Skip to main content
Tessa NewsLink
Paste a health news link, or browse
Latest checks

Source study found

Story checked

Perceptions of science and scientists shape partisan views on common vaccines (opens in a new tab)

news-medical.net · 2026-10-20

Short answerEvidenceSource

Short answer

Mixed

Mixed.

One claim goes further than the study. One other point was not covered by the paper.

  • 3 supported
  • 1 overstated
  • 1 not covered

Checked against the study summary. The full text wasn't available, so some details couldn't be settled either way.

Share this check

Follow the evidence trail
1
2

NewsLink checks it

Mixed

One claim overstates the study. Three of five check out. One claim the study doesn't address.

  • 3 supported
  • 1 overstated
  • 1 not covered
Open claim evidence
3
Then inspect each claim

Evidence layer

Claim by claim

Each claim gets a verdict. Expand it to see the evidence directly below.

5 claims in this story

Showing all 5 claimsChoose a verdict to focus the list.

Claim 1 of 5OverstatedHow Americans view science and scientists is strongly associated with whether they think vaccines are safe and effective, and helps explain partisan differences in perceptions of some vaccines.View evidenceHide evidence

As statedstrongly associated

Why this verdict

The abstract-level profile supports associations between perceptions of science/scientists and vaccine evaluations, and supports that after adjustment for FASS factors party identification remained associated only with COVID-19 vaccine perceptions. However, the story’s lead says these views are “strongly associated” and “help explain” partisan differences. The abstract does not provide effect sizes to support “strongly,” and the cross-sectional observational design cannot establish an explanatory or mediating pathway. The headline/lead wording therefore outruns the evidence even though the underlying adjusted-association pattern is real.

1

Study evidence

Respondents rated the MMR vaccine as the safest and most effective among the three vaccine types.Mean safety = 3.54 (SD = 0.71); mean effectiveness = 3.63 (SD = 0.68)

“We used multiple regression analyses to examine survey data collected in November 2024 from a national probability sample of 1763 US adults.”
2

Study evidence

Perceiving science as beneficial (a FASS factor) was the factor most consistently associated with more favorable evaluations of vaccine safety and effectiveness across vaccine types.

“We measured perceptions of science and scientists using the Factors Assessing Science's Self-Presentation (FASS) scale…”
Claim 2 of 5Not coveredThe researchers recommend tailoring vaccine communication to the specific vaccine, its history, perceptions of safety and effectiveness, and the political affiliation of the target audience, and suggest future work should test whether messages about science’s bias-correcting mechanisms help.View evidenceHide evidence

Why this verdict

The abstract-level profile supports a broad implication that communication strategies should be tailored to vaccine safety/effectiveness concerns and specific audiences. But the more detailed recommendations in the story—tailoring based on vaccine history and testing messages about science’s bias-correcting mechanisms—are not present in the supplied abstract-level profile. They may be in the full text, but they are not verifiable at this evidence depth.

1

Study evidence

Respondents rated the MMR vaccine as the safest and most effective among the three vaccine types.Mean safety = 3.54 (SD = 0.71); mean effectiveness = 3.63 (SD = 0.68)

“We used multiple regression analyses to examine survey data collected in November 2024 from a national probability sample of 1763 US adults.”
2

Study evidence

Perceiving science as beneficial (a FASS factor) was the factor most consistently associated with more favorable evaluations of vaccine safety and effectiveness across vaccine types.

“We measured perceptions of science and scientists using the Factors Assessing Science's Self-Presentation (FASS) scale…”
Claim 3 of 5SupportedDemocrats viewed the MMR, flu, and Covid-19 vaccines as safer and more effective than Republicans did, but after accounting for broader perceptions of science and scientists, partisan differences for MMR and flu were no longer statistically significant.View evidenceHide evidence

As statedno longer statistically significant

Why this verdict

The profile reports greater concern about vaccine safety and effectiveness among Republicans and that, after adjustment for FASS factors, political party identification was associated only with COVID-19 vaccine perceptions. This supports the claim that partisan differences for MMR and flu were no longer statistically significant after accounting for perceptions of science and scientists.

1

Study evidence

Respondents rated the MMR vaccine as the safest and most effective among the three vaccine types.Mean safety = 3.54 (SD = 0.71); mean effectiveness = 3.63 (SD = 0.68)

“We used multiple regression analyses to examine survey data collected in November 2024 from a national probability sample of 1763 US adults.”
2

Study evidence

Perceiving science as beneficial (a FASS factor) was the factor most consistently associated with more favorable evaluations of vaccine safety and effectiveness across vaccine types.

“We measured perceptions of science and scientists using the Factors Assessing Science's Self-Presentation (FASS) scale…”
Claim 4 of 5SupportedFor the Covid-19 vaccine, political affiliation remained significantly associated with how people viewed it even after accounting for perceptions of science, suggesting it was more politicized.View evidenceHide evidence

As statedremained significantly associated

Why this verdict

The profile directly states that after adjustment for FASS factors, political party identification remained associated only with perceptions of the COVID-19 vaccine, with P < .001. The interpretation that COVID-19 vaccine perceptions were especially politicized is consistent with the paper profile’s discussion.

1

Study evidence

Respondents rated the MMR vaccine as the safest and most effective among the three vaccine types.Mean safety = 3.54 (SD = 0.71); mean effectiveness = 3.63 (SD = 0.68)

“We used multiple regression analyses to examine survey data collected in November 2024 from a national probability sample of 1763 US adults.”
2

Study evidence

Perceiving science as beneficial (a FASS factor) was the factor most consistently associated with more favorable evaluations of vaccine safety and effectiveness across vaccine types.

“We measured perceptions of science and scientists using the Factors Assessing Science's Self-Presentation (FASS) scale…”
Claim 5 of 5SupportedThe study found that seeing science as beneficial was consistently associated with believing that all three vaccines were both safe and effective, while other perceptions of science and scientists were linked to some vaccine evaluations but not others.View evidenceHide evidence

As statedconsistently associated

Why this verdict

The abstract-level profile states that perceiving science as beneficial was the FASS factor most consistently associated with more favorable vaccine safety and effectiveness evaluations across vaccine types. It also reports that associations involving party identification and FASS factors varied by vaccine type, supporting the story’s general contrast between the consistent beneficial-science factor and less consistent patterns for other science/scientist perceptions.

1

Study evidence

Perceiving science as beneficial (a FASS factor) was the factor most consistently associated with more favorable evaluations of vaccine safety and effectiveness across vaccine types.

“We measured perceptions of science and scientists using the Factors Assessing Science's Self-Presentation (FASS) scale…”
Then look for missing context

Context layer

What the story left out

Important study details the story did not include.

  • The study is cross-sectional and observational, with self-reported perception outcomes, limiting causal or mediation-style interpretations.

    The story mostly uses associational language, but its caveats do not explicitly mention the cross-sectional observational design, self-reported outcomes, or the resulting limits on causal inference. This is material because phrases such as “helps explain” can be read as stronger than simple association.

    From Cross-sectional national probability survey with adjusted regression analyses; observational survey (national probabilit

3 things the story did carry across
  • The study was a national probability survey of 1,763 US adults conducted in November 2024, using multiple regression analyses of perceived safety and effectiveness for MMR, flu, and COVID-19 vaccines.
  • After adjustment for FASS factors, political party identification remained associated only with COVID-19 vaccine perceptions; associations for non-COVID vaccines were attenuated.
  • Perceiving science as beneficial was the FASS factor most consistently associated with more favorable vaccine safety and effectiveness evaluations.
Then read the study layer

Study layer

Study at a glance

Scan the study first. Expand only the parts you want to inspect.

Pieces of work

3

Evidence read

study summary

Lead result

human in vivo

1Lead resulthuman in vivoEstimate associations between political party identification and perceived safety/effectiveness of MMR, flu, and COVID-19 vaccines in a national US adult sample (2024), including whether politicization differs by vaccine type (especially COVID-19).Cross-sectional national probability survey with adjusted regression analysesExpand

In plain English

Cross-sectional analysis of a national probability survey (n=1763, November 2024) that used multiple regression to examine associations between political party identification and perceived safety and effectiveness of MMR, flu, and COVID-19 vaccines, adjusting for perceptions of science/scientists (FASS scale). Key results: MMR rated highest on safety and effectiveness, COVID-19 lowest; after adjustment for FASS factors, political party identification remained associated only with COVID-19 vaccine perceptions (P < .001); perceiving science as beneficial was the FASS factor most consistently associated with vaccine evaluations.

Key findings

  • Respondents rated the MMR vaccine as the safest and most effective among the three vaccine types.Mean safety = 3.54 (SD = 0.71); mean effectiveness = 3.63 (SD = 0.68)
  • Respondents rated the COVID-19 vaccine as the least safe and least effective among the three vaccine types.Mean safety = 2.98 (SD = 1.07); mean effectiveness = 2.81 (SD = 1.02)
“We used multiple regression analyses to examine survey data collected in November 2024 from a national probability sample of 1763 US adults.”
What this piece can’t prove
  • All outcomes are self-reported perceptions from a cross-sectional survey, limiting causal inference (cross-sectional design noted in methods).

1 further detail could not be confirmed from the summary.

2human in vivoAssess how perceptions of science and scientists (FASS scale factors, e.g., credibility/prudence/unbiased; science beneficial/self-correcting) relate to vaccine safety/effectiveness perceptions and whether these perceptions account for/modify associations with political party identification.observational survey (national probability sample)Expand

In plain English

In a national probability survey of 1,763 US adults (November 2024), perceptions of science and scientists were measured with the Factors Assessing Science's Self-Presentation (FASS) scale (multiple factors). Multiple regression models examined associations between FASS factors and perceived safety and effectiveness of the MMR, influenza, and COVID-19 vaccines and evaluated whether inclusion of FASS factors altered associations between political party identification and vaccine perceptions. Perceiving science as beneficial was the FASS factor most consistently associated with more positive vaccine evaluations; after adjustment for FASS factors, political party identification remained associated only with perceptions of the COVID-19 vaccine. Associations between party identification and FASS factors varied by vaccine type.

Key findings

  • Perceiving science as beneficial (a FASS factor) was the factor most consistently associated with more favorable evaluations of vaccine safety and effectiveness across vaccine types.
  • After adjustment for FASS factors in regression models, political party identification remained associated only with perceptions of the COVID-19 vaccine (P < .001); for other vaccines, party-identification associations were attenuated after accounting for FASS factors.
“We measured perceptions of science and scientists using the Factors Assessing Science's Self-Presentation (FASS) scale…”
What this piece can’t prove
  • Cross-sectional observational design limits causal interpretation of associations between FASS factors, party identification, and vaccine perceptions.

2 further details could not be confirmed from the summary.

3human in vivoProvide descriptive population estimates of perceived safety and effectiveness for MMR, flu, and COVID-19 vaccines (means/SDs) to contextualize comparative evaluations across vaccine types.Cross-sectional national probability surveyExpand

In plain English

In a national probability survey of 1,763 US adults conducted in November 2024, respondents rated perceived safety and effectiveness of MMR, flu, and COVID-19 vaccines. The abstract reports MMR as rated highest (mean safety = 3.54, SD = 0.71; mean effectiveness = 3.63, SD = 0.68) and COVID-19 as rated lowest (mean safety = 2.98, SD = 1.07; mean effectiveness = 2.81, SD = 1.02). The flu vaccine is mentioned in comparisons but the abstract does not report its mean (SD) values.

Key findings

  • Respondents rated the MMR vaccine as the safest and most effective of the three vaccines.Mean safety = 3.54 (SD = 0.71); mean effectiveness = 3.63 (SD = 0.68).
  • Respondents rated the COVID-19 vaccine as the least safe and least effective of the three vaccines.Mean safety = 2.98 (SD = 1.07); mean effectiveness = 2.81 (SD = 1.02).
“Respondents perceived the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine as the safest and most effective (mean safety score = 3.54 [SD = 0.71]; mean effectiveness score = 3.63 [SD = 0.68]) and the COVID-19 vaccine as the least safe and effective (mean safety score = 2.98 [SD = 1.07]; mean effectiveness score = 2.81 [SD = 1.02]).”
What this piece can’t prove
  • Abstract does not specify the response scale or its range/anchors for the perceived safety/effectiveness items.
  • Data are cross-sectional and self-reported; descriptive statistics do not imply causation.

2 further details could not be confirmed from the summary.

Finally, the search trail

Method layer

NewsLink found the paper. Tessa takes you deeper.

NewsLink checks the story. Tessa is where you inspect the paper, authors, evidence, and research context.

Open the paper in Tessa

The Relationship Between Political Affiliation, Perceptions of Science and Scientists, and Perceived Safety and Effectiveness of the MMR, Flu, and COVID-19 Vaccines: United States, 2024.

American journal of public health · 2026

Deep dive in Tessa (opens in a new tab)Source record (opens in a new tab)

Why this one

Near certain

NewsLink found the paper. Tessa is where you inspect it deeply.

Papers considered

The selected paper, plus nearby candidates.

PubMed, Europe PMC, Crossref · 40 candidate papers

Selected

The Relationship Between Political Affiliation, Perceptions of Science and Scientists, and Perceived Safety and Effectiveness of the MMR, Flu, and COVID-19 Vaccines: United States, 2024.

American Journal of Public Health · 2026 · PubMed, Europe PMC

Tessa (opens in a new tab)Source (opens in a new tab)
Candidate

Breaking psychedelic boundaries in public health: emerging ideas with ancient roots

Frontiers in Public Health · 2026 · Crossref

Source (opens in a new tab)

And 34 more candidates considered.