COVID-19 vaccine: A 2021 analysis of perceptions on vaccine safety and promise in a U.S. sample

Osuji, Vitalis C.; Galante, Eric M.; Mischoulon, David; Slaven, James E.; Maupomé, Gerardo

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0268784

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…At the same time, even though trust is defined and measured in a variety of different ways, studies conducted across multiple different populations have identified associations between trust in science and intention to get vaccinated or boosted for COVID-19 [8][9][10][11][12], as well as adherence to other measures to mitigate harm from the pandemic (eg, nonpharmaceutical interventions) [13][14][15][16][17]. Thus, even if the exact nature of the relationship is unclear, it is reasonable to speculate that trust in science and scientists is associated with people's behaviors during a public health emergency such as COVID-19.…”

Section: Trust In Science and Scientistsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using Normative Language When Describing Scientific Findings: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial of Effects on Trust and Credibility

Agley¹,

Xiao²,

Thompson³

et al. 2022

JMIR Res Protoc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Trust in science and scientists has received renewed attention because of the “infodemic” occurring alongside COVID-19. A robust evidence basis shows that such trust is associated with belief in misinformation and willingness to engage in public and personal health behaviors. At the same time, trust and the associated construct of credibility are complex meta-cognitive concepts that often are oversimplified in quantitative research. The discussion of research often includes both normative language (what one ought to do based on a study’s findings) and cognitive language (what a study found), but these types of claims are very different, since normative claims make assumptions about people’s interests. Thus, this paper presents a protocol for a large randomized controlled trial to experimentally test whether some of the variability in trust in science and scientists and perceived message credibility is attributable to the use of normative language when sharing study findings in contrast to the use of cognitive language alone. Objective The objective of this trial will be to examine if reading normative and cognitive claims about a scientific study, compared to cognitive claims alone, results in lower trust in science and scientists as well as lower perceived credibility of the scientist who conducted the study, perceived credibility of the research, trust in the scientific information on the post, and trust in scientific information coming from the author of the post. Methods We will conduct a randomized controlled trial consisting of 2 parallel groups and a 1:1 allocation ratio. A sample of 1500 adults aged ≥18 years who represent the overall US population distribution by gender, race/ethnicity, and age will randomly be assigned to either an “intervention” arm (normative and cognitive claims) or a control arm (cognitive claims alone). In each arm, participants will view and verify their understanding of an ecologically valid claim or set of claims (ie, from a highly cited, published research study) designed to look like a social media post. Outcomes will be trust in science and scientists, the perceived credibility of the scientist who conducted the study, the perceived credibility of the research, trust in the scientific information on the post, and trust in scientific information coming from the author of the post. Analyses will incorporate 9 covariates. Results This study will be conducted without using any external funding mechanisms. Conclusions If there is a measurable effect attributable to the inclusion of normative language when writing about scientific findings, it should generate discussion about how such findings are presented and disseminated. Trial Registration Open Science Framework n7yfc; https://osf.io/n7yfc International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) PRR1-10.2196/41747

show abstract

Section: Trust In Science and Scientistsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using Normative Language When Describing Scientific Findings: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial of Effects on Trust and Credibility

Agley¹,

Xiao²,

Thompson³

et al. 2022

JMIR Res Protoc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Taken together, these premises also suggest that it is important to study factors that might influence trust in science and scientists as well as perceptions of their credibility. Indeed, a wide variety of research studies have demonstrated associations between trust in science and COVID-19 preventive behaviors and behavioral intentions [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using Normative Language When Describing Scientific Findings: Randomized Controlled Trial of Effects on Trust and Credibility

Agley¹,

Xiao²,

Thompson³

et al. 2023

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Scientists often make cognitive claims (eg, the results of their work) and normative claims (eg, what should be done based on those results). Yet, these types of statements contain very different information and implications. This randomized controlled trial sought to characterize the granular effects of using normative language in science communication. Objective Our study examined whether viewing a social media post containing scientific claims about face masks for COVID-19 using both normative and cognitive language (intervention arm) would reduce perceptions of trust and credibility in science and scientists compared with an identical post using only cognitive language (control arm). We also examined whether effects were mediated by political orientation. Methods This was a 2-arm, parallel group, randomized controlled trial. We aimed to recruit 1500 US adults (age 18+) from the Prolific platform who were representative of the US population census by cross sections of age, race/ethnicity, and gender. Participants were randomly assigned to view 1 of 2 images of a social media post about face masks to prevent COVID-19. The control image described the results of a real study (cognitive language), and the intervention image was identical, but also included recommendations from the same study about what people should do based on the results (normative language). Primary outcomes were trust in science and scientists (21-item scale) and 4 individual items related to trust and credibility; 9 additional covariates (eg, sociodemographics, political orientation) were measured and included in analyses. Results From September 4, 2022, to September 6, 2022, 1526 individuals completed the study. For the sample as a whole (eg, without interaction terms), there was no evidence that a single exposure to normative language affected perceptions of trust or credibility in science or scientists. When including the interaction term (study arm × political orientation), there was some evidence of differential effects, such that individuals with liberal political orientation were more likely to trust scientific information from the social media post’s author if the post included normative language, and political conservatives were more likely to trust scientific information from the post’s author if the post included only cognitive language (β=0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.10; P=.04). Conclusions This study does not support the authors’ original hypotheses that single exposures to normative language can reduce perceptions of trust or credibility in science or scientists for all people. However, the secondary preregistered analyses indicate the possibility that political orientation may differentially mediate the effect of normative and cognitive language from scientists on people’s perceptions. We do not submit this paper as definitive evidence thereof but do believe that there is sufficient evidence to support additional research into this topic, which may have implications for effective scientific communication. Trial Registration OSF Registries osf.io/kb3yh; https://osf.io/kb3yh International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) RR2-10.2196/41747

show abstract

“…When we talk about differences in social classes, it is evident that folks from lower social classes tend to get vaccinated less often than those from higher social classes [48,[61][62][63]. This is usually because they might have less access to healthcare services and health insurance.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of Media Information Sources on Vaccine Uptake: The Full and Inconsistent Mediating Role of Vaccine Hesitancy

Recio-Román,

Recio-Menéndez,

Román-González

2023

Computation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Vaccine hesitancy is a significant public health concern, with numerous studies demonstrating its negative impact on immunization rates. One factor that can influence vaccine hesitancy is media coverage of vaccination. The media is a significant source of immunization information and can significantly shape people’s attitudes and behaviors toward vaccine uptake. Media influences vaccination positively or negatively. Accurate coverage of the benefits and effectiveness of vaccination can encourage uptake, while coverage of safety concerns or misinformation may increase hesitancy. Our study investigated whether vaccine hesitancy acts as a mediator between information sources and vaccination uptake. We analyzed a cross-sectional online survey by the European Commission of 27,524 citizens from all EU member states between 15 and 29 March 2019. The study used structural equation modeling to conduct a mediation analysis, revealing that the influence of media on vaccine uptake is fully mediated by vaccine hesitancy, except for television, which depicted an inconsistent mediating role. In other words, the effect of different media on vaccine uptake is largely driven by the extent to which individuals are hesitant or resistant to vaccinating. Therefore, media outlets, governments, and public health organizations must work together to promote accurate and reliable information about vaccination and address vaccine hesitancy.

show abstract

COVID-19 vaccine: A 2021 analysis of perceptions on vaccine safety and promise in a U.S. sample

Cited by 6 publications

References 25 publications

Using Normative Language When Describing Scientific Findings: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial of Effects on Trust and Credibility

Using Normative Language When Describing Scientific Findings: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial of Effects on Trust and Credibility

Using Normative Language When Describing Scientific Findings: Randomized Controlled Trial of Effects on Trust and Credibility

Influence of Media Information Sources on Vaccine Uptake: The Full and Inconsistent Mediating Role of Vaccine Hesitancy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About