Objectives
Increasing vaccination hesitancy threatens societies’ capacity to contain pandemics and other diseases. One factor that is positively associated with vaccination intentions is a supportive ...subjective norm (i.e., the perception that close others approve of vaccination). On the downside, there is evidence that negative attitudes toward vaccinations are partly rooted in conspiracy mentality (i.e., the tendency to believe in conspiracies). The objective of this study is to examine the role of subjective norms in moderating the association between conspiracy mentality and vaccine hesitancy. We examined two competing predictions: Are those high in conspiracy mentality immune to subjective norms, or do subjective norms moderate the relationship between conspiracy mentality and vaccination intentions?
Methods
We conducted five studies (total N = 1,280) to test these hypotheses across several vaccination contexts (some real, some fictitious). We measured conspiracy mentality, vaccination intentions, subjective norms, attitudes toward vaccination, and perceived behavioural control.
Results
A merged analysis across the studies revealed an interaction effect of conspiracy mentality and subjective norm on vaccination intentions. When subjective norm was high (i.e., when participants perceived that close others approved of vaccines) conspiracy mentality no longer predicted vaccination intentions. This was consistent with the moderating hypothesis of subjective norms and inconsistent with the immunity hypothesis.
Conclusions
The typical negative relationship between conspiracy mentality and vaccination intentions is eliminated among those who perceive pro‐vaccination subjective norms. Although correlational, these data raise the possibility that pro‐vaccination views of friends and family can be leveraged to reduce vaccine hesitancy.
Nowadays, power-holders and subordinates in organizations often collaborate via computer-mediated (rather than face-to-face) communication. Such means of contact provide many benefits, but could also ...influence how collaboration partners understand their roles: Will a power-holder feel responsible for taking care of his or her subordinates—though s/he anticipates meeting these subordinates only virtually, but not in person? Due to their independence, power-holders often seem to concentrate on and follow their own personal interests while neglecting their responsibility for others—which could be especially likely when expecting digital (rather than face-to-face) contact, because the former makes others seem less socially close. The present work tested this idea, bringing together approaches on digital collaboration, social power, and distance in social relationships. Results from two experiments showed that power-holders (compared to the powerless) perceived more responsibility for others when anticipating face-to-face (but not digital) contact. As such, the findings suggest that type of contact asserts a meaningful influence on social perception and highlight a potential challenge of anticipating digital contact in organizational hierarchies.
•The type of contact people anticipate alters perceived social relations.•Power and anticipated contact interactively influence responsibility for others.•Power promotes responsibility when anticipating face-to-face (vs. digital) contact.
PDF
