Trust in scientists in times of pandemic: Panel evidence from 12 countries

Compliance in the public versus the private realm: Economic preferences, institutional trust and COVID-19 health behaviors

To what extent do economic preferences and institutional trust predict compliance with physical distancing rules during the COVID-19 pandemic? We reexamine this question by introducing the theoretical and empirical distinction between individual health behaviors in the public and in the private domain (e.g., keeping a distance from strangers vs. abstaining from private gatherings with friends). Using structural equation modeling to analyze survey data from Germany's second wave of the pandemic (N = 3350), we reveal the following major differences between compliance in both domains: Social preferences, especially (positive) reciprocity, play an essential role in predicting compliance in the public domain but are barely relevant in the private domain. Conversely, individuals' degree of trust in the national government matters predominantly for increasing compliance in the private domain. The clearly strongest predictor in this domain is the perception pandemic-related threats. Our findings encourage tailoring communication strategies to either domain-specific circumstances or factors common across domains. Tailored communication may also help promote compliance with other health-related regulatory policies beyond COVID-19.

Influence of COVID-19 on trust in routine immunization, health information sources and pandemic preparedness in 23 countries in 2023

It is unclear how great a challenge pandemic and vaccine fatigue present to public health. We assessed perspectives on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and routine immunization as well as trust in pandemic information sources and future pandemic preparedness in a survey of 23,000 adults in 23 countries in October 2023. The participants reported a lower intent to get a COVID-19 booster vaccine in 2023 (71.6%), compared with 2022 (87.9%). A total of 60.8% expressed being more willing to get vaccinated for diseases other than COVID-19 as a result of their experience during the pandemic, while 23.1% reported being less willing. Trust in 11 selected sources of vaccine information each averaged less than 7 on a 10-point scale with one's own doctor or nurse and the World Health Organization, averaging a 6.9 and 6.5, respectively. Our findings emphasize that vaccine hesitancy and trust challenges remain for public health practitioners, underscoring the need for targeted, culturally sensitive health communication strategies.

How social evaluations shape trust in 45 types of scientists

Science can offer solutions to a wide range of societal problems. Key to capitalizing on such solutions is the public's trust and willingness to grant influence to scientists in shaping policy. However, previous research on determinants of trust is limited and does not factor in the diversity of scientific occupations. The present study (N = 2,780; U.S. participants) investigated how four well-established dimensions of social evaluations (competence, assertiveness, morality, warmth) shape trust in 45 types of scientists (from agronomists to zoologists). Trust in most scientists was relatively high but varied considerably across occupations. Perceptions of morality and competence emerged as the most important antecedents of trust, in turn predicting the willingness to grant scientists influence in managing societal problems. Importantly, the contribution of morality (but not competence) varied across occupations: Morality was most strongly associated with trust in scientists who work on contentious and polarized issues (e.g., climatologists). Therefore, the diversity of scientific occupations must be taken into account to more precisely map trust, which is important for understanding when scientific solutions find their way to policy.

Factors associated with compliance with barrier gestures and social distancing measures in France

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic led many countries to drastically limit social activities. The objective of this study is to describe the factors associated with compliance with protective measures and social distancing in the general adult population in France, between March and December 2020 (first and second waves of the epidemic), before vaccination began at the end of December 2020.

METHOD

The data come from the CoviPrev repeated cross-sectional descriptive survey, conducted between March 2020 and December 2022 in metropolitan France. The data collected from March to December 2020 (19 survey waves), from a panel representative of the general population, were used. Three periods were defined: the first epidemic wave (March-April), the inter-wave period (May-June) and the second epidemic wave (November-December). A compliance score was constructed to measure systematic compliance with the five main measures. The association between systematic compliance and different variables (sociodemographic, mental health, level of health literacy, perceived severity of COVID-19, confidence in government, perceived effectiveness of the measures) was described using bivariate and multivariate logistic regression models, using the statistical software R.

RESULTS

Systematic compliance with the preventive measures changed over time. Regardless of the period, being a woman, being over 50, perceiving COVID-19 as severe, having a high level of health literacy or anxiety were positively associated with compliance. Having a child under 16 years of age and perceiving the measures as effective were positively associated with compliance with the protective measures during the epidemic waves; conversely, having a high level of depression, living alone, not working were negatively associated in the first epidemic wave. Finally, during the inter-wave period, living in an area heavily affected during the first wave and having a high level of education were positively and negatively associated with systematic compliance with the preventive measures, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The factors associated with compliance with the protective measures and social distancing evolved during the epidemic. Monitoring this evolution, in order to adapt communication and awareness strategies, is essential in the context of pandemic response.

Stereotypes and social evaluations of scientists are related to different antecedents and outcomes

Research on scientist perceptions tends to focus on either stereotypes (white, male) or social evaluations (competent but cold), sometimes yielding incongruent conclusions (e.g. scientists are simultaneously seen as moral and immoral). Across two preregistered correlational studies (N = 1091), we address this issue by simultaneously assessing stereotypes and social evaluations and their association with two key outcomes: trust in scientists and science career appeal. We find that stereotypes and social evaluations are distinct types of perceptions-they correlate slightly, stem from different worldviews, and predict partially different outcomes. While western enculturation and religiosity predict stereotypes, right-wing political ideology negatively relates to social evaluations. Stereotypes are associated with lower science career appeal among stereotype-incongruent individuals, while social evaluations predict more trust in scientists and higher science career appeal. This work thus sheds light on the psychological pathways to trust in scientists, as well as on the perceived appeal of becoming a scientist.

Communities of Knowledge in Trouble

The community-of-knowledge framework explains the extraordinary success of the human species, despite individual members' demonstrably shallow understanding of many topics, by appealing to outsourcing. People follow the cues of members of their community because understanding of phenomena is generally distributed across the group. Typically, communities do possess the relevant knowledge, but it is possible in principle for communities to send cues despite lacking knowledge-a weakness in the system's design. COVID-19 in the United States offered a natural experiment in collective-knowledge development because a novel phenomenon arrived at a moment of intense division in political partisanship. We review evidence from the pandemic showing that the thought leaders of the two partisan groups sent radically different messages about COVID, which were, in turn, reinforced by close community members (family, friends, etc.). We show that although actual understanding of the individual plays a role in a key COVID-mitigation behavior (vaccination), it plays a smaller role than perceived understanding of thought leaders and beliefs about COVID-related behaviors of close community members. We discuss implications for theory and practice when all communities are in the same epistemic circumstance-relying on the testimony of others.

Timing of preventive behavior in the case of a new and evolving health risk: the case of COVID-19 vaccination

BACKGROUND

Time preferences for preventive behavior under novel risks and uncertain contexts may differ from timing preferences related to familiar risks. Therefore, it is crucial to examine drivers of preventative health behavior timing in light of new health risks. Using the case of COVID-19, we examine factors affecting vaccination timing plans when vaccines were widely available in the European Union (EU).

METHODS

We use data from the Flash Eurobarometer 494 survey (May 21-26, 2021), which collected information on EU residents' attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccinations. We also use the 'Our World in Data' vaccination database for country-level COVID-19 vaccination rates. Probit regressions were conducted to determine how local vaccination rates, trust in information sources, social norms, vaccine safety beliefs, and risk understanding affected the probability of COVID-19 vaccination delay.

RESULTS

Of total participants (n = 26,106), 9,063 (34.7%) were vaccinated, 7,114 (27.3%) wanted to get vaccinated as soon as possible, 5,168 (19.8%) wanted to delay vaccination and 2,962 (11.4%) resisted vaccination. Participants were more likely to delay COVID-19 vaccination if they lived in a country with lower vaccination prevalence, trusted online social networks, family, friends, and colleagues for vaccination information, were eager to follow vaccination-related social norms, expressed vaccine safety concerns, and understood the risk of catching COVID-19 without a vaccine to be lower.

CONCLUSIONS

Results from the study contribute to understanding important factors that predict timing of vaccination plans. These findings can also contribute to the wider knowledge base about timing of preventive behavior uptake in novel risk contexts.

Using social media for patient care, research, and professional development: A North American Society of Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition position paper

The advent of social media has changed numerous aspects of modern life, with users developing and maintaining personal and professional relationships, following and sharing breaking news and importantly, searching for and disseminating health information and medical research. In the present paper, we reviewed available literature to outline the potential uses, pitfalls and impacts of social media for providers, scientists and institutions involved in digestive health in the domains of patient care, research and professional development. We recommend that these groups become more active participants on social media platforms to combat misinformation, advocate for patients, and curate and disseminate valuable research and educational materials. We also recommend that societies such as NASPGHAN assist its members in accessing training on effective social media use and the creation and maintenance of public-facing profiles and that academic institutions incorporate substantive social media contributions into academic promotion processes.

Psychological inoculation strategies to fight climate disinformation across 12 countries

Decades after the scientific debate about the anthropogenic causes of climate change was settled, climate disinformation still challenges the scientific evidence in public discourse. Here we present a comprehensive theoretical framework of (anti)science belief formation and updating to account for the psychological factors that influence the acceptance or rejection of scientific messages. We experimentally investigated, across 12 countries (N = 6,816), the effectiveness of six inoculation strategies targeting these factors-scientific consensus, trust in scientists, transparent communication, moralization of climate action, accuracy and positive emotions-to fight real-world disinformation about climate science and mitigation actions. While exposure to disinformation had strong detrimental effects on participants' climate change beliefs (δ = -0.16), affect towards climate mitigation action (δ = -0.33), ability to detect disinformation (δ = -0.14) and pro-environmental behaviour (δ = -0.24), we found almost no evidence for protective effects of the inoculations (all δ < 0.20). We discuss the implications of these findings and propose ways forward to fight climate disinformation.

From words to pixels: The Infectious Diseases in Motion (IDIM) and VACCELERATE experience for fast and accessible science audiovisual communication

Background

The internet's impact on knowledge distribution has led to a growing demand for accessible science information. COVID-19 heightened interest in science, emphasizing the need to combat misinformation. This publication discusses digital scientific outreach, particularly in infectious diseases, to counter misinformation and promote evidence-based communication.

Methods

Infectious Diseases in Motion (IDIM) and VACCELERATE use YouTube for infectious diseases and vaccine research dissemination. They create video abstracts by identifying relevant publications, coordinating recording sessions, and producing visually engaging content.

Results

As of August 2023, IDIM and VACCELERATE have produced 173 videos, attracting viewers from 34 countries. This global reach supports their role as valuable resources for the international scientific community.

Conclusions

The success of these initiatives lies in inclusivity, collaboration, multilingual content, and effective promotion. They aim to become essential hubs for global scientific knowledge dissemination, advancing understanding through shared knowledge.

Trust in science moderates the effects of high/low threat communication on psychological reactance to COVID-19-related public health messages

BACKGROUND

As illustrated by the COVID-19 pandemic, communicating evidence-based health recommendations represents a tremendous challenge; among some recipients, public health messages can cause anger and negative cognitions, also known as psychological reactance, and consequently lead to negative attitudes and low intentions to perform the promoted behavior. The present study investigated the role of message characteristics (i.e. high vs. low freedom-threat messages), individuals' trust in science (i.e. high vs. low trust in science), and their interaction in determining responses to public health messages.

METHODS

We conducted an experimental study, in which participants (N = 228) with high or low trust in science were exposed to high or low freedom-threat messages promoting mask-wearing to reduce the spread of COVID-19 and regular physical activity.

RESULTS

We found support for the notion that messages imposing high threat to freedom lead to higher state psychological reactance, and more negative attitudes and behavioral intentions. Moreover, our results showed that trust in science has a main and interaction effect (together with message characteristics) on state reactance, behavioral intentions, and - to a lesser degree - attitudes, in the case of COVID-19, but not physical activity messages. The findings remained the same regardless of controlling for other relevant variables.

CONCLUSIONS

While our study has some limitations, such as a rather homogeneous sample, a limited number of experimental stimuli, and a relatively artificial experimental environment, it offers some insight into the important role of health communication recipients' trust in science and provides advice on how to communicate health recommendations to skeptics.

Believing in science: Linking religious beliefs and identity with vaccination intentions and trust in science during the COVID-19 pandemic

Despite evidence supporting numerous scientific issues (e.g. climate change, vaccinations) many people still doubt the legitimacy of science. Moreover, individuals may be prone to scepticism about scientific findings that misalign with their ideological beliefs and identities. This research investigated whether trust in science (as well as government and media) and COVID-19 vaccination intentions varied as a function of (non)religious group identity, religiosity, religion-science compatibility beliefs, and/or political orientation in two online studies (N = 565) with university students and a Canadian community sample between January and June 2021. In both studies, vaccination intentions and trust in science varied as a function of (non)religious group identity and beliefs. Vaccine hesitancy was further linked to religiosity through a lack of trust in science. Given the ideological divides that the pandemic has exacerbated, this research has implications for informing public health strategies for relaying scientific findings to the public and encouraging vaccine uptake in culturally appropriate ways.

Optimism and pessimism toward science: A new way to look at the public's evaluations of science and technology discoveries and recommendations

While there have always been those in the American public who mistrust science and scientists' views of the world, they have tended to be a minority of the larger public. Recent COVID-19 related events indicate that could be changing for some key groups. What might explain the present state of mistrust of science within an important component of the American public? In this study, we delve deeply into this question and examine what citizens today believe about science and technology and why, focusing on core theories of trust, risk concern, and political values and on the important role of science optimism and pessimism orientations. Using national public survey data, we examine the correlates of science optimism and pessimism and test the efficacy of this construct as drivers of biotechnology policy. We find that science optimism and pessimism are empirically useful constructs and that they are important predictors of biotechnology policy choices.

The COVID-19 Pandemic and Parental Attitudes Toward Routine Childhood Vaccines

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic may have impacted parental attitudes toward childhood vaccines. However, few data sources followed attitudes before and after onset of the pandemic. We used data from a parental survey to describe the effect of the pandemic on parental attitudes toward childhood vaccines.

METHODS

Data were analyzed from the Health eMoms survey which randomly sampled birthing parents in Colorado from 2018 to 2021 on several health topics including vaccine hesitancy. Population weighted multivariable regression was used to measure the association between overall vaccine hesitancy and 5 individual hesitancy questions and different COVID-19 pandemic periods: prepandemic (April 2018-February 2020); pandemic prevaccine (April 2020-December 2020); and pandemic postvaccine (January 2021-August 2021), adjusting for demographic factors.

RESULTS

Overall, 20.4% (726/3553) of respondents were vaccine hesitant. Vaccine hesitancy during pandemic time periods was not different from the prepandemic period (prevaccine adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.65-1.04; postvaccine aOR = 1.07, 95% CI = 0.85-1.34). In analyses of individual hesitancy questions, parents were more likely to be unsure about trusting vaccine information in the pandemic postvaccine time period compared with the prepandemic period (aOR = 2.14; 95% CI = 1.55-2.96), and less likely to be unsure about their hesitancy toward childhood vaccines (aOR = 0.48; 95% CI = 0.27-0.84).

CONCLUSIONS

The COVID-19 pandemic was not associated with changes in parental vaccine hesitancy overall, although there were changes in trust about vaccine information and a polarization of vaccination attitudes.

Preventing Zoonoses: Testing an Intervention to Change Attitudes and Behaviors toward More Protective Actions

Zoonotic outbreaks are considered one of the most important threats to public health. Therefore, it is important to educate people on how to prevent zoonotic infections. The purpose of this research was to investigate an intervention aimed at changing people's attitudes and behaviors toward more protective actions. In two studies (NStudy1 = 402; NStudy2 = 706), participants received an intervention based on previous literature in which knowledge about zoonoses, protective actions they could take, and a fear appeal were provided. In the control condition, no intervention was given. Subsequently, we measured participants' risk knowledge, attitudes and behavioral intentions to reduce zoonotic risks, and fear. The results showed that the intervention heightened participants' zoonotic knowledge and affected their attitudes and behavioral intentions (Studies 1 and 2) and a behavioral decision (Study 2) to reduce zoonotic risks. Moreover, our designed intervention proved more effective than the World Health Organization informative message on zoonoses (Study 2). In terms of theory, this is the first experimental demonstration that a general zoonotic risk communication message changed attitudes and behaviors toward more protective actions. In terms of policy, this research showed that a basic information message for the broader public has the potential to reduce zoonotic risks.

How pandemic-related changes in global attitudes toward the scientific community shape "post-pandemic" environmental opinion

Low public concern about anthropogenic climate change (ACC)-due in part to distrust in the scientific community-may decrease demand for policies aimed at mitigating its deleterious effects. Encouragingly, though, recent research finds that experiences with the COVID-19 pandemic has elevated trust in scientific expertise worldwide. We explore the possibility that positive attitudes toward the medical community are "spilling over" to increase ACC acceptance via globally representative survey data from 107 countries (N = 119,088) conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. We show that trust in medical experts' handling of the COVID-19 pandemic is associated with increased ACC acceptance, worldwide. Problematically, though, we also show that the effects of trust in medical professionals is strongest in countries experiencing the most positive change in attitudes toward the scientific community, which tend to be disproportionately wealthy, and less likely to bear the unequal effects of climate change.

Political orientation, trust and discriminatory beliefs during the COVID-19 pandemic: Longitudinal evidence from the United Kingdom

The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the world in many ways; for example, evidence from the United Kingdom indicates that higher rates of discriminatory behaviours against immigrants have been recorded during this period. Prior research suggests that political orientation and trust are instrumental in discriminatory beliefs against immigrants. A longitudinal study (six waves and a follow-up) was conducted in the United Kingdom during the COVID-19 pandemic (September 2020-August 2021) using convenience sampling (N = 383). The hypotheses enquired about whether political orientation predicts trust in government, trust in science and discriminatory beliefs. Multilevel regression and mediation analyses were conducted, using repeated measures nested within individuals. It was found that conservative views are associated with higher discriminatory beliefs, lower trust in science and higher trust in government. Furthermore, trust in science promotes reduction of discrimination, whereas trust in government, increases discriminatory beliefs. However, a nuance revealed by an interaction effect, shows that a positive alignment between political and scientific authorities may be required to reduce prejudice against immigrants. Exploratory multilevel mediation showed that trust is a mediator between political orientation and discriminatory beliefs.

Addressing conflicts of interest regarding the vaccine in infectious disease outbreaks based on good governance for health approach: a policy brief

BACKGROUND

Infectious disease outbreaks pose a significant threat to public health, and achieving herd immunity highlights the importance of addressing conflicts of interest (COI) in vaccine development and policy-making. This policy brief aims to present policy options that address COI regarding vaccines in infectious disease outbreaks, based on good governance for health approach.

METHODS

Our study used a scoping review methodology. We conducted a systematic search, which led to identifying 43 eligible articles. A qualitative approach (i.e., content analysis) was employed for data analysis, using "ATLAS.ti 9" software. The primary results underwent a process of cleaning, categorisation, and subsequent discussion in three sessions with the research team.

RESULTS

Relationships between theindustry and "government/policymakers" as well as "academic institutions/researchers" are prominent origins of COI regarding the vaccine in infectious disease outbreaks. To address this issue, we present nine policy options that target both the root cause of the problem and the adoption of good governance for health approach.

CONCLUSIONS

The key principles of good governance for health, including, "Transparency", "The Rule of Law", "Effectiveness", "Efficiency", "Participation", "Consensus Orientation", "Equality", "Responsibility", "Responsiveness" and "Accountability" must be taken into account when formulating policy options to address COI regarding the vaccine in infectious disease outbreaks. The effectiveness of the policy options outlined in this policy brief should be assessed in practical contexts, as this evaluation may uncover the need for revisions.

Demographic and psychometric predictors associated with engagement in risk-associated alternative healthcare behaviours

This paper builds on prior work exploring the use of risk-associated alternative healthcare (RAAH) in Canada. RAAH uptake was surveyed to explore the characteristics of adult RAAH users and the value of established psychometric instruments previously used in alternative healthcare studies in predicting RAAH behaviours: the Control Beliefs Inventory (CBI), the Reward Responsiveness Behavioural Activation System (RBAS) scale, the Positive Attitudes to Science (PAS) scale, the Satisfaction with Orthodox Medicine (SOM) scale, and the brief version of the Susceptibility to Persuasion-II (StP-II-B) scale. Findings suggest RAAH is influenced by gender, age, income, education, employment, chronic illness status, and ethnicity. Engagement in some form of RAAH was common (around 40%) and the most common types of RAAH use reported were physical manipulation and herbal/nutritional supplement use. Other higher-risk AH activities (such as use of toxins and physically invasive procedures) were also reported by about 5% of respondents. The StP-II-B and PAS instruments were predictive of the likelihood of engagement in RAAH behaviours, as illustrated by higher risk tolerance, desire for novelty, positive attitude to advertising and social influence, and positive beliefs about science. The CBI, RBAS, and SOM instruments were not predictive overall. However, the CBI and SOM instruments were predictive of engagement with physical manipulative RAAH activities, while the RBAS was predictive of herbal/nutritional RAAH engagement. These findings can help inform health professionals' understanding of public health-seeking behaviours with respect to risk.

Updated beliefs and shaken confidence: evidence from vaccine hesitancy caused by experiencing "COVID arm"

BACKGROUND

Public health depends largely on people's knowledge, beliefs, or behaviors regarding their health and medical treatments. Although works based on the health belief model have shown that public beliefs about medical treatments affect willingness to take the treatments, little is known about the effects of changes in beliefs on attitudes toward treatment. How one's past experiences relate to one's beliefs about a given medical treatment is worth considering.

METHODS

We implemented an online panel survey in February 2021 and March 2022 in Japan before and after COVID-19 vaccines were administered to the public within the country. We exploited delayed localized hypersensitivity reactions to COVID-19 vaccines, namely, "COVID arm", as an exogenous shock to investigate the relationship between past negative experiences and current beliefs about medical treatments or science. "COVID arm" was an unexpected side effect and thus likely caused updated beliefs about the vaccine. Out of the nonprobability sample of 15,000 respondents in the first wave in February 2021, 9,668 respondents also responded to the second wave conducted in March 2022. Outcome variables were whether experiencing "COVID arm" affected the respondents' 1) confidence in vaccine safety, 2) willingness to take the next dose of COVID-19 vaccines, 3) acknowledgment of the importance of vaccination, and 4) confidence in science. We measured the impact of experience with "COVID arm" on changes in the probability that survey respondents would respond affirmatively to questions posed about the issues listed above.

RESULTS

Experiencing "COVID arm" significantly lowered confidence in the safety of vaccination by 4.3 percentage points, which was approximately 6% of the sample mean for the first wave, and lowered the probability of taking a second dose of the COVID-19 vaccine by 1.5 percentage points. These adverse impacts were observed after conditioning background characteristics and prior confidence in vaccination. Experiencing "COVID arm" affected neither the acknowledged importance of vaccination nor confidence in science in a statistically significant way.

CONCLUSIONS

An unexpected and uncomfortable shock regarding beliefs about a treatment decreases willingness to take the treatment. An appropriate public health policy should account for this effect.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The survey was preregistered with the American Economic Association's RCT Registry (Fukai et al., 2022).

Adaptive Coping Strategies at the Time of COVID-19: The Role of Social and General Trust

Research in the field shows the crucial role of trust in the functioning of many aspects of social life, especially when dealing with emergencies. We report the results of a study (N = 883) carried out in Italy during the first phase of the COVID-19 crisis to assess whether and how social trust (i.e., trust in those who have the authority and responsibility for making decisions, such as the Italian government, the regional government, the Civil Protection, the European Union, the Catholic Church, and the scientific community) and general trust (i.e., trust in the trustworthiness of other individuals, such as Italians and humankind) are associated with the employment of coping strategies in dealing with the challenges of the pandemic. Overall, the results highlight that trust in different authorities and institutions and trust in other human beings are positively associated with the adoption of adaptive coping strategies such as seeking social support, positive reinterpretation and growth, problem-solving orientation, and transcendent orientation. In contrast, they are negatively related to the adoption of maladaptive coping strategies such as avoidance. These findings point out the benefits of various types of trust in helping individuals deal with crises, such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

The politicized pandemic: Ideological polarization and the behavioral response to COVID-19

In a representative sample of the U.S. population during the first summer of the COVID-19 pandemic, we investigate how prosociality and ideology interact in their relationship with health-protecting behavior and trust in the government to handle the crisis. We find that an experimental measure of prosociality based on standard economic games positively relates to protective behavior. Conservatives are less compliant with COVID-19-related behavioral restrictions than liberals and evaluate the government's handling of the crisis significantly more positively. We show that prosociality does not mediate the impact of political ideology. This finding means that conservatives are less compliant with protective health guidelines - independent of differences in prosociality between both ideological camps. Behavioral differences between liberals and conservatives are roughly only one-fourth of the size of their differences in judging the government's crisis management. This result suggests that Americans were more polarized in their political views than in their acceptance of public health advice.

How does the vaccine approval procedure affect COVID-19 vaccination intentions?

People's willingness to vaccinate is critical to combating the COVID-19 pandemic. We devise a representative experiment to study how the design of the vaccine approval procedure affects trust in newly developed vaccines and consequently public attitudes towards vaccination. Compared to an Emergency Use Authorization, choosing the more thorough Conditional Marketing Authorization approval procedure increases vaccination intentions by 13 percentage points. The effects of the increased duration of the approval procedure are positive and significant only for Emergency Use Authorization. Treatment effects do not differ between relevant subgroups, such as respondents who had (did not have) COVID-19, or between vaccinated and unvaccinated respondents. Increased trust in the vaccine is the key mediator of treatment effects on vaccination intentions.

Who do we trust and how do we cope with COVID-19? A mixed-methods sequential exploratory approach to understanding supportive messages across 35 cultures

Based upon a mixed-methods follow-up exploratory model, we examined the link between trust and coping during the early outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic at the society level. Qualitative data were collected from the supportive messages written by 10,072 community adults across 35 societies. Trust and coping were used as the two pre-defined themes in the conceptual content analysis. Five subthemes emerged from the theme trust, depicting five distinct trusted targets: God, a larger us, country/government, science/healthcare, and the affected. Six subthemes emerged from the theme coping, depicting six distinct coping strategies: interpersonal/social coping, religious/spiritual coping, acceptance, blame, wishful thinking, and strength-based coping. A follow-up quantitative investigation also showed that four society-level factors (viz., individualism, cultural tightness, globalization, and severity of pandemic) had differential effects on people's trusted targets and ways of coping with the pandemic. Our study made both methodological and practical contributions to cross-cultural research on COVID-19 by using a mixed-methods approach in a multinational study and demonstrating the importance of making meaningful virtual connection during a time of physical distancing.

Danger control and fear control during public health emergencies: Considering the roles of fear and hope in the EPPM across different levels of trust

Public health emergencies pose considerable threats to global health and safety. The control of these emergencies requires the efforts of healthcare professionals and calls for the public to take protective actions. The present study not only puts fear back in the extended parallel process model (EPPM) but also considers another similarly productive emotion: hope. We examined the mechanisms behind the effects of four cognitive perceptions on protective actions (i.e., danger control) and information avoidance (i.e., fear control). A national online survey was conducted with 1676 participants during the outbreak of COVID-19 in China from February 1 to 29, 2020. The results revealed that perceived severity and susceptibility could lead to fear, positively affecting protective actions. On the other hand, perceived response efficacy and self-efficacy induced hope, which was positively associated with protective actions but negatively associated with information avoidance. Furthermore, the mechanisms behind the relationships among cognitions, emotions, and behaviors varied across levels of trust in healthcare systems.

What does the French public consider to be a conflict of interest for medical researchers?

Conflicts of interests have been at the core of public debate over health and medicine for decades. Social scientists have analysed the diversity of definitions of this label as well as the policies put in place to regulate the relationships between medical researchers and various actors such as private corporations. But little attention has been paid to the way the public define and use this label. In this article, we assess what the French public consider to be a conflict of interest for medical researchers. We draw on the data from a questionnaire-based survey conducted with a representative sample of the French population in December 2021 (n = 2022) where we asked respondents to decide whether different situations constituted a conflict of interest or not. These situations concerned medical researchers' relationships with economic actors but also with politicians and the media, with or without financial compensation for the researcher. We identified three main group profiles in terms of respondents' conception of what counts as a conflict of interest: i) considering that only money matters in the labelling of a given situation as a conflict of interest, ii) considering that any relationship with economic, media and political actors constitutes a conflict of interest (i.e., that medical research should be an ivory tower), and iii) indecision as to what constitutes a conflict of interest. These three groups differed in terms of social composition as well as respondents' relationships to science, politics, and the health care system.

Trusting the Health System and COVID 19 Restriction Compliance

We examine the extent to which exposure to higher relative COVID-19 mortality (RM), influences health system trust (HST), and whether changes in HST explain the perceived ease of compliance with pandemic restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Drawing on evidence from two representative surveys covering all regions of 28 European countries before and after the first COVID-19 wave, and using a difference in differences strategy together with Coarsened Exact Matching (CEM), we document that living in a region with higher RM during the first wave of the pandemic increased HST. However, the positive effect of RM on HST is driven by individuals over 45 years of age, and the opposite effect is found among younger cohorts. Furthemore, we find that a higher HST reduces the costs of complying with COVID-19 restrictions, but only so long as excess mortality does not exceed the average by more than 20%, at which point the ease of complying with COVID-19 restrictions significantly declines, offsetting the positive effect of trust in the healthcare system. Our interpretation of these estimates is that a higher RM is interpreted as a risk signal among those over 45, and as a signal of health-care system failure among younger age individuals.

Promoting COVID-19 vaccine confidence through public responses to misinformation: The joint influence of message source and message content

Objective

During the pandemic healthcare professionals and political leaders routinely used traditional and new media outlets to publicly respond to COVID-19 myths and inaccuracies. We examine how variations in the sources and messaging strategies of these public statements affect respondents’ beliefs about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines.

Methods

We analyzed the results of an experiment embedded within a multi-wave survey deployed to US and UK respondents in January–February 2022 to examine these effects. We employ a test-retest between-subjects experimental protocol with a control group. Respondents were randomly assigned to one of four experimental conditions reflecting discrete pairings of message source (political authorities vs. healthcare professionals) and messaging strategy (debunking misinformation vs. discrediting mis-informants) or a control condition. We use linear regression to compare the effects of exposure to treatment conditions on changes in respondent beliefs about the potential risks associated with COVID-19 vaccination.

Results

In the UK sample, we observe a statistically significant decrease in beliefs about the risks of COVID-19 vaccines among respondents exposed to debunking messages by healthcare professionals. We observe a similar relationship in the US sample, but the effect was weaker and not significant. Identical messages from political authorities had no effect on respondents’ beliefs about vaccine risks in either sample. Discrediting messages critical of mis-informants likewise had no influence on respondent beliefs, regardless of the actor to which they were attributed. Political ideology moderated the influence of debunking statements by healthcare professionals on respondent vaccine attitudes in the US sample, such that the treatment was more effective among liberals and moderates than among conservatives.

Conclusions

Brief exposure to public statements refuting anti-vaccine misinformation can help promote vaccine confidence among some populations. The results underscore the joint importance of message source and messaging strategy in determining the effectiveness of responses to misinformation.

The association between the proportion of Brexiters and COVID-19 death rates in England

RATIONALE

A cultural divide may exist between a set of people who accept and a set of people who reject the advice of experts. This cultural divide may have important consequences and policy implications, especially in times of severe crisis.

OBJECTIVE

Ecological study of whether there exists a significant conditional correlation between two variables that appear unrelated except for attitude towards experts: (1) Proportion of people voting in favour of remaining in the European Union in 2016 and (2) COVID-19 outcomes measured by death rates and vaccination rates. A significant conditional correlation would indicate that polarized beliefs have important consequences across a broad spectrum of societal challenges.

METHODS

This study uses simple descriptive statistics and multiple linear regression, considering confounders suggested in the related literature, with data at the District level in England.

RESULTS

Districts where people voted most heavily in favour of remaining in the EU (top quintile) had nearly half the death rate of districts in the bottom quintile. This relationship was stronger after the first wave, which was a time when protective measures were communicated to the public by experts. A similar relationship was observed with the decision to get vaccinated, and results were strongest for the booster dose, which was the dose that was not mandatory, but highly advised by experts. The Brexit vote is the variable most correlated with COVID-19 outcomes among many variables including common proxies for trust and civic capital or differences in industry composition across Districts.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest a need for designing incentive schemes that take into consideration different belief systems. Scientific prowess - such as finding effective vaccines - may not be sufficient to solve crises.

The COVID-19 curtain: Can past communist regimes explain the vaccination divide in Europe?

As of December 2021, all former Communist countries from Central and Eastern Europe were still lagging behind in terms of COVID-19 vaccination rates in Europe. Can institutional legacy explain, at least in part, this heterogeneity in vaccination decisions across Europe? To study this question we exploit novel data from the second wave of the SHARE (Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe) COVID-19 Survey fielded in Summer (2021) that covers older individuals in 27 European countries. First, we document lower COVID-19 vaccine take-up amongst those who were born under Communism in Europe. Next, we turn to reunified Germany to get closer to a causal effect of having lived behind the Iron Curtain. We find that exposure to the Communist regime in East Germany decreased one's probability to get vaccinated against COVID-19 by 8 percentage points and increased that of refusing the vaccine by 4 percentage points. Both effects are large and statistically significant, and they hold when controlling for individual socio-economic and demographic characteristics. We explore several possible mechanisms. The East-West Germany gap does not seem to be explained by differences in the impact of the first wave of the pandemic or in general exposure to vaccines. We find that East Germans have lower social capital than West Germans and that social capital correlates negatively with Covid-10 vaccine uptake, but only a small fraction of the East-West Germany Covid-19 vaccination gap can be explained by our measures of social capital.

"The chilling effect": Medical scientists' responses to audience feedback on their media appearances during the COVID-19 pandemic

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many medical scientists became public personas as a result of their media appearances. However, this prominence also made them likely targets of harassment from an increasingly science-skeptic public. Such experiences may lead to scientists cutting back on their public engagement activities, threatening the quality of science communication. This study examines how medical scientists evaluate feedback they received as a result of their media appearances, and how they relate their experiences to general views of the public, as well as their motivations to serve as media experts. Drawing on in-depth interviews with 24 Austrian medical scientists who served as media experts during the first year of the pandemic, we find substantial amounts of online abuse. Yet, this did not cause our respondents to avoid future media appearances, because their motivations to meet the needs of an unsettled public outweighed the experience of being harassed online.

Trust and vaccination intentions: Evidence from Lithuania during the COVID-19 pandemic

In this paper, we study the relationship between trust and COVID-19 vaccination intentions. Vaccinating a large share of the population is essential for containing the COVID-19 pandemic. However, many individuals refuse to get vaccinated, which might be related to a lack of trust. Using unique survey data from Lithuania during the COVID-19 pandemic, we show that trust in government authorities, science, and pharmaceutical companies are important predictors of individual vaccination intentions. We do not find evidence that trust in strangers, the healthcare system, or the media predict intentions to get vaccinated against COVID-19.

Go for zero tolerance: Cultural values, trust, and acceptance of zero-COVID policy in two Chinese societies

This study seeks to explain the wide acceptance of the stringent zero-COVID policy in two Chinese societies—Mainland China (n = 2,184) and Taiwan (n = 1,128)—from perspectives of cultural values and trust. By employing the efficacy mechanism, this study identifies significant indirect effects of trust in government and key opinion leaders (KOL) on people’s policy acceptance in both societies. Namely, people who interpret the pandemic as a collectivist issue and who trust in government will be more accepting of the zero-COVID policy, whereas those who framed the pandemic as an individual issue tend to refuse the policy. Trust in government and KOLs foster these direct relationships, but trust in government functions as a more important mediator in both societies. The different contexts of the two Chinese societies make the difference when shaping these relationships. These findings provide practical considerations for governmental agencies and public institutions that promote the acceptance of the zero-COVID policy during the pandemic.

[Informed trust in science: lessons from the COVID 19 pandemic for the conceptualization of science literacy]

Informed trust in science is necessary for the 'interfaces' within the flow of knowledge between citizens' everyday understanding of the pandemic and the dynamically evolving state of knowledge in the sciences. This is the core thesis of this paper. Without science, the COVID-19 pandemic can neither be understood nor controlled, and for this to happen, citizens must engage with science based knowledge. However, such knowledge is dynamic (evolving and intertwined with normative issues). Furthermore, science based knowledge competes with pseudoscientific contributions. As non-experts, laypersons must therefore decide whom to trust. The paper describes the concept of functional scientific literacy as a prerequisite of informed trust. The knowledge bases for judgments of informed trust should be taught in school and judging rationally about the trustworthiness of science-related knowledge claims should be practiced.

Does pro-sociality or trust better predict staying home behavior during the Covid-19?

Voluntary compliance of preventive and mitigation measures due to social concerns can play a crucial role in slowing down the spread of the Covid-19. The existing economic models for disease spread however do not direct a lot of focus on the possible role of pro-social behavior and general trust in predicting preventive behaviors amid the Covid-19. Therefore, this study analyzes whether pro-sociality and general trust measured in the short run (2020 and 2019) and in the long run (2015 and 2010) predict attitudes towards the stay home behavior and the intended stay home behavior in case the government mandates it due to the Covid-19 in the Netherlands. The results suggest that these preferences positively influence attitudes towards staying home behavior. However, trust in comparison to pro-sociality is a stable and robust predictor of stay home attitudes both in the short as well as long run. On the other hand, neither trust nor pro-sociality influences the intended stay home behavior in case the government mandates the lockdown, and it is most likely due to the timing of the survey coinciding with a significant drop in the Covid-19 infections and easing out of the lockdown restrictions by the Dutch government.

Your money or your life? Public support for health initiatives during the COVID-19 pandemic

While many Australians agree with the need for COVID-19 restrictions and lockdowns, a vocal minority of citizens loudly voice opposition to government restrictions, characterised as impositions on 'free speech' and impacting the Australian economy. National data from the 2020/21 Australian Survey of Social and Attitudes and Tasmanian survey data enable an examination of those who support or oppose health initiatives aimed at minimising the impact of the pandemic. The majority of Australians believed government imposed restrictions were 'about right', although women were more likely than men to be concerned about the health implications of COVID-19. Tasmanian data show that controlling for social background, those who prioritise the economy are less likely than those concerned about the health implications of COVID-19 to wear masks in public, less likely to be tested in case they have to self-isolate, less likely to check in, and less likely to be vaccinated. Alternatively, higher trust in university research, and trust in scientists as a source of information about COVID-19 was positively associated with attitudes and behaviour designed to reduce the transmission of COVID-19.

Disconnected in a pandemic: COVID-19 outcomes and the digital divide in the United States

The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated inequalities related to the digital divide. With wide adoption of remote working and learning, telehealth, and virtual events and social activities, the technology have-nots and know-nots experienced substantial marginalization and elevated risks of COVID-19 exposure in daily lives. This study discusses the pathways through which digital exclusion could aggravate the impacts of the pandemic and explored the linkage between digital access and COVID-19 outcomes in U.S. counties. It finds that counties with higher percentages of digitally excluded populations have seen higher COVID-19 case and death rates throughout the pandemic and lower vaccination rates by January 2022.

How education and GDP drive the COVID-19 vaccination campaign

BACKGROUND

Since vaccination is the decisive factor for controlling the COVID-19 pandemic, it is important to understand the process of vaccination success which is not well understood on a global level. The study is the first to judge the now completed "first wave" of the vaccination efforts. The analysis is very relevant for the understanding why and where the vaccination process observed got stuck by the end of 2021.

METHODS

Using data from 118 countries globally and weighted least squared and survival analysis, we identify a variety of factors playing crucial roles, including the availability of vaccines, pandemic pressures, economic strength measured by Gross Domestic Product (GDP), educational development, and political regimes.

RESULTS

Examining the speed of vaccinations across countries until the Fall of 2021 when the global process got stuck, we find that initially authoritarian countries are slow in the vaccination process, while education is most relevant for scaling up the campaign, and the economic strength of the economies drives them to higher vaccination rates. In comparison to North and Middle America, European and Asian countries vaccinated initially fast for 5% and 10% vaccination rate thresholds, but became rather slow reaching the 30% vaccination level and above. The findings are robust to various applied estimation methods and model specifications.

CONCLUSIONS

Democratic countries are much faster than authoritarian countries in their vaccination campaigns when controlling for other factors. This finding suggests that the quality of government and the political environment play a key role in popular support for government policies and programs. However, despite the early success of their vaccination campaigns, the democratic country group has been confronted with strong concerns of vaccine reluctance among their vast populations, indicating the two most potent variables explaining the speed of the COVID-19 vaccination campaign are education and economic conditions.

The effect of COVID certificates on vaccine uptake, health outcomes, and the economy

In the COVID-19 pandemic many countries required COVID certificates, proving vaccination, recovery, or a recent negative test, to access public and private venues. We estimate their effect on vaccine uptake for France, Germany, and Italy using counterfactuals constructed via innovation diffusion theory. The announcement of COVID certificates during summer 2021 were associated - although causality cannot be directly inferred - with increased vaccine uptake in France of 13.0 (95% CI 9.7-14.9) percentage points (p.p.) of the total population until the end of the year, in Germany 6.2 (2.6-6.9) p.p., and in Italy 9.7 (5.4-12.3) p.p. Based on these estimates, an additional 3979 (3453-4298) deaths in France, 1133 (-312-1358) in Germany, and 1331 (502-1794) in Italy were averted; and gross domestic product (GDP) losses of €6.0 (5.9-6.1) billion in France, €1.4 (1.3-1.5) billion in Germany, and €2.1 (2.0-2.2) billion in Italy were prevented. Notably, in France, the application of COVID certificates averted high intensive care unit occupancy levels where prior lockdowns were instated.

Intention to participate in COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials in May 2021: a cross-sectional survey in the general French population

In May 2021, while the immunization campaign was in progress, the emergence of new SARS-CoV-2 variants led us to assess attitudes toward participation in a COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial (VCT) in France. Between the 10th and the 23rd of May 2021, we conducted a cross-sectional online survey among a representative sample of the French population aged 18 and over and a specific sample of the French population over 65. Among the 3,056 respondents, 28.0% (856) would consider participation in a COVID-19 VCT. Factors independently negatively associated with willingness to participate in a COVID-19 VCT were female gender with an adjusted odd ratio (aOR) 0.42 and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.35–0.51, and mistrust in health actors (in their own physician and pharmacists, health ministry, government, scientists in medias, medias and pharmaceutical companies) with aOR 0.86 (95% CI 0.84–0.88) by one-point increase in mistrust in health actors score. Factors positively associated with willingness to participate in a COVID-19 VCT were COVID-19 vaccination or intention to get vaccinated with aOR 4.89 (95% CI 3.15–7.61), being a healthcare worker with aOR 2.051 (95% CI 1.51–2.80), being at risk for severe COVID-19 with aOR 1.39 (95% CI 1.14–1.69) and altruism as the main reason for getting vaccination with aOR 1.56 (95% CI 1.29–1.88). In May 2021, despite COVID 19 vaccine availability, 28% of the French population would agree to participate in a COVID-19 VCT. Mistrust in health actors contributes to a reduction in the intention to participate. Attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccination predict attitudes toward participation in a COVID-19 VCT.

Government Reactions, Citizens' Responses, and COVID-19 around the World

We analyze the relationship between different dimensions of the quality of the political system and the outcome of the COVID-19 pandemic. Data are retrieved from open-access databases for 98 countries. We apply a multivariable regression model to identify the relationship between various factors likely to affect the number of COVID-19 deaths, in addition to different dimensions of the quality of the political system. We find that the high quality of the electoral process in a country is associated with more COVID-19 deaths, while good political culture is associated with fewer deaths. As expected, we also find that trust in government and experiences with pandemics in the past is negatively related to COVID-19 deaths. Finally, a high GDP per capita is significantly associated with more COVID-19 deaths. Our findings illustrate that rapid, effective, and comprehensive government measures can protect society from the spread of a virus, but citizen compliance is also essential to policy success.

[Risk communication of policy advising scientific organisations: a thematic outline using the example of the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment]

Regulierungswissenschaftliche Organisationen wie das Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung (BfR) sehen sich in ihrer wissenschaftsbasierten Risikokommunikation mit diversen Herausforderungen konfrontiert: Einerseits wird die Kommunikation gesundheitlicher Risiken immer komplexer und dementsprechend voraussetzungsreicher, weshalb unter anderem Fragen nach der Gesundheitskompetenz von Verbraucherinnen und Verbrauchern sowie zielgruppengerechter Risikokommunikation an Bedeutung gewinnen. Andererseits sehen sich die Wissensbestände regulierungswissenschaftlicher Organisationen zunehmend der Politisierung und öffentlichen Kritik ausgesetzt. In diesem Rahmen werden Fragen nach der Objektivität und Vertrauenswürdigkeit von Gutachten, Risikobewertungen und Stellungnahmen sowie der Legitimierung und Reputation regulierungswissenschaftlicher Organisationen relevant. Zusätzlich intensiviert wird dies durch das Aufkommen neuer Akteure in den sozialen Medien, die eigene Informations- und Kommunikationsmaterialien produzieren und veröffentlichen. In diesem Kontext verbreitete Fehl‑, Des- und Malinformationen stellen eine weitere Herausforderung dar, welche eng mit Fragen nach einer adäquaten Kommunikation über gesundheitliche Risiken sowie der Stabilisierung von Legitimität, Reputation und Vertrauenswürdigkeit zusammenhängt.

Der Artikel diskutiert verschiedene Lösungsansätze, darunter die Optimierung und visuelle Aufbereitung von Gesundheitsinformationen, die Ermöglichung gesellschaftlicher Partizipation und die Einbettung dieser Maßnahmen in das strategische Stakeholder- und Reputationsmanagement. Der Beitrag schließt mit einem Aufruf zu offenerer Diskussion inhärenter Dilemmata.

Opposition to voluntary and mandated COVID-19 vaccination as a dynamic process: Evidence and policy implications of changing beliefs

The challenge of securing adherence to public health policies is compounded when an emerging threat and a set of unprecedented remedies are not fully understood among the general public. The evolution of citizens’ attitudes toward vaccination during the COVID-19 pandemic offers psychologically and sociologically grounded insights that enrich the conventional incentives- and constraints-based approach to policy design. We thus contribute to a behavioral science of policy compliance during public health emergencies of the kind that we may increasingly face in the future. From early in the pandemic, we have tracked the same individuals, providing a lens into the conditions under which people’s attitudes toward voluntary and mandated vaccinations change, providing essential information for COVID-19 policy not available from cross-section data.

COVID-19 vaccination rates slowed in many countries during the second half of 2021, along with the emergence of vocal opposition, particularly to mandated vaccinations. Who are those resisting vaccination? Under what conditions do they change their minds? Our three-wave representative panel survey from Germany allows us to estimate the dynamics of vaccine opposition, providing the following answers. Without mandates, it may be difficult to reach and to sustain the near-universal level of repeated vaccinations apparently required to contain the Delta, Omicron, and likely subsequent variants. But mandates substantially increase opposition to vaccination. We find that few were opposed to voluntary vaccination in all three waves of the survey. They are just 3.3% of our panel, a number that we demonstrate is unlikely to be the result of response error. In contrast, the fraction consistently opposed to enforced vaccinations is 16.5%. Under both policies, those consistently opposed and those switching from opposition to supporting vaccination are sociodemographically virtually indistinguishable from other Germans. Thus, the mechanisms accounting for the dynamics of vaccine attitudes may apply generally across societal groups. What differentiates them from others are their beliefs about vaccination effectiveness, their trust in public institutions, and whether they perceive enforced vaccination as a restriction on their freedom. We find that changing these beliefs is both possible and necessary to increase vaccine willingness, even in the case of mandates. An inference is that well-designed policies of persuasion and enforcement will be complementary, not alternatives.

The dark side of belief in Covid-19 scientists and scientific evidence

We draw from an interdisciplinary literature on convictions to examine the manifestations and consequences of firmly held beliefs in Covid-19 (C19) science. Across three studies (N = 743), we assess participants' beliefs in C19 experts, and beliefs in supported and unsupported empirical evidence. Study 1 establishes the basic theoretical links and we show that an individual's belief in science on C19 is associated with dispositional belief in science and moralization of C19 mitigation measures. Our subsequent two studies show how stronger belief in C19 science influences distrust in unmasked individuals past the mandates, and greater endorsement of pandemic mitigation authoritarianism. We document the dark side that emerges when belief in C19 science extends beyond the generally desirable scientific literacy and manifests as a conviction that public health experts are the only ones who can handle the pandemic, and that even unsupported claims about C19 are supported by scientific evidence (e.g., risk of outdoor transmission is high). We also highlight our political ideology findings showing that both liberals and conservatives mis-calibrate C19 risks in different ways, and we conclude with discussing how examining the darker side of scientific beliefs can inform our understanding of people's reactions to the pandemic.

An anchor in troubled times: Trust in science before and within the COVID-19 pandemic

Researchers, policy makers and science communicators have become increasingly been interested in factors that affect public’s trust in science. Recently, one such potentially important driving factor has emerged, the COVID-19 pandemic. Have trust in science and other science-related beliefs changed in Germany from before to during the pandemic? To investigate this, we re-analyzed data from a set of representative surveys conducted in April, May, and November 2020, which were obtained as part of the German survey Science Barometer, and compared it to data from the last annual Science Barometer survey that took place before the pandemic, (in September 2019). Results indicate that German’s trust in science increased substantially after the pandemic began and slightly declined in the months thereafter, still being higher in November 2020 than in September 2019. Moreover, trust was closely related to expectations about how politics should handle the pandemic. We also find that increases of trust were most pronounced among the higher-educated. But as the pandemic unfolded, decreases of trust were more likely among supporters of the populist right-wing party AfD. We discuss the sustainability of these dynamics as well as implications for science communication.

Different roles of interpersonal trust and institutional trust in COVID-19 pandemic control

The absence of pharmaceutical interventions made it particularly difficult to mitigate the first outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The current study investigated how interpersonal trust and institutional trust influenced the control process. Trusts and COVID-19 data in 44 countries and 50 US states were analyzed; institutional trust was associated with case fatality rate, and interpersonal trust was associated with control speed. Two independent behavioral experiments showed that institutional trust manipulation increased participants’ willingness to complete the COVID-19 test and that interpersonal trust manipulation increased conscious compliance with prevention norms and decreased unnecessary outdoor activities. Agent-based modeling further confirmed these behavioral mechanisms for two types of trust in the COVID-19 control process. New interventions are needed to help countries heighten interpersonal and institutional trust as they continue to battle COVID-19 and other collective threats.