Efforts to address the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have encountered skepticism among the public, but COVID-19 is not the only medical or scientific issue that receives such skepticism. How does COVID-19 skepticism relate to other forms of science skepticism? Using new data from a nationally representative survey of U.S. adults, this study reveals that skepticism toward COVID-19 is similar to patterns of skepticism toward vaccines in general and, more interestingly, skepticism toward climate change. Patterns of skepticism toward evolution and genetically modified foods are more distinct from COVID-19 skepticism. Notably, even after accounting for other forms of science skepticism, political conservatism is significantly associated with greater skepticism toward COVID-19. Finally, contrary to some media narratives, the analysis reveals few racial or ethnic differences in skepticism toward COVID-19, and the differences that do exist indicate less skepticism among Black and Asian individuals relative to White individuals.

Research suggests that public figures can play an influential role in forming public opinion; yet, little research has experimentally tested the efficacy of public figures on the cognitive formation of boundaries. Using an experiment embedded within a nationally representative survey, we examine how two science popularizers, Francis Collins and Richard Dawkins, influence perceptions regarding the boundaries between religion and science. We find that learning of Dawkins does not influence people’s perceptions of the religion–science relationship, while learning of Collins shifts respondents toward a collaborative view of religion and science. Findings suggest that figures with unexpected views might be more effective in changing conceptual boundaries.

Background: Vaccines represent one of the best ways to counter the COVID-19 pandemic. However, vaccine hesitancy among the population limits the effectiveness of vaccines. Recent research has explored the role of religion in vaccine hesitancy, but in doing so has encountered a “black box” problem. There is a relationship between religion and vaccine hesitancy, but the explanation for why remains unclear. Purpose: The purpose of this study is to explore the relationship between religion and vaccine hesitancy. We propose that how an individual conceptualizes God/a higher power is associated with getting vaccinated for COVID-19. Methods: We use data from a nationally representative survey of U.S. adults, collected using the Amerispeak® probability-based panel via the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago. We examine the association between individuals’ views of God/a higher power as both a supervisory and an intervening figure on vaccine uptake and likelihood of getting vaccinated through logistic regressions. Results: We find that belief in God's/a higher power's supervision is not significantly associated with the odds of COVID-19 vaccine uptake or vaccination intent. However, belief in God's/a higher power's ability to intervene in the world is significantly and negatively associated with the odds of COVID-19 vaccine uptake and the odds of having received or planning to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. In addition, in models where belief in the ability of God/a higher power to intervene are included, Christian nationalism ceases to have a statistically significant association with intent to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. Conclusions and implications: These findings suggest that how individuals conceptualize God/a higher power is associated with their willingness to get the COVID-19 vaccine. Given this, those who see God/a higher power as more involved in the world may contribute to delays in achieving herd immunity. This information benefits those working on vaccination campaigns in understanding the beliefs of some of those who are most hesitant to get vaccinated. In addition, this intervention mechanism could also mediate other negative relationships between religion and other science and health-related concerns.