Evaluating the effects of vaccine messaging on immunization intentions and behavior: Evidence from two randomized controlled trials in Vermont.

The effectiveness of vaccines in reducing child morbidity and mortality worldwide relies on public acceptance. However, relatively little is known about the effects of vaccine communication on vaccine attitudes and immunization behavior. Previous research suggests that common communication approaches may be ineffective or even counterproductive, especially among vaccine-hesitant parents. However, these studies typically rely on observational data or self-reported measures of vaccination intention. Using novel research designs, we tested the attitudinal and behavioral effects of messages encouraging vaccination in both a survey experiment conducted among a large sample of parents in Vermont who expressed hesitancy about childhood immunizations and a field experiment among parents whose children were overdue for vaccines. We find that neither a message promoting immunization as a social norm nor a message correcting common misperceptions about vaccines was measurably more effective than a standard public health message at improving parents' attitudes toward vaccines, intention to vaccinate their children, or compliance with the recommended vaccine schedule. Our results highlight the need for more research on approaches to successfully reducing vaccine hesitancy among parents.

The effects of corrective information about disease epidemics and outbreaks: Evidence from Zika and yellow fever in Brazil.

Disease epidemics and outbreaks often generate conspiracy theories and misperceptions that mislead people about the risks they face and how best to protect themselves. We investigate the effectiveness of interventions aimed at combating false and unsupported information about the Zika epidemic and subsequent yellow fever outbreak in Brazil. Results from a nationally representative survey show that conspiracy theories and other misperceptions about Zika are widely believed. Moreover, results from three preregistered survey experiments suggest that efforts to counter misperceptions about diseases during epidemics and outbreaks may not always be effective. We find that corrective information not only fails to reduce targeted Zika misperceptions but also reduces the accuracy of other beliefs about the disease. In addition, although corrective information about the better-known threat from yellow fever was more effective, none of these corrections affected support for vector control policies or intentions to engage in preventive behavior.

Explaining opposition to refugee resettlement: The role of NIMBYism and perceived threats.

One week after President Donald Trump signed a controversial executive order to reduce the influx of refugees to the United States, we conducted a survey experiment to understand American citizens' attitudes toward refugee resettlement. Specifically, we evaluated whether citizens consider the geographic context of the resettlement program (that is, local versus national) and the degree to which they are swayed by media frames that increasingly associate refugees with terrorist threats. Our findings highlight a collective action problem: Participants are consistently less supportive of resettlement within their own communities than resettlement elsewhere in the country. This pattern holds across all measured demographic, political, and geographic subsamples within our data. Furthermore, our results demonstrate that threatening media frames significantly reduce support for both national and local resettlement. Conversely, media frames rebutting the threat posed by refugees have no significant effect. Finally, the results indicate that participants in refugee-dense counties are less responsive to threatening frames, suggesting that proximity to previously settled refugees may reduce the impact of perceived security threats.

ECCO peer review--development since 1996 and future prospects.

Plant protection products have to be evaluated and authorized in the EC-Member States since 1993 in accordance with Directive 91/414/EEC. The programme for evaluating existing active substances (which were on the market before July 1993) involves several steps and stages, stretching over a period of up to formerly 10, and now 15 years. The programme is co-ordinated by the European Commission, with the assistance of the European Community Co-Ordination (ECCO)-Team since 1996. The ECCO-Team consists of two groups; one is situated at the Pesticides Safety Directorate in York (United Kingdom) and the other at the Bundesamt für Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit-BVL (Federal Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety) in Braunschweig (Germany). They provide technical and administrative support to the programme for the evaluation of active substances on behalf of the European Commission, and are responsible for the ECCO peer review programme in particular. The programme has been extremely successful, with over 160 active substances having been peer reviewed, facilitating over 100 decisions on the acceptability of those actives at Community level.