The sociodemographic and psychosocial correlates of COVID-19 vaccine concerns among urban college students

COVID-19 vaccine concerns remain high among Americans. Although recent studies have investigated the sociodemographic disparities in vaccine concerns, less attention has been given to reasons for vaccine skepticism and psychosocial factors that may explain it. The current study examined specific types of vaccine concerns among a diverse sample of college students (N = 1985) living in New York City. Participants who identified as Black, younger, with later immigrant generational status, and those with more conservative political leanings reported more vaccine concerns. Concerns regarding vaccine side effects were the most frequently reported source of concern. Reason for getting vaccinated, personal experiences with COVID, and COVID stress was also associated with vaccine concerns. Study results emphasize the importance of sociodemographic factors and COVID knowledge and stress in examining and addressing vaccine concerns.     

A test of vaccine endorsement by political in- versus out-group sources: Effect on vaccination likelihood and exploration of mediation through perceived bias and liking

This study investigated whether political endorsements from in- versus out-group political elites would influence likelihood of COVID-19 vaccination. In March 2021, we ran an experiment with Democrats and Republicans in the United States to examine whether they would be more likely to get vaccinated following endorsements by former Presidents Obama or Trump. Participants reported greater likelihood of getting vaccinated if the vaccine was endorsed by an elite from their own rather than the opposing party. This effect was driven by Trump, who increased vaccination likelihood among Republicans but decreased it among Democrats. We also investigated the mechanisms underlying this persuasion effect and found that perceived bias and liking were plausible mediators, whereas perceived trustworthiness and expertise were not. This study highlights the potential of having endorsements from both Democrat and Republican political elites to increase support for health behaviors in a politically charged climate.     

Distress,wellbeing, and growth amidst COVID-19: Considering the dynamic interplay between positive and negative anticipatory emotions

Although negative anticipatory emotions are typically seen as risk factors for poorer psychological outcomes over COVID-19, emotion theorists suggest that this risk may be attenuated if balanced by the experience of positive emotion. Thus, the current study examined whether interactions between positive and negative anticipatory emotions were concurrently associated with psychological distress and greater personal wellbeing/posttraumatic growth (PTG) at three distinct periods (i.e., pre-lockdown, during lockdown, post-lockdown), and whether associations varied by these three COVID-19 time periods. The study utilizes two large longitudinal Australian samples, surveyed in 2020 prior to, during, and after a strict 4-month lockdown that occurred in Australia. Overall, positive emotions attenuated the adverse psychological outcomes arising from higher levels of negative emotion (i.e., higher psychological distress and lower personal wellbeing). Observed effects varied according to COVID-19 threat exposure. Specifically, the interaction was significantly associated with psychological distress prior to the lockdown for Sample 2, and during the lockdown for both samples. The interaction was significantly associated with wellbeing (Sample 2) prior to, and during, the lockdown but only marginally associated post-lockdown. The interaction, however, was not significantly associated with PTG (Sample 1). The results suggest that it is valuable for future research to consider greater emotional complexity (i.e., mixed emotions) over COVID-19, and other stressors more generally, to encompass a more nuanced understanding of resilience.     

Rachunek zdań, w którym wyrażenia tracą sens

Allatum est 3 Aprilis 1965     

Validity of the DSM-III-R personality disorder Clusters

This study assessed the validity of the DSM-III-R personality disorder clusters (i.e., odd-eccentric, dramatic-emotional-erratic, and anxious-fearful) by examining the relationships between self-report measures that tap the core features shared by disorders from each cluster and Cluster scores established via a semistructured interview in a sample of 57 outpatients. Results indicated a high degree of correlation among the DSM-III-R personality disorder Cluster scores. In addition, a series of regression analyses revealed that self-report scores did not account for a significant amount of variance in their respective Cluster scores over and above that accounted for by other self-report measures and other Cluster scores. These results suggest that the current DSM-III-R cluster classification scheme may not be appropriate, and it is recommended that a more empirically justifiable classification of the personality disorders be adopted in DSM-IV.     

A near-death experience among the Mapuche people

This paper describes a possible near-death experience (NDE) among the Mapuche people of Chile. The individual reporting the experience was in a cataleptic-like state for two days, the experience itself occurring at the end of this period. Some common features of NDEs, such as encounters with deceased people and being sent back, are present, together with clear evidence that past and present cultural environment shape in part the content of mental experiences.This work was funded in part by the University of Chile (DTI Project Q-3064).The author thanks Editorial Andrés Bello for permissionto translate the near death account into English.     

Order effects in belief updating with consistent and inconsistent evidence

The current study tests for the presence of differential order effects in evaluation tasks with consistent and inconsistent evidence as predicted by the Hogarth and Einhorn (1992) belief-adjustment model. The results, based on both between-subjects and within-subjects experiments, demonstrate that there were significant recency effects with inconsistent evidence as predicted, larger recency effects when the inconsistent evidence was farther apart in subjective value as predicted, and significant recency effects even when subjects were given training designed to both help them understand the task as completely as possible and to be better able to assess the pieces of evidence. By including a within-subjects design, we were able to demonstrate that the difference in subjective value between two pieces of evidence is the primary factor influencing the magnitude of the recency effect, regardless of whether the evidence is consistent or inconsistent. This latter finding is unique and contrary to previous research and theory.