ABSTRACT
A growing body of research indicates that transparent communication of statistical uncertainty around facts and figures does not undermine credibility. However, the extent to which these findings apply in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic--rife with uncertainties--is unclear. In a large international survey experiment, (Study 1; N = 10,519) we report that communicating uncertainty around COVID-19 statistics in the form of a numeric range (vs. no uncertainty) may lead to slightly lower trust in the number presented but has no impact on trust in the source of the information. We also report the minimal impact of numeric uncertainty on trust is consistent across estimates of current or future COVID-19 statistics (Study 2) and figures relating to environmental or economic research, rather than the pandemic (Study 3). Conversely, we find imprecise statements about the mere existence of uncertainty without quantification can undermine both trust in the numbers and their source - though effects vary across countries and contexts. Communicators can be transparent about statistical uncertainty without concerns about undermining perceptions of their trustworthiness, but ideally should aim to use numerical ranges rather than verbal statements.
ABSTRACT
The success of mass COVID-19 vaccination campaigns rests on widespread uptake. However, although vaccinations provide good protection, they do not offer full immunity and while they likely reduce transmission of the virus to others, the extent of this remains uncertain. This produces a dilemma for communicators who wish to be transparent about benefits and harms and encourage continued caution in vaccinated individuals but not undermine confidence in an important public health measure. In two large pre-registered experimental studies on quota-sampled UK public participants we investigate the effects of providing transparent communication--including uncertainty--about vaccination effectiveness on decision-making. In Study 1 (n = 2,097) we report that detailed information about COVID-19 vaccines, including results of clinical trials, does not have a significant impact on beliefs about the efficacy of such vaccines, concerns over side effects, or intentions to receive a vaccine. Study 2 (n = 2,217) addressed concerns that highlighting the need to maintain protective behaviours (e.g. social distancing) post-vaccination may lower perceptions of vaccine efficacy and willingness to receive a vaccine. We do not find evidence of this: transparent messages did not significantly reduce perceptions of vaccine efficacy, and in some cases increased perceptions of efficacy. We again report no main effect of messages on intentions to receive a vaccine. The results of both studies suggest that transparently informing people of the limitations of vaccinations does not reduce intentions to be vaccinated but neither does it increase intentions to engage in protective behaviours post-vaccination.
ABSTRACT
Understanding the drivers of vaccine acceptance is crucial to the success of COVID-19 mass vaccination campaigns. Across 25 national samples from 12 different countries we examined the psychological correlates of willingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccine (total N = 25,334), with a focus on risk perception and trust in a number of relevant actors, both in general and specifically regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. Male sex, trust in medical and scientific experts and worry about the virus emerge as the most consistent predictors of reported vaccine acceptance across countries. In a subset of samples we show that these effects are robust after controlling for attitudes towards vaccination in general. 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 maximize uptake.
