This study verifies whether there is a strong correlation between the pro-vaccination, against COVID-19 attitude of the respondents and their belief that most of those around them want to be vaccinated against COVID-19. For this purpose, we analyzed data from a sociological survey conducted in April 2021 in Romania. The sample size was of 1001 respondents, the selection process was randomized and the population included in the sample is representative of the socio-demographic structure of Romania. The tool used to collect the data was CATI (telephonic interview). In order to test the existence of these correlations we performed the following tests: Chi-Square test, Kendall τ, Spearman ρ tests and Freeman’s z-test. The pro-vaccination attitude strongly correlates with the perception of subjects that their primary group accepts vaccination and even correlates with the perception that the general public is rather pro-vaccination. The vaccination decision is closely linked to the social relations system and the rules of the community in which the subject lives. In this paper we discuss the correlation between attitude and belief, not the existence of a causal relation between the two of them.

Decades of medical research have focused on analysing the effects of sustainable eating on health and well-being; yet, less attention has been devoted to this subject in communication and media studies research. Recently, however, scholarly attention has shifted towards the way sustainable food is covered in the media. Nevertheless, previous studies analyse sustainable food together with other sustainability challenges, such as climate change. In this article, we focus our attention on analysing media reporting of sustainable food. Relying theoretically on the framing analysis approach coupled with Goody’s five-phase analytical framework in building sustainable food-related behaviours (production, distribution, preparation, consumption and disposal) and by applying the rationale of content analysis, this article examines media coverage of sustainable food with a focus on sustainable food production, distribution, preparation, consumption and disposal. Therefore, the article identifies trends and patterns of media coverage of sustainable food in Romania between 2014 and 2017. Interesting results emerge, showing that Romanian journalists reporting on food-related topics do not have a solid understanding of the field and contribute to the spread of inaccurate information often, resulting from insufficient research or inadequate use of sources. As a result of the lack of in-depth knowledge of those involved in writing about food, the media coverage of sustainable food is strictly reduced to reporting on aspects related to the consumption of fresh fruit and vegetables, framed as the only healthy foods, and recommended diets for specific underlying health conditions (such as obesity, diabetes, hypertension and associated diseases).

This paper presents the findings of a study aiming at an innovative typology of attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccination. The proposed typology tries to go beyond the common sociological studies who divide the public into three categories: pro-vaxxers, anti-vaxxers, and hesitants. Our purpose is obtaining a more complex typology using cluster analysis. The article is based on a nation-wide survey conducted in Romania. The sample of the survey was statistically representative to the population of Romania and was composed of 1002 participants. A k-means algorithm for classifying cases was used to identify how the studied population structures itself when it comes to attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccination. We see hesitancy as an expression of concern or doubt about the value or safety of the vaccination, but also as fear or dis(trust) in the authorities, or as disinterest. We found out that the Romanian public falls into three categories regarding the attitude towards COVID-19 vaccination: the “non-fanatical” pro-vaxxers, the anti-vaxxers, and those without a clear opinion (uninterested and/or undecided). What we usually call “vaccine hesitancy” can be found, depending on motivation or type of hesitancy, in both of the last two clusters.

This study aims to identify a general typology for the EU27, and subsequently in Romania, regarding the hesitation, acceptance and refusal of vaccination against COVID-19. The analysis we propose below is based on the information contained in Eurobarometer 94.3, the data of which were collected at the beginning of most of the national vaccination campaigns in Europe. Based on the attitudes and opinions expressed by the respondents of the European states (EU27), we constructed with the help of the cluster k-means (SPSS) statistical analysis a typology with four categories on the subject of vaccination against COVID-19. Our study proposes a matrix with five items/scenarios on a scale from total agreement to total disagreement. We chose a typology with four attitudinal types (clusters). We subsequently compared the results of the general European analysis with the cluster typology resulting from the same Eurobarometer, the same set of questions, only for the case of Romania, to see if this analysis sheds a specific light on the fact that Romania had a very low vaccination rate compared to other EU Member States.

This study investigates the relationship between religiosity and attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccination in Romania using nationally representative survey data from the Barometer of Religious Life (December 2021). Five survey items measuring religious beliefs and practices were used to construct a Religious Practice Index, whose reliability and one-dimensionality were confirmed through Cronbach’s Alpha and factor analysis. Correlation analysis revealed a small but statistically significant negative association between religiosity and vaccination acceptance (r = −0.106, p = 0.001). Binary logistic regression further indicated that higher religiosity, younger age, lower income, and rural residence were significant predictors of reduced vaccination likelihood, while older age, higher income, and urban residence were associated with greater acceptance. Nevertheless, the model explained only 9.3% of the variance and correctly classified 64.4% of cases, suggesting modest predictive power. These findings indicate that religiosity influences vaccination attitudes but does not serve as a dominant predictor, highlighting the importance of other additional factors that were beyond the scope of this analysis and were not measured.