Science-Consistent Climate Health Beliefs As Predictors of Climate Behaviors and Support for Provisions and a Carbon Emissions Tax.

Understanding the factors associated with acceptance of climate action is central in designing effective climate change communication strategies. An exploratory factor analysis of 12 science-consistent beliefs about the existence, causes, and consequences of climate change reveals three underlying factors: climate change [a] is real and human caused, [b] has increased the frequency of extreme weather events, and [c] negatively affects public health. In the presence of demographic, ideological, and party controls, this health factor significantly predicts a 3-6 percentage point increase in respondents' [a] willingness to advocate for climate change; [b] reported personal pro-climate behaviors; and [c] support for government policies addressing climate change.

The Politicization of Climate Science: Media Consumption, Perceptions of Science and Scientists, and Support for Policy.

Differential media treatment of climate change, including conservative media's tendency to reject the anthropogenic climate change scientific consensus, has reinforced polarized perceptions of climate change. Studies have found differences in coverage patterns and in perceptions among those relying more heavily on conservative rather than liberal or moderate media. This scholarship has been limited by narrow measurements of media exposure, climate-related outcomes, and the mechanism of effects.

What Caused the Narrowing of Black-White COVID-19 Vaccination Disparity in the US? A Test of 5 Hypotheses.

Despite differential uptake of COVID-19 vaccination between Black and non-Hispanic White Americans early in the pandemic, the gap narrowed over time. We tested five hypotheses that could explain the reduction in the disparity. Using a national probability panel of over 1800 individuals surveyed from April 2021 to July 2022, we assessed receipt of recommended doses of COVID-19 vaccines along with (a) reported exposure to deaths due to COVID-19, (b) trust in US health authorities, such as the CDC, (c) knowledge about the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccination, (d) media use as a source of information, and (e) access to COVID-19 vaccines.

Trends in U.S. public confidence in science and opportunities for progress.

In recent years, many questions have been raised about whether public confidence in science is changing. To clarify recent trends in the public's confidence and factors that are associated with these feelings, an effort initiated by the National Academies' Strategic Council for Research Excellence, Integrity, and Trust (the Strategic Council) analyzed findings from multiple survey research organizations. The Strategic Council's effort, which began in 2022, found that U.

Factors Assessing Science's Self-Presentation model and their effect on conservatives' and liberals' support for funding science.

A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of responses to 13 questions from a 2022 national probability sample of 1,154 US adults supported the existence of five factors that we argue assess perceptions of Factors Assessing Science's Self-Presentation (FASS). These factors also predict support for increasing federal funding of science and, separately, supporting federal funding of basic research. Each of the factors reflects perceptions of a key facet of scientists' self-presentation, science/scientists' adherence to professed norms, or science's benefits: specifically, that scientists are Credible, Prudent, and Unbiased and that science is Self-Correcting and Beneficial.

Protecting the integrity of survey research.

Although polling is not irredeemably broken, changes in technology and society create challenges that, if not addressed well, can threaten the quality of election polls and other important surveys on topics such as the economy. This essay describes some of these challenges and recommends remediations to protect the integrity of all kinds of survey research, including election polls. These 12 recommendations specify ways that survey researchers, and those who use polls and other public-oriented surveys, can increase the accuracy and trustworthiness of their data and analyses.

Conspiratorial thinking as a precursor to opposition to COVID-19 vaccination in the US: a multi-year study from 2018 to 2021.

Despite widespread availability of safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines in the US, only about 66% of the eligible US population had taken the recommended initial doses of the COVID-19 vaccines as of April 2022. Explanations for this hesitancy have focused on misinformation about the vaccines, lack of trust in health authorities, and acceptance of conspiracy theories about the pandemic. Here we test whether those with a conspiratorial mindset, which distrusts a wide range of institutions, were poised to reject COVID vaccines before the pandemic even began.

Religious affiliation and philosophical and moral beliefs about vaccines: A longitudinal study.

How do religious affiliation and beliefs shape vaccine attitudes and behaviors? This study examined the associations of attitudes and behaviors relevant to the flu, measles-mumps-rubella (MMR), and human-papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines with religious affiliations, as well as philosophical, spiritual, and moral beliefs. Respondents were 3005 adults from a probability-based, four-wave panel survey in the United States. Longitudinal structural equation modeling examined how religious affiliations and philosophical/moral beliefs shaped attitudes toward vaccines and actual vaccination.

The role of non-COVID-specific and COVID-specific factors in predicting a shift in willingness to vaccinate: A panel study.

Although declines in intent to vaccinate had been identified in international surveys conducted between June and October 2020, including in the United States, some individuals in the United States who previously expressed reluctance said, in spring 2021, that they were willing to vaccinate. That change raised the following questions: What factors predicted an increased willingness to inoculate against COVID-19? And, to what extent was the change driven by COVID-specific factors, such as personal worry about the disease and COVID-specific misinformation, and to what extent by background (non-COVID-specific) factors, such as trust in medical authorities, accurate/inaccurate information about vaccination, vaccination history, and patterns of media reliance? This panel study of more than 8,000 individuals found that trust in health authorities anchored acceptance of vaccination and that knowledge about vaccination, flu vaccination history, and patterns of media reliance played a more prominent role in shifting individuals from vaccination hesitance to acceptance than COVID-specific factors. COVID-specific conspiracy beliefs did play a role, although a lesser one.

Conspiratorial thinking, selective exposure to conservative media, and response to COVID-19 in the US.

Rationale: Previous research has shown that during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic in the US, users of conservative media were more likely to accept conspiracy theories about the pandemic and less likely to accept pandemic mitigation measures such as mask-wearing and vaccination.

Objective: To test the hypothesis that during the first year of the pandemic, viewers who were prone to conspiratorial thinking engaged in selective exposure to conservative media which served to enhance pandemic-related conspiracy beliefs.

Methods: A national 3-wave longitudinal survey of 883 US respondents running from March to November 2020 assessed media-use habits, belief in COVID-related conspiracies, conspiratorial thinking, mask-wearing, intention to accept a COVID vaccine, and trust in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The effects of media narratives about failures and discoveries in science on beliefs about and support for science.

This study examines the effects of exposure to media narratives about science on perceptions pertaining to the reliability of science, including trust, beliefs, and support for science. In an experiment ( = 4497), participants were randomly assigned to read stories representing ecologically valid media narratives: the honorable quest, counterfeit quest, crisis or broken, and problem explored. Exposure to stories highlighting problems reduced trust in scientists and induced negative beliefs about scientists, with more extensive effects among those exposed to the "crisis/broken" accounts and fewer for those exposed to "counterfeit" and "problem explored" stories.

Patterns of Media Use, Strength of Belief in COVID-19 Conspiracy Theories, and the Prevention of COVID-19 From March to July 2020 in the United States: Survey Study.

Background: Holding conspiracy beliefs regarding the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States has been associated with reductions in both actions to prevent the spread of the infection (eg, mask wearing) and intentions to accept a vaccine when one becomes available. Patterns of media use have also been associated with acceptance of COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs. Here we ask whether the type of media on which a person relies increased, decreased, or had no additional effect on that person's COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs over a 4-month period.

The effects of scientific messages and narratives about vaccination.

A fundamental challenge complicates news decisions about covering vaccine side effects: although serious vaccine side effects are rare, less severe ones do occur occasionally. The study was designed to test whether a side effect message could induce vaccine hesitancy and whether that could be countered by pro-vaccine messages about vaccine safety. A large (N = 2,345), nationally representative experiment was conducted by randomly exposing participants to one of six videos about the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine edited from news programs produced during the 2019 measles outbreak in the United States.

Conspiracy theories as barriers to controlling the spread of COVID-19 in the U.S.

Rationale: The COVID-19 pandemic poses extraordinary challenges to public health.

Objective: Because the novel coronavirus is highly contagious, the widespread use of preventive measures such as masking, physical distancing, and eventually vaccination is needed to bring it under control. We hypothesized that accepting conspiracy theories that were circulating in mainstream and social media early in the COVID-19 pandemic in the US would be negatively related to the uptake of preventive behaviors and also of vaccination when a vaccine becomes available.

Policy Views and Negative Beliefs About Vaccines in the United States, 2019.

To determine whether holding vaccine misconceptions, in the form of negative beliefs about vaccines, correlates with opposing governmental action at all levels designed to increase vaccination (e.g., removing personal belief and religious vaccine exemptions).

Prospective associations of regional social media messages with attitudes and actual vaccination: A big data and survey study of the influenza vaccine in the United States.

Objective: Using longitudinal methods to assess regional associations between social media posts about vaccines and attitudes and actual vaccination against influenza in the US.

Methods: Geolocated tweets from U.S.

Russian Twitter Accounts and the Partisan Polarization of Vaccine Discourse, 2015-2017.

To understand how Twitter accounts operated by the Russian Internet Research Agency (IRA) discussed vaccines to increase the credibility of their manufactured personas. We analyzed 2.82 million tweets published by 2689 IRA accounts between 2015 and 2017.

Intentions to Seek Information About the Influenza Vaccine: The Role of Informational Subjective Norms, Anticipated and Experienced Affect, and Information Insufficiency Among Vaccinated and Unvaccinated People.

When deciding whether to vaccinate, people often seek information through consequential processes that are not currently well understood. A survey of a nationally representative sample of U.S.

Signaling the trustworthiness of science.

Trust in science increases when scientists and the outlets certifying their work honor science's norms. Scientists often fail to signal to other scientists and, perhaps more importantly, the public that these norms are being upheld. They could do so as they generate, certify, and react to each other's findings: for example, by promoting the use and value of evidence, transparent reporting, self-correction, replication, a culture of critique, and controls for bias.