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.S. public confidence in science, the scientific community, and leaders of scientific communities is high relative to other civic, cultural, and governmental institutions for which researchers regularly collect such data. However, confidence in these institutions has fallen during the previous 5 years. Science's decline, while real, is similar to or less than that in the other groups. A recent study goes into greater detail by exploring public views of science. From these data, we observe that many of the surveyed U.S. public question the extent to which scientists share their values or overcome personal biases when presenting conclusions. At the same time, large majorities agree on certain types of actions that they want scientists to take. For example, 84% respond that it is "somewhat important" or "very important" for scientists to disclose their funders. Ninety-two percent (92%) offer the same responses to scientists "being open to changing their minds based on new evidence." Collectively, these data clarify how the U.S. public views science and scientists. They also suggest actions that can affect public confidence in science and scientists in the years to come.

Misinformation and the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.

This Viewpoint posits that to improve public understanding of the system, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) could use a more accurate name, well-defined guidance about the reporting system's nature and use, and comprehensible information about an event's verification status.

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. The FASS model explained 40.6% of the variance in support for increasing federal funding for science and 33.7% in support for basic research. For both dependent variables, conservatives were less likely to be supportive when they perceived that science/scientists fail to overcome biases. The interactions between political ideology and both Prudence and Beneficial, however, were significant only when predicting Basic Research support. In that case, there were no differences between conservatives and liberals when perceptions of benefit were low, but when high, liberals' perception of benefit had a stronger association with support for funding than conservatives'. Among those perceiving that scientists lack prudence, liberals were more likely to support funding basic research than conservatives, but the difference disappeared when perceptions of prudence were very high. The factors could serve as across-time indicators of the public's assessment of the state of science.

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. Many of these recommendations align practice with the scientific norms of transparency, clarity, and self-correction. The transparency recommendations focus on improving disclosure of factors that affect the nature and quality of survey data. The clarity recommendations call for more precise use of terms such as "representative sample" and clear description of survey attributes that can affect accuracy. The recommendation about correcting the record urges the creation of a publicly available, professionally curated archive of identified technical problems and their remedies. The paper also calls for development of better benchmarks and for additional research on the effects of panel conditioning. Finally, the authors suggest ways to help people who want to use or learn from survey research understand the strengths and limitations of surveys and distinguish legitimate and problematic uses of these methods.

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. To answer that question, we reinterviewed members of a national US panel that we had previously surveyed beginning in 2018. As hypothesized, having a conspiratorial mindset in 2019 predicted COVID-vaccination hesitancy in 2021 better than prior trust in health authorities or acceptance of vaccine misinformation. Those with the mindset were also more likely to consume media that bolstered belief in pandemic conspiracies. Research is needed on the determinants of conspiratorial mindset and ways to minimize the likelihood that consequential health decisions will be influenced by it.

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. Stronger philosophical beliefs predicted more negative attitudes toward each vaccine and stronger moral beliefs more negative attitudes toward the HPV vaccine. Negative vaccine attitudes then predicted weaker intentions to encourage others to vaccinate and lower probability of receiving a vaccine. Theoretical and public health messaging implications are discussed.

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. These findings underscore the need to reinforce trust in health experts, facilitate community engagement with them, and preemptively communicate the benefits and safety record of authorized vaccines. The findings suggest, as well, the need to identify and deploy messaging able to undercut health-related conspiracy beliefs when they begin circulating.

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). Growth curve models were used to analyze changes in conspiracy beliefs and associated public health outcomes. RESULTS: Users of conservative media were disproportionately likely to engage in conspiratorial thinking, to vote for President Trump, and to be ideologically conservative. They were also less likely to use mainstream news sources and displayed increasing belief in pandemic conspiracies. Increases in conspiracy beliefs were associated with reduced support for pandemic prevention. Although users of conservative media supported vaccination and trusted the CDC at the outset of the study, continued exposure to conservative media reduced support for both. Increasing use of mainstream print was associated with less endorsement of pandemic conspiracy beliefs. Viewers of mainstream television news did not exhibit change in pandemic conspiracy beliefs over time. CONCLUSION: Conservative media in the US have attracted users prone to conspiratorial thinking and conservative political views who are also less exposed to mainstream news. The selective use of these media enhances belief in conspiracies that pose challenges to the country's ability to control a public health crisis such as the COVID pandemic.

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 (n = 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. In the "crisis/broken" and "problem explored" conditions, we identified a three-way interaction in which those with higher trust who considered the problem-focused stories to be representative of science were more likely to believe science is self-correcting and those with lower trust who perceived the stories to be representative were less likely to report that belief. Support for funding science was not affected by the stories. This study demonstrates the detrimental consequences of media failure to accurately communicate the scientific process, and provides evidence for ways for scientists and journalists to improve science communication, while acknowledging the need for changes in structural incentives to obtain such a goal.

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. OBJECTIVE: We used panel data to explore whether use of conservative and social media in the United States, which were previously found to be positively related to holding conspiracy beliefs about the origins and prevention of COVID-19, were associated with a net increase in the strength of those beliefs from March to July of 2020. We also asked whether mainstream news sources, which were previously found to be negatively related to belief in pandemic-related conspiracies, were associated with a net decrease in the strength of such beliefs over the study period. Additionally, we asked whether subsequent changes in pandemic conspiracy beliefs related to the use of media were also related to subsequent mask wearing and vaccination intentions. METHODS: A survey that we conducted with a national US probability sample in March of 2020 and again in July with the same 840 respondents assessed belief in pandemic-related conspiracies, use of various types of media information sources, actions taken to prevent the spread of the disease and intentions to vaccinate, and various demographic characteristics. Change across the two waves was analyzed using path analytic techniques. RESULTS: We found that conservative media use predicted an increase in conspiracy beliefs (ß=.17, 99% CI .10-.25) and that reliance on mainstream print predicted a decrease in their belief (ß=-.08, 99% CI -.14 to -.02). Although many social media platforms reported downgrading or removing false or misleading content, ongoing use of such platforms by respondents predicted growth in conspiracy beliefs as well (ß=.072, 99% CI .018-.123). Importantly, conspiracy belief changes related to media use between the two waves of the study were associated with the uptake of mask wearing and changes in vaccination intentions in July. Unlike other media, use of mainstream broadcast television predicted greater mask wearing (ß=.17, 99% CI .09-.26) and vaccination intention (ß=.08, 95% CI .02-.14), independent of conspiracy beliefs. CONCLUSIONS: The findings point to the need for greater efforts on the part of commentators, reporters, and guests on conservative media to report verifiable information about the pandemic. The results also suggest that social media platforms need to be more aggressive in downgrading, blocking, and counteracting claims about COVID-19 vaccines, claims about mask wearing, and conspiracy beliefs that have been judged problematic by public health authorities.

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. METHOD: A national probability survey of US adults (N = 1050) was conducted in the latter half of March 2020 and a follow-up with 840 of the same individuals in July 2020. The surveys assessed adoption of preventive measures recommended by public health authorities, vaccination intentions, conspiracy beliefs, perceptions of threat, belief about the safety of vaccines, political ideology, and media exposure patterns. RESULTS: Belief in three COVID-19-related conspiracy theories was highly stable across the two periods and inversely related to the (a) perceived threat of the pandemic, (b) taking of preventive actions, including wearing a face mask, (c) perceived safety of vaccination, and (d) intention to be vaccinated against COVID-19. Conspiracy beliefs in March predicted subsequent mask-wearing and vaccination intentions in July even after controlling for action taken and intentions in March. Although adopting preventive behaviors was predicted by political ideology and conservative media reliance, vaccination intentions were less related to political ideology. Mainstream television news use predicted adopting both preventive actions and vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: Because belief in COVID-related conspiracy theories predicts resistance to both preventive behaviors and future vaccination for the virus, it will be critical to confront both conspiracy theories and vaccination misinformation to prevent further spread of the virus in the US. Reducing those barriers will require continued messaging by public health authorities on mainstream media and in particular on politically conservative outlets that have supported COVID-related conspiracy theories.

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. counties (N = 115,330) were analyzed using MALLET LDA (Latent Dirichlet allocation) topic modeling techniques to correlate with prospective individual survey data (N = 3005) about vaccine attitudes, actual vaccination, and real-life discussions about vaccines with family and friends during the 2018-2019 influenza season. RESULTS: Ten topics were common across U.S. counties during the 2018-2019 influenza season. In the overall analyses, two of these topics (i.e., Vaccine Science Matters and Big Pharma) were associated with attitudes and behaviors. The topic concerning vaccine science in November-February was positively correlated with attitudes in February-March, r = 0.09, BF10 = 3. Moreover, among respondents who did not discuss the influenza vaccine with family and friends, the topic about vaccine fraud and children in November-February was negatively correlated with attitudes in February-March and with vaccination in February-March, and April-May (rs = -0.18 to -0.25, BF10 = 4-146). However, this was absent when participants had discussions about the influenza vaccine with family and friends. DISCUSSION: Regional vaccine content correlated with prospective measures of vaccine attitudes and actual vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: Social media have demonstrated strong associations with vaccination patterns. When the associations are negative, discussions with family and friends appear to eliminate them. Programs to promote vaccination should encourage real-life conversations about vaccines.

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

Objectives. 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).Methods. Drawing on data from a nationally representative survey of 1938 US adults, we assessed the relation between negative beliefs about vaccines and provaccination policies.Results. Beyond sociodemographic and policy-relevant variables, such as gender and partisan affiliation, questionable negative beliefs about vaccines are the strongest predictor of opposition to policies designed to increase vaccination.Conclusions. Negative beliefs about vaccines in the general population may thwart the passage or implementation of policies designed to increase vaccination. Implementing strategies that reduce these negative beliefs should be a priority of educators and public health officials.

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

Objectives. To understand how Twitter accounts operated by the Russian Internet Research Agency (IRA) discussed vaccines to increase the credibility of their manufactured personas.Methods. We analyzed 2.82 million tweets published by 2689 IRA accounts between 2015 and 2017. Combining unsupervised machine learning and network analysis to identify "thematic personas" (i.e., accounts that consistently share the same topics), we analyzed the ways in which each discussed vaccines.Results. We found differences in volume and valence of vaccine-related tweets among 9 thematic personas. Pro-Trump personas were more likely to express antivaccine sentiment. Anti-Trump personas expressed support for vaccination. Others offered a balanced valence, talked about vaccines neutrally, or did not tweet about vaccines.Conclusions. IRA-operated accounts discussed vaccines in manners consistent with fabricated US identities.Public Health Implications. IRA accounts discussed vaccines online in ways that evoked political identities. This could exacerbate recently emerging partisan gaps relating to vaccine misinformation, as differently valenced messages were targeted at different segments of the US public. These sophisticated targeting efforts, if repeated and increased in reach, could reduce vaccination rates and magnify health disparities.

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. adults (N = 2,091) explored the factors associated with intentions to seek influenza vaccine information in the 2018-2019 influenza season. This survey shed light on what motivates intentions to seek information about the influenza vaccine through the lens of the risk information seeking and processing (RISP) model. The model explained information-seeking intentions well among both unvaccinated and vaccinated respondents. Key findings show that informational subjective norms, information insufficiency, and different types of affect are strong predictors of information-seeking intentions. Theoretical insights on extending the RISP model and practical guidance on designing interventions are provided.

The Effects of Zika Virus Risk Coverage on Familiarity, Knowledge and Behavior in the U.S. - A Time Series Analysis Combining Content Analysis and a Nationally Representative Survey.

This study assessed the effects of the February through September 2016 American news media's coverage of Zika Virus (ZIKV) risk on the U.S. public's familiarity, knowledge and behavior in the form of interpersonal discussions. A content analysis (N = 2,782 pieces) revealed that the Rio Olympic Games elicited a spike in coverage of Zika. We also found that newsworthy and easy- to- depict aspects of the disease, specifically its transmission by mosquitoes and its relation to microcephaly were covered more extensively than its sexual transmission and transmissibility from an infected person who is asymptomatic. Nevertheless, survey data over the same period of time (N = 37,180 respondents) revealed that the general amount of coverage, rather than the specifics about Zika transmission and its consequences, influenced the public's familiarity, knowledge, and behavior.

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. A number of approaches for authors and journals would lead to more effective signals of trustworthiness at the article level. These include article badging, checklists, a more extensive withdrawal ontology, identity verification, better forward linking, and greater transparency.