How pandemic-related changes in global attitudes toward the scientific community shape "post-pandemic" environmental opinion.

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.

Physician Trust in the News Media and Attitudes toward COVID-19.

CONTEXT: Previous research has established the importance of primary care physicians in communicating public health directives. The implicit assumption is that, because of their expertise, doctors provide accurate and up-to-date information to their patients, independent of partisan affiliation or media trust. METHODS: Using an online survey of 625 primary care physicians, this paper tests (1) whether physicians trust media outlets consistent with their partisanship and (2) whether trust in media outlets influences (a) personal concern someone in their family will get sick; (b) perceptions about the seriousness of the pandemic as portrayed in the media; and (c) trust in federal government agencies and scientists. FINDINGS: While physicians are better positioned to critically evaluate health-related news, they are subject to the same biases that influence public opinion. Physicians' partisan commitments influence media trust and media trust influences concern a family member will get sick, perceptions regarding the seriousness of the pandemic, and trust in federal government agencies and scientists. CONCLUSIONS: Physician trust in specific media outlets shapes their understanding of the pandemic and- to the extent that they trust conservative media outlets-may limit their effectiveness as health policy messengers.

Erroneous Consonance. How inaccurate beliefs about physician opinion influence COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy.

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, researchers have studied how Americans' attitudes toward health experts influence their health behaviors and policy opinions. Fewer, however, consider the potential gap between individual and expert opinion about COVID-19, and how that might shape health attitudes and behavior. This omission is notable, as discrepancies between individual and expert opinion could help explain why some Americans fail to take action to protect themselves and others from the virus. In novel demographically representative surveys of the US adult population (N = 5,482) and primary care physician subpopulations (PCPs; N = 625), we contrast the relationship between: (1) Americans' and (2) PCPs' preferences regarding who ought to be responsible for taking action to combat the spread of COVID-19, as well as (3) Americans' perceptions of PCP preferences ("PCP meta-opinion"). In the aggregate, we find that Americans are far less likely than PCPs to see a role for both private and state actors in taking action to combat COVID-19. Interestingly, though, this disjuncture is not reflected in individual-level PCP meta-opinion; as most Americans think that PCPs share their views on state and private intervention (τb = 0.44-0.49). However, this consonance is often erroneous, which we show can have problematic health consequences. Multivariate models suggest that Americans who both see little place for individual responsibility in taking action to stop viral spread and who think that PCPs share those views are significantly less likely to vaccinate against COVID-19. We conclude by discussing the public health benefits of efforts to bring public opinion in line with expert opinion.

Is cancer treatment immune from partisan conflict? How partisan communication motivates opposition to preventative cancer vaccination in the U.S

Cancer impacts the lives of Democrats, Republicans and Independents alike. While we might therefore expect cancer vaccines to have bi-partisan appeal, experiences with the COVID-19 pandemic suggest that partisan psychological attachments motivate some Americans to reject life-saving preventatives, even amid unprecedented public health threat. In a demographically representative survey of N = 1,959 US Adults, I tracked how intentions to receive preventative cancer vaccines (currently undergoing clinical trials) vary by partisan identity. I also fielded a pre-registered RCT that varied exposure to partisan/bi-partisan cancer research funding "credit claiming” messages. I find that cancer vaccines are already politically polarizing, such that Republicans are less likely than Democrats to intend to vaccinate. I conceptually replicate these findings in application to a second hypothetical vaccine for non-communicable illness;experimental preventatives for Alzheimer's disease. Critically, I find that when elite Democrats claim credit for funding cancer research, Republicans become even less likely to intend to vaccinate. Collectively, these results suggest that partisan asymmetries in vaccine uptake extends to developmental vaccines that could prevent life-threatening, non-communicable disease. [ FROM AUTHOR]

Overconfident, resentful, and misinformed: How racial animus motivates confidence in false beliefs

Objective Methods Results Conclusions We examine the role of racial resentment in motivating Americans to express confidence in misinformed beliefs on racialized scientific issues.We study survey data from the 2020 American National Election Study. We examine respondents’ endorsement of misinformation on different scientific issues and their reported confidence in these views.We find that racial resentment plays a strong role in leading Americans to hold confidently misinformed views about highly racialized policy issues (e.g., the occurrence of anthropogenic climate change or the origins of the COVID‐19 pandemic), but not on less racialized issues (e.g., childhood vaccine safety).Our work underscores the often‐overlooked importance of intergroup attitudes in shaping overconfidence and helps resolve theoretical tensions in the study of misinformation acceptance. [ FROM AUTHOR]

The Correlates & Public Health Consequences of Prospective Vaccine Hesitancy among Individuals Who Received COVID-19 Vaccine Boosters in the U.S.

Supplemental "booster" vaccines may prove vital in combating variant waves of endemic COVID-19. Given relatively low levels of booster vaccine uptake, Americans' willingness to receive a second booster shot is unclear. In a demographically representative survey of N = 3950 US adults (limited to a "boosted" subsample of N = 1551 who had not yet received a second booster), 49% [95% CI: 47, 51] of Americans report having received an initial booster shot, while just 34% [33, 36] report that they would be "very likely" to do so again. Concerns about missing work to vaccinate (-10%; B = 0.53, p = 0.05) and being unconvinced that additional boosters will be necessary (-47%; B = 2.24, p < 0.01) are significantly and negatively associated with being very likely to receive a second COVID-19 booster. These findings can help inform discussions about policies aimed at increasing vaccine uptake in the U.S., and broaden researchers' understanding of vaccine reluctance among those who might otherwise hold positive views toward vaccination.

Can a COVID-19 vaccine live up to Americans' expectations? A conjoint analysis of how vaccine characteristics influence vaccination intentions.

OBJECTIVE: A vaccine for the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) could prove critical in establishing herd immunity. While past work has documented the prevalence and correlates of vaccine refusal, I assess how a less explored topic -- properties of vaccines themselves (e.g., national origin, efficacy, risk of side effects) -- might influence vaccination intentions. This information can help public health officials preempt differential intentions to vaccinate, and inform health communication campaigns that encourage vaccine uptake. RATIONALE: Previous research suggests that Americans should be more likely to intend to vaccinate if presented with a US-made vaccine that carries a low risk of minor side effects, is highly effective, is administered in just one dose, and has spent significant time in development. METHODS: I administered a conjoint experiment (N = 5940 trials) in a demographically representative survey (N = 990) of US adults to assess how variation in vaccine properties influence self-reported public vaccination intentions. RESULTS: I find that respondents prefer vaccines that are US-made, over 90% effective, and carry a less than 1% risk of minor side effects. This is potentially problematic, as some leading vaccine candidates are produced outside the US, and/or may be more likely to produce minor side effects than respondents would otherwise prefer. Worryingly, intended vaccine refusal rates exceed 30% for a vaccine meeting these optimal characteristics. Encouragingly, though, Americans show no clear preference for vaccines administered in one dose, or developed in under a year, and do not appear to draw a distinction between weakened viral vs. mRNA-based vaccines. CONCLUSION: Americans' preferences for a novel coronavirus vaccine may be at odds with the vaccine that ultimately hits the market, posing both policy and health communication challenges for vaccination uptake.

How Right-Leaning Media Coverage of COVID-19 Facilitated the Spread of Misinformation in the Early Stages of the Pandemic in the U.S

While the role that misinformationplayed in slowing thefederal government’s response toCOVID-19is well-understood,less is known about why Americansmight accept misinformation about the virus, and how misinformation might affect trust inpublic health experts. Pollingfrom the early stages of the pandemicsuggests that many Americans are misinformed about COVID-19. In early Marchof 2020, a poll conducted by YouGov and The Economist found that 13% of Americans believed the coronavirus was a hoax, 49% believed the coronavirus was man-made, and 44% believed the threat of the coronavirus was being exaggerated for political reasons.iHowever, while COVID-19 misinformation is prevalent, it is not necessarily bi-partisan. A March 1Civiqs poll found 68% of Democrats were moderately or extremely concerned about COVID-19, but only 21% of Republicans expressed moderate or extreme concern (Badger & Quealy 2020).iiAnother Quinnipiac University poll released early in March found that roughly six in 10 Republican voters were not especially concerned that the coronavirus would disrupt their lives (Russonello 2020a).iiiFurther, there have been considerable partisan gaps with respect to how people were behaviorally responding to the crisis;e.g., washing their hands, working from home, or changing their travel plans (Stecula 2020). We expectthat variation in media coverage ofthe pandemic in its early stages mayhelp explain these partisan differences. SomeAmerican media, particularly popular right-leaning outlets and pundits,spouted hoaxes and conspiracy theories behind the pandemic:Sean Hannity said the virus was a fraud by the “deep state”trying to spread panic, manipulate the economy, and suppress dissent;Rush Limbaugh suggested the virus was a plot hatched by the Chinese to harm the U.S. economy;and Fox Business anchor Trish Regan told viewers that the worry over coronavirus “is yet another attempt to impeach the president” (Peters and Grynbaum 2020).Asdenial and disinformation exploded onright-leaningmedia outlets, manyconservativeelites correspondingly downplayed concern about the virus (Abutaleb et al. 2020;Badger & Quealy 2020;Peters, & Grynbaum 2020;Russonello 2020;Warzel 2020).