Conversion messages and attitude change: Strong arguments, not costly signals

Facing the Strain: The Persuasive Effects of Conversion Messages on COVID-19 Vaccination Attitudes and Behavioral Intentions

This study examined two-sided conversion messages in relation to one-sided advocacy messages in reducing vaccine hesitancy related to COVID-19 vaccine uptake. Results demonstrated that, for vaccine-hesitant participants, conversion messages increased pro-COVID-19 vaccination attitudes and behavioral intentions. For high vaccine-hesitant participants, the relationship between conversion messages and attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccinations was mediated through source credibility. For low vaccine-hesitant participants, mediation occurred through counterarguing. Findings have implications for health message tailoring related to COVID-19 vaccine uptake.

Partisanship and anti-elite worldviews as correlates of science and health beliefs in the multi-party system of Spain

In a national sample of 5087 Spaniards, we examine the prevalence of 10 specific misperceptions over five separate science and health domains (climate change, 5G technology, genetically modified foods, vaccines, and homeopathy). We find that misperceptions about genetically modified foods and general health risks of 5G technology are particularly widespread. While we find that partisan affiliation is not strongly associated with any of the misperceptions aside from climate change, we find that two distinct dimensions of an anti-elite worldview-anti-expert and conspiratorial mindsets-are better overall predictors of having science and health misperceptions in the Spanish context. These findings help extend our understanding of polarization around science beyond the most common contexts (e.g. the United States) and support recent work suggesting anti-elite sentiments are among the most important predictors of factual misperceptions.

Why the backfire effect does not explain the durability of political misperceptions

Previous research indicated that corrective information can sometimes provoke a so-called "backfire effect" in which respondents more strongly endorsed a misperception about a controversial political or scientific issue when their beliefs or predispositions were challenged. I show how subsequent research and media coverage seized on this finding, distorting its generality and exaggerating its role relative to other factors in explaining the durability of political misperceptions. To the contrary, an emerging research consensus finds that corrective information is typically at least somewhat effective at increasing belief accuracy when received by respondents. However, the research that I review suggests that the accuracy-increasing effects of corrective information like fact checks often do not last or accumulate; instead, they frequently seem to decay or be overwhelmed by cues from elites and the media promoting more congenial but less accurate claims. As a result, misperceptions typically persist in public opinion for years after they have been debunked. Given these realities, the primary challenge for scientific communication is not to prevent backfire effects but instead, to understand how to target corrective information better and to make it more effective. Ultimately, however, the best approach is to disrupt the formation of linkages between group identities and false claims and to reduce the flow of cues reinforcing those claims from elites and the media. Doing so will require a shift from a strategy focused on providing information to the public to one that considers the roles of intermediaries in forming and maintaining belief systems.

The COVID-19 Vaccine Is Here-Now Who Is Willing to Get It?

The U.S. vaccine campaign against COVID-19 began in December 2020, but many individuals seem reluctant to get vaccinated. During the first week of the vaccination campaign, we collected data from 1017 individuals with an online survey to identify factors that were associated with willingness to get the vaccine once it is available. Most participants (55.3%) were willing to get the vaccine, although 46.2% also expressed some fear of the vaccine. Political ideology was by far the most consistent predictor of both willingness to be vaccinated and fear of the vaccine, followed by participant sex, education level, income, and race/ethnicity. Our findings suggest that, for the vaccine campaign to be broadly supported and successful, it will be important for frontline healthcare workers to discuss the role of inoculation for COVID-19 in a manner consistent with each individual patient's political and sociological worldview.

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.