Misinformation about vaccine safety and uptake of COVID-19 vaccines among adults and 5-11-year-olds in the United States.

Despite increasing rates of vaccination for COVID-19 in the US, hesitancy continues to be a barrier to the full immunization of the eligible population. Hesitancy appears to be particularly pronounced among adults deciding whether to recommend that children be vaccinated against COVID-19. In this research, we tested whether embrace of misinformation about the safety of vaccination is associated with hesitancy to vaccinate oneself and to recommend vaccination of a 5-11-year-old child for COVID-19. In a national probability panel created in April 2021, we assessed belief in both general vaccination misinformation and misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines, in particular. As hypothesized, belief in general vaccination misinformation predicted the uptake in reported vaccination among adults through September 2021, and likelihood to recommend COVID-19 vaccination of children aged 5-11 in January 2022, three months after the approval of that vaccine. In addition, misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines that arose over time correlated highly with more general vaccination misinformation. For both outcomes, general vaccine misinformation predicted vaccination hesitancy beyond concerns about the health risks of contracting COVID-19 for one's family and children ages 5-11. The findings indicate that continued efforts are needed to bolster beliefs about the safety of authorized and approved vaccines of many types and not just those for COVID-19. Some strategies to achieve this objective are suggested.

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.

Differences Between Florida and the Rest of the United States in Response to Local Transmission of the Zika Virus: Implications for Future Communication Campaigns.

For those at risk for Zika virus infection, prevention requires an approach that includes individual, interpersonal, and community-level support for behavior change. In August 2016, the announcement of local Zika transmission in Florida provided an opportunity to determine whether Zika-related knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors might be affected differentially in Florida compared to the rest of the nation. From August 8-October 3, 2016, we conducted nationally representative weekly surveys (N = 12,236), oversampling Florida residents, measuring Zika virus news exposure, knowledge about transmission and prevention of the infection, and attitudes and behaviors toward prevention. We tested two classes of models: those focused on individual Zika risk perceptions (e.g., protection motivation theory) and one focused on community action beyond those directly at risk (social consensus model). Analyses assessed differences between Florida and the rest of the nation by survey week. Consistent with both models, Floridians demonstrated significantly higher levels of perceived susceptibility and knowledge, more positive attitudes toward Zika virus prevention, and higher likelihood of engaging in protective behavior than non-Floridians. Consistent with theories of individual risk perception, response was greater among respondents who saw themselves at risk of infection. However, consistent with the SCM, irrespective of personal risk, response was greater among Floridians. Nevertheless, more than half of the public took no direct action to prevent the spread of Zika. Communities at increased risk for a novel infection such as Zika may quickly acquire Zika-related knowledge, attitudes, and behavior, but large-scale community-wide response might be difficult without further community-level public education.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report on genetically engineered crops influences public discourse.

In May 2016, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) released the report "Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects," summarizing scientific consensus on genetically engineered crops and their implications. NASEM reports aim to give the public and policymakers information on socially relevant science issues. Their impact, however, is not well understood. This analysis combines national pre- and post-report survey data with a large-scale content analysis of Twitter discussion to examine the report's effect on public perceptions of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). We find that the report's release corresponded with reduced negativity in Twitter discourse and increased ambivalence in public risk and benefit perceptions of GMOs, mirroring the NASEM report's conclusions. Surprisingly, this change was most likely for individuals least trusting of scientific studies or university scientists. Our findings indicate that NASEM consensus reports can help shape public discourse, even in, or perhaps because of, the complex information landscape of traditional and social media.