In order to control the spread of infectious diseases such as COVID-19, it will be important to develop a communication strategy to counteract “vaccine resistance”, that is, the refusal to take the COVID-19 vaccine even when available. This paper reports the results of a survey experiment testing the impacts of several types of message content: the safety and efficacy of the vaccine itself, the likelihood that others will take the vaccine, and the possible role of politics in driving resistance to the vaccine. In an original survey of 1,123 American M-Turk respondents conducted in the summer of 2020, we provided six different information conditions suggesting the safety and efficacy of the vaccine, the lack of safety/efficacy of the vaccine, the suggestion that most others would take the vaccine, the suggestion that most others would not take the vaccine, the suggestion that the vaccine is being promoted by liberals to gain greater control over individual freedom, and the suggestion that its approval is being by President Trump rushed for political motivations. We compared the responses for those in the treatment groups with a control group who received no additional information. In comparison to the control group, those who received information about the safety/efficacy of the vaccine were more likely to report that they would take the vaccine, those who received information that others were reluctant to take the vaccine were more likely to report that they themselves would not take it, and those who received information about political influences on vaccine development expressed resistance to taking it. Communication of effective messages about the vaccine will be essential for public health agencies that seek to promote vaccine uptake.

Conspiracy theories have flourished about the origins of a novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) that causes an acute respiratory syndrome (coronavirus disease 2019 [COVID-19]) in humans. This article reports the results from a study that evaluates the impact of exposure to framed messages about the origins of COVID-19. We tested four hypotheses: two focusing on its origins as either zoonotic or human-engineered and two concerning the impacts of origin beliefs on the desire to penalize China or support increased funding for biomedical research. The results accentuate the importance of finding ways to combat the spread of misinformation and conspiracy theories related to this global pandemic.

Politicization of science occurs when the inherent uncertainty of science is emphasized to cast doubt on scientific consensus. Climate change has become particularly susceptible to this kind of politicization. In this paper, we report the results of a survey experiment in which we manipulated text frames and visual imagery associated with two types of environmental hazards linked to climate changesea level rise with associated flooding and increased heat levels with associated drought and wildfires. We present evidence that the use of visual imagery can counter the effects that science politicization has on climate change beliefs and behaviors.

We conducted a survey experiment in which we presented 1,850 respondents with one of two versions of an appeal emphasizing either the threats to the environment or threats to national security of the United States as a result of climate change. The messages were attributed to one of four sources: Republican Party leaders, Democratic Party leaders, military officials, or climate scientists. The results reveal that messages attributed to military leaders, or to Republican Party leaders, can enhance the impact of the appeal. This finding underscores the importance that the source of any communication can have on its overall effectiveness.

This study evaluates the impact of exposure to messages that emphasize the need for changes in individual behavior or in public policy to address climate change attributed to a “climate scientist” or to an unnamed source. We implemented a large survey-experiment (N=1,915) online through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk) platform that manipulated the presence of recommendations for voluntary behavioral changes or the adoption of new laws to mitigate climate change. We found that, regardless of the source of the information, recommendations for behavioral changes decreased individuals’ willingness to take personal actions to reduce greenhouse gases, decreased willingness to support pro-climate candidates, reduced belief in the accelerated speed of climate change, and decreased trust in climate scientists.