results showed that endorsing general conspiracy beliefs directly predicted (1) general attitudes toward vaccines and (2) COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs, and indirectly predicted (3) attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccines via the serial mediation of COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs and general attitudes toward vaccines. As for the antecedents of beliefs in conspiracy theories, political orientation and moral purity predicted beliefs in COVID-19 conspiracy theories. Trust in science was inversely related to general conspiracy beliefs. As for the consequences of conspiracy beliefs, COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs directly predicted support for governmental restrictions (negatively) and the perception of informational contamination (positively). (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved)
ABSTRACT
Americans who affiliate with both major political parties rapidly formed diverging attitudes about the COVID-19 pandemic. Matters of scientific concern have elicited partisan reactions in the past, but partisan divergence of opinion on those issues occurred over decades rather than months. We review evidence on factors that led to polarization of previous scientific issues in an effort to explain why reactions diverged so quickly this time around. We then use publicly available survey data to reveal that partisan reactions to the pandemic were closely associated with trust in public health institutions, that the association between partisanship and trust increased over time, and that the conflation of trust and partisanship appears to largely explain polarized reactions to COVID-19. We also investigate the hypothesis that conservative media use might explain polarization but find that the hypothesis is not supported by our data. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved)
ABSTRACT
Objectives: We aimed to predict the favor for a technocratic government in the context of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Method: We tested a multilevel mediated moderated model on the ResPOnsE COVID-19 data set (rolling cross-section design, quota sample of the Italian adult population, N = 8210, data collected from March 17 to June 16, 2021). Results: Subjective vulnerability to COVID-19 showed a positive relationship with trust in science and scientists, which, in turn, had a positive relationship with favor for a technocratic government, particularly among participants who had low trust in the Italian Parliament. The prevalence of COVID-19 (measured at Level-2, with data nested by day of data collection) also showed a positive association with favor for a technocratic government. Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic may have jeopardized representative democracy: The objective and subjective threats it triggered favor trust in science and scientists that, when combined with a low level of trust toward political institutions, fosters the desire for a technocratic government. © 2023 The Authors. Social Science Quarterly published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Southwestern Social Science Association.
ABSTRACT
Is public engagement with science deliberative and evidence-based? The public is often perceived as underprepared to use data and susceptible to partisan and emotional manipulation. Consequently, educational efforts focus on the ability to identify reliable information. We posit that effective engagement with science goes beyond this and hinges on data literacy. We leveraged the unique circumstances of COVID-19, where diverse people inundated with pandemic-related data representations in the media needed to make consequential decisions, to examine whether people use data and what factors affect such use. In a survey of a representative Israeli adult sample, participants reported their information habits and beliefs before and during COVID-19. On being presented with graphs and datasets, they answered data literacy and COVID-19-related functional reasoning assessments (e.g., would you travel abroad?). Data literacy distinguished those who incorporated data from those who did not. Yet, participants incorporated moral, social, and economic considerations at all data literacy levels, suggesting that people may be deliberative even when they do not attend to quantified data. Moreover, participants' trust in science and data interpretation competence were key factors mediating the relationship between self-efficacy in data interpretation skills and the incorporation of data in reasoning. The findings extend beyond COVID-19 to a broader understanding of the factors influencing public engagement with quantitative representations. Rather than focusing solely on remediating data interpretation, we suggest that educative efforts work on multiple fronts and that cultivating trust in science is key to a broader, more deliberative engagement with science. © 2023 The Authors. Science Education published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.
ABSTRACT
A live, virtual conference, "Driving Responsible Conduct of Research during a Pandemic," was held in April 2021, 13 months after the COVID-19 pandemic fundamentally altered the conduct of clinical research across the USA. New York was an early epicenter of the US pandemic, highlighting preexisting problems in clinical research and allowing us to assess lessons learned and to identify best practices for the future. Risks and opportunities were categorized broadly into three areas, protecting the welfare and safety of human subjects, ensuring trust in science and medicine, and implementing efficient, ethical, and compliant clinical research. Analysis of conference proceedings, and recent publications, shows a need for preparedness that is more effective, robust partnerships, and organizational systems and standards to strengthen the ethical and responsible conduct of research.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Mistrust in science and scientists may adversely influence the rate of COVID-19 vaccination and undermine public health initiatives to reduce virus transmission. METHODS: Students, staff and faculty responded to an email invitation to complete an electronic survey. Surveys included 21-items from the Trust in Science and Scientists Inventory questionnaire. Responses were coded so higher scores indicated a higher trust in science and scientists, A linear regression model including sex, age group, division, race and ethnicity, political affiliation, and history of COVID-19, was used to determine variables significantly associated with trust in science and scientists scores at the p < 0.05 level. RESULTS: Participants were mostly female (62.1%), Asian (34.7%) and White (39.5%) and students (70.6%). More than half identified their political affiliation as Democrat (65%). In the final regression model, all races and ethnicities had significantly lower mean trust in science and scientists scores than White participants [Black ([Formula: see text]= -0.42, 95% CI: -0.55, -0.43, p < 0.001); Asian ([Formula: see text]= -0.20, 95% CI: -0.24, -0.17, p < 0.001); Latinx ([Formula: see text]= -0.22, 95% CI: -0.27, -0.18, p < 0.001); Other ([Formula: see text]= -0.19, 95% CI: -0.26, -0.11, p < 0.001)]. Compared to those identifying as Democrat, all other political affiliations had significantly lower mean scores. [Republican ([Formula: see text] =-0.49, 95% CI: -0.55, -0.43, p < 0.0001); Independent ([Formula: see text] =-0.29, 95% CI: -0.33, -0.25, p < 0.0001); something else ([Formula: see text] =-0.19, 95% CI: -0.25, -0.12, p < 0.0001)]. Having had COVID-19 ([Formula: see text]= -0.10, 95% CI: -0.15, -0.06, p < 0.001) had significantly lower scores compared to those who did not have COVID-19. CONCLUSION: Despite the setting of a major research University, trust in science is highly variable. This study identifies characteristics that could be used to target and curate educational campaigns and university policies to address the COVID19 and future pandemics.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Science , Trust , Female , Humans , Male , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19 Vaccines , Faculty , Los Angeles , Pandemics , Students , UniversitiesABSTRACT
This research examines the efficacy of self-persuasion narratives (i.e., narratives that describe how a character has changed their mind about the COVID-19 vaccines) in encouraging vaccine uptake among unvaccinated African Americans. A five-condition experiment (N = 394) was conducted in June 2021. Participants viewed one of the three pro-vaccine messages (a self-persuasion narrative, a narrative without self-persuasion, or a non-narrative message) or an irrelevant message or completed a self-persuasion task. Findings supported the persuasive benefits of the self-persuasion narrative compared to the narrative without self-persuasion, actual self-persuasion, and the irrelevant message. Its advantage over the narrative without self-persuasion was mediated by increased self-referencing, affective empathy, and perceived similarity with the character. Moreover, its psychological effects were moderated by participants' trust in science. Unexpectedly, the non-narrative showed persuasive benefits compared to other intervention strategies. The theoretical implications for narrative persuasion and practical implications for vaccine promotion were discussed.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Scientists often make cognitive claims (eg, the results of their work) and normative claims (eg, what should be done based on those results). Yet, these types of statements contain very different information and implications. This randomized controlled trial sought to characterize the granular effects of using normative language in science communication. OBJECTIVE: Our study examined whether viewing a social media post containing scientific claims about face masks for COVID-19 using both normative and cognitive language (intervention arm) would reduce perceptions of trust and credibility in science and scientists compared with an identical post using only cognitive language (control arm). We also examined whether effects were mediated by political orientation. METHODS: This was a 2-arm, parallel group, randomized controlled trial. We aimed to recruit 1500 US adults (age 18+) from the Prolific platform who were representative of the US population census by cross sections of age, race/ethnicity, and gender. Participants were randomly assigned to view 1 of 2 images of a social media post about face masks to prevent COVID-19. The control image described the results of a real study (cognitive language), and the intervention image was identical, but also included recommendations from the same study about what people should do based on the results (normative language). Primary outcomes were trust in science and scientists (21-item scale) and 4 individual items related to trust and credibility; 9 additional covariates (eg, sociodemographics, political orientation) were measured and included in analyses. RESULTS: From September 4, 2022, to September 6, 2022, 1526 individuals completed the study. For the sample as a whole (eg, without interaction terms), there was no evidence that a single exposure to normative language affected perceptions of trust or credibility in science or scientists. When including the interaction term (study arm × political orientation), there was some evidence of differential effects, such that individuals with liberal political orientation were more likely to trust scientific information from the social media post's author if the post included normative language, and political conservatives were more likely to trust scientific information from the post's author if the post included only cognitive language (ß=0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.10; P=.04). CONCLUSIONS: This study does not support the authors' original hypotheses that single exposures to normative language can reduce perceptions of trust or credibility in science or scientists for all people. However, the secondary preregistered analyses indicate the possibility that political orientation may differentially mediate the effect of normative and cognitive language from scientists on people's perceptions. We do not submit this paper as definitive evidence thereof but do believe that there is sufficient evidence to support additional research into this topic, which may have implications for effective scientific communication. TRIAL REGISTRATION: OSF Registries osf.io/kb3yh; https://osf.io/kb3yh. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/41747.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Communication , Trust , Adult , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Language , Social Media , MasksABSTRACT
Scientific reasoning and trust in science are two facets of science understanding. This paper examines the contribution of science understanding, over and above analytic thinking, to the endorsement of conspiracy and pseudoscientific beliefs about COVID-19 and behavioral intentions to engage in the recommended preventive behavior. We examined the direct and indirect effects of science understanding on normative health behavior in a representative sample of the Slovak population (N = 1024). The results showed more support for the indirect pathway: individuals with a better understanding of science generally had fewer epistemically suspect beliefs and as a consequence tended to behave more in line with the evidence-based guidelines and get vaccinated. Neither scientific reasoning nor trust in science directly predicted non-compliance with preventive measures, but analytic thinking correlated positively with non-compliance with preventive measures. The strongest predictor of epistemically suspect beliefs was trust in science, which also directly predicted the intention to get vaccinated against COVID-19. Therefore, reasoning about which experts or sources to believe (second-order scientific reasoning) has become more important than directly evaluating the original evidence (first-order scientific reasoning). Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12144-023-04284-y.
ABSTRACT
COVID-19 reminded us of the importance of vaccinating for successfully overcoming health-related crises. Yet, vaccine hesitancy is still present. This study examined the impacts of conspiracy theories, perceived risk, and trust in science on COVID-19 vaccination decisiveness. The study was conducted at the end of the third wave of the pandemic, in July 2021, in Cyprus. Data were collected via an online self-administered anonymous survey using convenience and snowball sampling methods. Participants were 363 adults who completed a set of questionnaires that examined their believability in ten vaccine-related conspiracy theories, their perceived dangerousness of COVID-19, and their level of trust in science and scientists. The results suggest that (a) participants with a high conspiracy theory belief are less likely to be vaccinated, (b) participants who perceive COVID-19 as a dangerous disease are more likely to be vaccinated, and (c) participants with high trust in science are more likely to be vaccinated. The implications of the findings are discussed and can be used by public health officials in their campaigns.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Trust , Adult , Humans , Cyprus , COVID-19 Vaccines , VaccinationABSTRACT
AIMS: The study aims to investigate how trust in science, conspiratorial thinking, and religiosity affected people's declared willingness to vaccinate against COVID-19 at the onset of the vaccination program in Poland, their actual vaccination, and the consistency between intention and vaccination. METHODS: In a longitudinal design, a representative sample of 918 members of the Polish general population was polled at the beginning of the vaccination program (February 2021) and polled again after 6 months of mass vaccination (August 2021). We measured the willingness to vaccinate, actual vaccination after 6 months, and individual variables-trust in science, conspiratorial thinking and religiosity. RESULTS: The actual vaccination rate was higher than the declared intent, especially in the initially undecided and unwilling groups. Higher Trust in science and lower Conspiratorial Thinking were associated with declared intent to vaccinate and actual vaccination, while Religiosity was not clearly associated with vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: Declared willingness to vaccinate is not an effective indicator of actual vaccination. Trust in science and Conspiratorial thinking are important factors associated with vaccine hesitancy. There may be a possibility to influence those unwilling to vaccinate and that are undecided to eventually get vaccinated.
ABSTRACT
Using a network approach, we addressed in two studies interrelations among potential antecedents of vaccine intentions, related to both COVID-19 risk perception and epistemic beliefs (i.e., trust in scientists and conspiracy beliefs). In Study 1 and 2, we assessed a US (N = 994) and an international sample (N = 902) during spring and summer 2020. The network analysis reveals a complex interplay of factors where trust in scientists, the closest predictor of vaccine intention, is associated with conspiracy beliefs and danger perception. Furthermore, we found evidence for unrealistic optimism, with participants perceiving the risk of getting infected with COVID-19 as lower compared to the risk they attributed to other people. However, this bias was not associated with vaccine intention. Study 2 corroborated these results. The results call for a global change in the narrative which should highlight the epistemic authority of science in order to build a stronger trust in the scientific community. However, tackling trust in scientists needs a wider field of persuasion that includes conspiracy beliefs and risk perception factors. © Social Psychological Bulletin.All rights reserved.