Implicit and explicit COVID-19-vaccine harmfulness/helpfulness associations predict vaccine beliefs,intentions, and behaviors

We investigated the role of implicit and explicit associations between harm and COVID-19 vaccines using a large sample (N = 4668) of online volunteers. The participants completed a brief implicit association test and explicit measures to evaluate the extent to which they associated COVID-19 vaccines with concepts of harmfulness or helpfulness. We examined the relationship between these harmfulness/helpfulness COVID-19 vaccine associations and vaccination status, intentions, beliefs, and behavior. We found that stronger implicit and explicit associations that COVID-19 vaccines are helpful relate to vaccination status and beliefs about the COVID-19 vaccine. That is, stronger pro-helpful COVID-19 vaccine associations, both implicitly and explicitly, related to greater intentions to be vaccinated, more positive beliefs about the vaccine, and greater vaccine uptake.     

Intra- and interpersonal factors and adolescent wellbeing during COVID-19 in three countries

COVID-19 has altered adolescents' opportunities for developing and strengthening interpersonal skills and proficiencies. Using data from adolescents in Italy, the United States, and the United Kingdom, we examined the relation between internalizing symptoms assessed pre-pandemic or when pandemic-related restrictions were lifted (Time 1) and associated internalizing symptoms during a subsequent restrictive pandemic period (Time 2). Across all 3 countries, we found significant and consistent effect sizes in the relation between Time 1 and Time 2 internalizing symptoms. We further examined the direct and moderating impact of self-efficacy and contextual supports for adolescents' internalizing symptoms. Higher self-efficacy was associated with lower levels of internalizing symptoms at Time 2 in all 3 countries. Additionally, the relation between Time 1 and 2 internalizing symptoms was buffered by regulatory self-efficacy and peer support in Italy, but in the U.S., higher levels of general self-efficacy instead had an exacerbating effect on the relation between Times 1 and 2 internalizing symptoms. Results are discussed in the context of utilizing cross-national datasets to examine similarities in adolescent well-being over time and in the face of varying government responses to the pandemic.     

Social cohesion predicts COVID-19 vaccination intentions and uptake

COVID-19 vaccination is widely regarded as an individual decision, resting upon individual characteristics and demographic factors. In this research, we provide evidence that psychological group membership, and more precisely, social cohesion—a multidimensional concept that encompasses one's sense of connectedness to, and interrelations within, a group—can help us understand COVID-19 vaccination intentions (Study 1) and uptake (Study 2). Study 1 is a repeated-measures study with a representative sample of 3026 Australians. We found evidence that social cohesion can be conceptualised as a multidimensional structure; moreover, social cohesion at Wave 1 (early in the COVID-19) predicted greater vaccination intention and lower perceived risk of vaccination at Wave 2 (4 months later). In Study 2 (a cross-sectional study, N = 499), the multidimensional structure of social cohesion was associated with greater uptake of vaccine doses (in addition to willingness to receive further doses and perceived risk of the vaccine). These relations were found after controlling for a series of demographic (i.e., sex, age, income), health-related factors (i.e., subjective health; perceived risk; having been diagnosed with COVID-19), and individual differences (political orientation, social dominance orientation, individualism). These results demonstrate the need to go beyond individual factors when it comes to behaviours that protect groups, and particularly when examining COVID-19 vaccination—one of the most important ways of slowing the spread of the virus.     

Coping with COVID: Use,factor structure,and health behavior implications of specific emotion regulation strategies during the coronavirus pandemic

This series of studies examined U.S. individuals' use of specific emotion regulation/coping strategies during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, investigated the factor structure among strategies during this universally experienced stressor, and the extent to which these factors predicted engagement in COVID-related health-promoting behaviors. In Study 1, participants (N = 520) rated their use of 17 strategies for coping with pandemic-related stress during the past 24 h. Differences emerged in strategy use across demographic groups (age, race, income). Results of exploratory factor analysis suggest a factor structure grouping strategies in terms of goals beyond emotion regulation per se, rather than phases of the emotion process or a binary adaptive versus maladaptive distinction. In Study 2 (N = 264), participants reported daily on their coping strategy use and weekly on their engagement in COVID-specific health behaviors for 22 days. Results of confirmatory factor analysis replicate the factor structure found in Study 1. Some significant associations of coping strategy use with health-promoting behaviors were observed, but these were sporadic and largely involved baseline measures rather than predicting change over time. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.     

An explanation of conservatism in the bookbag-and-pokerchips situation

An experiment is described in which subjective probability revisions were obtained in a standard probability estimation task, the ‘bookbag-and-pokerchips’situation. Three aspects of probability revision were examined: conservatism, sequential effects, and coherence. Under two experimental conditions, the conservatism effect obtained was closely related to subjects' use of a simple strategy. A recency effect was also obtained. Coherence of the probability estimates was excellent. Conditions under which the observed strategy leads to conservatism are explored and previously published results are reconsidered in the light of this strategy. Conservatism in the bookbag- and-pokerchips situation is explained as an artefact of subjects' strategies