Why is it that sometimes people do not correct their reasoning errors? The dominating dual-process theories of reasoning detail how people (fail to) detect their reasoning errors but underspecify how ...people decide to correct these errors once they are detected. We have unpacked the motivational aspects of the correction process here, leveraging the research on cognitive control. Specifically, we argue that when people detect an error, they decide whether or not to correct it based on the overall expected value associated with the correction-combining perceived efficacy and the reward associated with the correction while considering the cost of effort. Using a modified two-response paradigm, participants solved cognitive reflection problems twice while we manipulated the factors defining the expected value associated with correction at the second stage. In five experiments (N = 5,908), we found that answer feedback and reward increased the probability of correction while cost decreased it, relative to the control groups. These cognitive control critical factors affected the decisions to correct reasoning errors (Experiments 2 and 3) and the corrective reasoning itself (Experiments 1, 4 and 5) across a range of problems, feedbacks, types of errors (reflective or intuitive), and cost and reward manipulations pre-tested and checked in five separate studies (N = 951). Thus, some people did not correct their epistemically irrational reasoning errors because they followed the instrumentally rational principle of the expected value maximization: They were rationally irrational.
The proliferation of anti-vaccination arguments online can threaten immunisation programmes, including those targeting COVID-19. To effectively refute misinformed views about vaccination, ...communicators need to go beyond providing correct information and debunking of misconceptions, and must consider the underlying motivations of people who hold contrarian views. Drawing on a taxonomy of anti-vaccination arguments that identified 11 "attitude roots"-i.e., psychological attributes-that motivate an individual's vaccine-hesitant attitude, we assessed whether these attitude roots were identifiable in argument endorsements and responses to psychological construct measures corresponding to the presumed attitude roots. In two UK samples (total n = 1250), we found that participants exhibited monological belief patterns in their highly correlated endorsements of anti-vaccination arguments drawn from different attitude roots, and that psychological constructs representing the attitude roots significantly predicted argument endorsement strength and vaccine hesitancy. We identified four different latent anti-vaccination profiles amongst our participants' responses. We conclude that endorsement of anti-vaccination arguments meaningfully dovetails with attitude roots clustering around anti-scientific beliefs and partisan ideologies, but that the balance between those attitudes differs considerably between people. Communicators must be aware of those individual differences.
The attribute framing effect, where people judge a quantity of an item more positively with a positively described attribute (e.g., “75% lean”) than its negative, albeit normatively equivalent ...description (e.g., “25% fat”), is a robust phenomenon, which may be moderated under certain conditions. In this paper, we investigated the moderating effect of the characteristics of the quantifier term: its format (verbal, e.g., “high,” or numerical, e.g., “75%”) and magnitude (i.e., if it is a small or large quantity) using positive or negative synonyms of attributes (e.g., energy vs. calories). Over five pre‐registered studies using a 2 (synonym, between‐subjects: positive or negative) × 2 (quantifier format, between‐subjects: verbal or numerical) × 2 (quantifier magnitude, within‐subjects: small or large) mixed design, we manipulated quantifier format and magnitude orthogonally for synonyms with differing valence. We also tested two mechanisms for the framing effect: whether the effect was mediated by the affect associated with the frame and whether participants inferred the speaker to be positive about the target. We found a framing effect with synonyms that was reversed in direction for the small (vs. large) quantifiers, but not significantly moderated by quantifier format. Both the affect associated with the frame and the inferred level of speaker positivity partially mediated the framing effect, and the level of mediation varied with quantifier magnitude. These results suggest that the magnitude of the quantifier modifies one's evaluation of the frame, and the mechanism for people's evaluations in a framing situation may differ for small and large quantifiers.
We explore the common attributes of political conflicts in which scientific findings have a central role, using the COVID-19 pandemic as a case study, but also drawing on long-standing conflicts over ...climate change and vaccinations. We analyze situations in which the systematic spread of disinformation or conspiracy theories undermines public trust in the work of scientists and prevents policy from being informed by the best available evidence. We also examine instances in which public opposition to scientifically grounded policy arises from legitimate value judgments and lived experience. We argue for the public benefit of quick identification of politically motivated science denial, and inoculation of the public against its ill effects.
Abstract Background Stigma, lack of trust in authorities, and poor knowledge can prevent health-seeking behaviour, worsen physical and mental health, and undermine efforts to control transmission ...during disease outbreaks. These factors are particularly salient with diseases such as mpox, for which 96% of cases in the 2022–2023 UK outbreak were identified among gay, bisexual, queer and men who have sex with men (MSM). This study explored stigma and health-seeking behaviour in Liverpool through the lens of the recent mpox outbreak. Methods Primary sources of data were interviews with national and regional key informants involved in the mpox response, and participatory workshops with priority populations. Workshop recruitment targeted Grindr users (geosocial dating/hookup app) and at risk MSM; immigrant, black and ethnic minority MSM; and male sex workers in Liverpool. Data were analysed using a deductive framework approach, building on the Health Stigma and Discrimination Framework. Results Key informant interviews ( n = 11) and five workshops ( n = 15) were conducted. There were prevalent reports of anticipated and experienced stigma due to mpox public health messaging alongside high demand and uptake of the mpox vaccine and regular attendance at sexual health clinics. Respondents believed the limited impact of stigma on health-seeking behaviour was due to actions by the LGBTQ + community, the third sector, and local sexual health clinics. Key informants from the LGBTQ + community and primary healthcare felt their collective action to tackle mpox was undermined by central public health authorities citing under-resourcing; a reliance on goodwill; poor communication; and tokenistic engagement. Mpox communication was further challenged by a lack of evidence on disease transmission and risk. This challenge was exacerbated by the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the scientific community, public perceptions of infectious disease, and trust in public health authorities. Conclusions The LGBTQ + community and local sexual health clinics took crucial actions to counter stigma and support health seeking behaviour during the 2022–2023 UK mpox outbreak. Lessons from rights based and inclusive community-led approaches during outbreaks should be heeded in the UK, working towards more meaningful and timely collaboration between affected communities, primary healthcare, and regional and national public health authorities.
This Comment piece summarises current challenges regarding routine vaccine uptake in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and provides recommendations on how to increase uptake. To implement these ...recommendations, the article points to evidence-based resources that can support health-care workers, policy makers and communicators.
Healthcare professionals (HCPs) play an important role in vaccination; those with low confidence in vaccines are less likely to recommend them to their patients and to be vaccinated themselves. The ...study's purpose was to adapt and validate long- and short-form versions of the International Professionals' Vaccine Confidence and Behaviors (I-Pro-VC-Be) questionnaire to measure psychosocial determinants of HCPs' vaccine confidence and their associations with vaccination behaviors in European countries.
After the original French-language Pro-VC-Be was culturally adapted and translated, HCPs involved in vaccination (mainly GPs and pediatricians) across Germany, Finland, France, and Portugal completed a cross-sectional online survey in 2022. A 10-factor multigroup confirmatory factor analysis (MG-CFA) of the long-form (10 factors comprising 34 items) tested for measurement invariance across countries. Modified multiple Poisson regressions tested the criterion validity of both versions.
2,748 HCPs participated. The 10-factor structure fit was acceptable to good everywhere. The final MG-CFA model confirmed strong factorial invariance and showed very good fit. The long- and short-form I-Pro-VC-Be had good criterion validity with vaccination behaviors.
This study validates the I-Pro-VC-Be among HCPs in four European countries; including long- and short-form tools for use in research and public health.
Abstract People’s negative attitudes to vaccines can be motivated by psychological factors—such as fears, ideological beliefs, and cognitive patterns—known as ‘attitude roots’. This study had two ...primary objectives: (1) to identify which of 11 known attitude roots are featured in individuals’ self-expressed reasons for negative vaccine attitudes (i.e., a linguistic analysis); (2) to explore how attitude roots present in self-expressed texts are linked to specific psychological measures. To achieve Objective 1, our study collected data from December 2022 to January 2023 from 556 participants from the US, who wrote texts to explain the reasons for their negative vaccine attitudes. The texts encompassed 2327 conceptually independent units of anti-vaccination argumentation, that were each coded for its attitude root(s) by at least two psychological experts. By allowing participants to spontaneously express their attitudes in their own words, we were able to observe how this differed from what participants reported to endorse when presented with a list of arguments. We found that there were four groups of attitude roots based on linguistic similarity in self-expression. In addition, latent class analysis of participants’ coded texts identified three distinct groups of participants that were characterised by their tendency to express combinations of arguments related to (1) fears, (2) anti-scientific conceptions, and (3) politicised perspectives. To achieve Objective 2, we collected participants’ responses to 11 validated measures of psychological constructs expected to underlie the respective 11 attitude roots, and used a correlational design to investigate how participants’ self-expressed attitude roots were linked to these measures. Logistic regressions showed that an expected psychological construct was the strongest, and significant, predictor for expression of three out of the four attitude root groups. We discuss the implications of these findings for health communicators and practitioners.
Mandatory vaccinations are widely debated since they restrict individuals' autonomy in their health decisions. As healthcare professionals (HCPs) are a common target group of vaccine mandates, and ...also form a link between vaccination policies and the public, understanding their attitudes toward vaccine mandates is important. The present study investigated physicians' attitudes to COVID-19 vaccine mandates in four European countries: Finland, France, Germany, and Portugal. An electronic survey assessing attitudes to COVID-19 vaccine mandates and general vaccination attitudes (e.g. perceived vaccine safety, trust in health authorities, and openness to patients) was sent to physicians in the spring of 2022. A total of 2796 physicians responded. Across all countries, 78% of the physicians were in favor of COVID-19 vaccine mandates for HCPs, 49% favored COVID-19 vaccine mandates for the public, and 67% endorsed COVID-19 health passes. Notable differences were observed between countries, with attitudes to mandates found to be more positive in countries where the mandate, or similar mandates, were in effect. The associations between attitudes to mandates and general vaccination attitudes were mostly small to neglectable and differed between countries. Nevertheless, physicians with more positive mandate attitudes perceived vaccines as more beneficial (in Finland and France) and had greater trust in medical authorities (in France and Germany). The present study contributes to the body of research within social and behavioral sciences that support evidence-based vaccination policymaking.
Abstract Background Healthcare professionals (HCPs) can play an important role in encouraging patients and their caregivers to be vaccinated. The objective of this qualitative study was to ...investigate HCPs’ perspectives on challenges in vaccine communication and unmet training needs in this domain. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 41 HCPs (mainly nurses and physicians) with vaccination roles (23 in England; 18 in France), gathering information on: (1) HCPs’ approach to vaccine conversations with patients; (2) Challenges of communicating about vaccines; (3) Vaccine-related training and learning resources available to HCPs, and; (4) HCPs’ training needs around vaccine communication. Results HCPs described a range of communication experiences that indicated insufficient time, information, and skills to confidently navigate difficult conversations with vaccine-hesitant patients. Communication skills were especially important to avoid conflict that could potentially damage the patient-provider relationship. Some HCPs interviewed had received communication training, but for most, this training was not specific to vaccination. Although general communication skills were transferable to vaccine conversations, most HCPs welcomed specific training and informational resources to support countering patients’ misconceptions or misinformation about vaccines. Conclusions HCPs would benefit from training tailored to address vaccine communication with patients, and this should be part of a systemic approach that also provides time and space to have effective vaccine conversations.
PDF
