Rural US residents played a key role in the 2016 election. Despite media portrayals as an ideological monolith, 1 rural views on issues-including health policy-are nuanced. Ahead of the upcoming elections, it is important to examine rural US residents' opinions on major health issues and how their strong and divergent political values influence their view of the government's role in addressing these challenges. We reviewed multiple public opinion surveys conducted from 2018 to 2020 by the

No abstract

This study examined effects of experimentally-induced optimism on physical activity and stress reactivity with community volunteers. Using an intervention to induce short-term optimism, we conducted two harmonized randomized experiments, performed simultaneously at separate academic institutions. All participants were randomized to either the induced optimism intervention or to a neutral control activity using essay-writing tasks. Physical activity tasks (Study 1) and stress-related physiologic responses (Study 2) were assessed during lab visits. Essays were coded for intensity of optimism. A total of 324 participants (207 women, 117 men) completed Study 1, and 118 participants (67 women, 47 men, 4 other) completed Study 2. In both studies, the optimism intervention led to greater increases in short-term optimism and positive affect relative to the control group. Although the intervention had limited effects on physical activity and stress reactivity, more optimistic language in the essays predicted increased physical activity and decreased stress reactivity.

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, researchers have studied how Americans' attitudes toward health experts influence their health behaviors and policy opinions. Fewer, however, consider the potential gap between individual and expert opinion about COVID-19, and how that might shape health attitudes and behavior. This omission is notable, as discrepancies between individual and expert opinion could help explain why some Americans fail to take action to protect themselves and others from the virus. In novel demographically representative surveys of the US adult population (N = 5,482) and primary care physician subpopulations (PCPs; N = 625), we contrast the relationship between: (1) Americans’ and (2) PCPs' preferences regarding who ought to be responsible for taking action to combat the spread of COVID-19, as well as (3) Americans' perceptions of PCP preferences ("PCP meta-opinion"). In the aggregate, we find that Americans are far less likely than PCPs to see a role for both private and state actors in taking action to combat COVID-19. Interestingly, though, this disjuncture is not reflected in individual-level PCP meta-opinion; as most Americans think that PCPs share their views on state and private intervention (𝛕b = 0.44 - 0.49). However, this consonance is often erroneous, which we show can have problematic health consequences. Multivariate models suggest that Americans who both see little place for individual responsibility in taking action to stop viral spread and who think that PCPs share those views are significantly less likely to vaccinate against COVID-19. We conclude by discussing the public health benefits of efforts to bring public opinion in line with expert opinion.