Distrustful Complacency and the COVID-19 Vaccine: How Concern and Political Trust Interact to Affect Vaccine Hesitancy

We test the hypothesis that COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is attributable to distrustful complacency—an interactive combination of low concern and low trust. Across two studies, 9,695 respondents from different parts of Britain reported their level of concern about COVID-19, trust in the UK government, and intention to accept or refuse the vaccine. Multilevel regression analysis, controlling for geographic area and relevant demographics, confirmed the predicted interactive effect of concern and trust. Across studies, respondents with both low trust and low concern were 10%–22% more vaccine hesitant than respondents with either high trust or high concern, and 26%–29% more hesitant than respondents with both high trust and high concern. Results hold equally among White, Black, and Muslim respondents, consistent with the view that regardless of mean-level differences, a common process underlies vaccine hesitancy, underlining the importance of tackling distrustful complacency both generally and specifically among unvaccinated individuals and populations.     

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.     

Modeling effects of risk and social distance on vaccination choice

Despite vaccines' consistently demonstrated effectiveness, vaccination rates remain suboptimal due to vaccine refusal. Low vaccination rates are particularly problematic for individuals who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons and thus must rely on herd immunity (i.e., protection of vulnerable individuals due to the high rate of vaccination of other—often socially distant—individuals). The current study uses a novel decision‐making task to examine how three variables impacted participants' highest acceptable probability of side effects to their children: 1) the severity of the side effects their children experience, 2) the social distance to the beneficiary of the vaccination, and 3) the probability that the vaccine will prevent disease for that designated beneficiary. Participants' willingness to risk potential side effects of vaccination systematically decreased as the 1) effectiveness of the vaccination decreased, 2) the beneficiary of the vaccination became more socially distant, and 3) the severity of side effects increased. These data were well‐described by behavioral economic models used to examine the discounting of other health behavior.     

Openness relates to COVID-19 vaccination rates across 48 United States but politics trump personality

Does geographic variation in personality across the United States relate to COVID-19 vaccination rates? To answer this question, we combined multiple state-level datasets: (a) Big Five personality averages (i.e., extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness; Rentfrow et al., 2008), (b) COVID-19 full-vaccination rates (CDC, 2021a), (c) health-relevant demographic covariates (population density, per capita gross domestic product, and racial/ethnic data; Webster et al., 2021), and (d) political and religiosity data. Analyses showed openness as the strongest correlate of full-vaccination rates (r = 0.51). Controlling for other traits, demographic covariates, and spatial dependence, openness remained significantly related to full-vaccination rates (r_p = 0.55). Adding political and religiosity data to this model diminished openness effects for full-vaccination rates to non-significance (r_p = 0.26); however, extraversion emerged as a significant correlate of full-vaccination rates (r_p = 0.37). Although politics are paramount, we suspect that states with higher average openness scores are more conducive to novel thinking and behavior—dispositions that may be crucial in motivating people to take newly-developed vaccines based on new technologies to confront a novel coronavirus.     

Examining approaches to encourage COVID-19 vaccination on social media

Following the release of the first COVID-19 vaccinations many people utilized social media to promote vaccination among their social circles. These attempts to persuade others to get vaccinated ranged from positive encouragement (e.g., emphasizing the prosocial benefits and positive outcomes) to shame and threats (e.g., name calling and threating to end friendships over vaccination status). The present study investigated how these different social media messages affected COVID-19 vaccination intentions. In June 2021, shortly after vaccines had been made freely available to anyone over the age of 16 in the United States, unvaccinated participants read a manipulated Twitter message designed to be either encouraging or shaming. Message-type did not significantly affect intentions to become vaccinated against COVID-19; however, participants who saw the encouraging message reported that the post made them feel more likely to get vaccinated. Self-efficacy was also manipulated but did not reveal any significant effects. Additional analyses suggest that having personal experience with COVID-19 moderates reactions to these different messages. We discuss limitations and promising avenues for future research on the effects of social media messages on health behaviors.     

Attitude Change Toward Animal Experimentation in an Academic Setting

Social values theory was used to examine how parents make decisions for their adolescent children. Social values theory states that decision making for others is based on the social value of an action, leading to a norm for how to decide for others, whereas self decisions are influenced by a number of additional factors. Consistent with a risk-aversion norm, in hypothetical health and safety scenarios parents made more risk-averse decisions for their adolescent children than for themselves. Further, the level of risk and inconvenience affected self decisions more than decisions for one's child. A second study showed that the norm was stronger for decisions for one's child than for oneself and more related to parents’ decisions for their child than for themselves. In sum, parents’ decisions for their children seem to be largely determined by a norm stating how they are supposed to decide, at least in the domain of health and safety. Implications for both the judgment and decision making and parenting literatures are discussed.     

Unvaxxed and unafraid: Unvaccinated Americans perceive less disease risk than do vaccinated Americans

Is disease risk perception accurately calibrated among the unvaccinated? People shift their attitudes to rationalize their choices, so those who choose to be unvaccinated may be motivated to feel less at risk. In three studies (total N = 1446), we asked Americans how worried they were about catching/spreading influenza and COVID-19 and whether they were vaccinated against those diseases. Unvaccinated participants felt less at risk of catching/spreading the diseases they were unvaccinated against than vaccinated participants. For instance, unvaccinated participants felt ∼24% less at risk of catching/spreading COVID-19 and had ∼28% stronger intention to engage in activities that carried a high risk of COVID-19 transmission (Study 3). Overall, those who choose to be the most vulnerable to disease feel and act the least vulnerable.     

Moralizing the COVID-19 Pandemic: Self-Interest Predicts Moral Condemnation of Other's Compliance,Distancing, and Vaccination

The emergence of the novel coronavirus has put societies under tremendous pressure to instigate massive and rapid behavior change. Throughout history, an effective strategy to facilitate novel behaviors has been to morally condemn those who do not behave in an appropriate way. Accordingly, here, we investigate if complying with the advice of health authorities—for example, to physically distance or vaccinate—has emerged as a moralized issue during the COVID-19 pandemic. In Study 1, we rely on data (N = 94K) from quota-sampled rolling cross-sectional online surveys from eight countries (Denmark, Sweden, Germany, France, Italy, Hungary, the United Kingdom, and the United States). We find that large majorities find it justified to condemn those who do not keep a distance to others in public and around half of respondents blame ordinary citizens for the severity of the pandemic. Furthermore, we identify the most important predictors of condemnation to be behavior change and personal concern, while institutional trust and social distrust also play large but less consistent roles. Study 2 offers a registered replication of our findings on a representative sample of Britons (N = 1.5K). It shows that both moralization and condemnation of both vaccination and general compliance are best predicted by self-interested considerations.