Ambivalence Toward the Implementation of Preventive Measures in (Un-)Vaccinated German Citizens

IF 1.3 4区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL European Journal of Health Psychology Pub Date : 2023-10-17 DOI:10.1027/2512-8442/a000137
Lena Hahn, Eva Walther
{"title":"Ambivalence Toward the Implementation of Preventive Measures in (Un-)Vaccinated German Citizens","authors":"Lena Hahn, Eva Walther","doi":"10.1027/2512-8442/a000137","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract: Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has changed life around the world. To fight the pandemic, preventive measures were implemented. Despite being accepted by a majority of citizens in Germany, these measures elicited fierce protest from others. It seems that people either like or dislike them. Given the immense complexity of the topic, it is also likely that people hold ambivalent attitudes (i.e., simultaneously positive and negative). Aims: The purpose of this study is to explore ambivalence toward the (non-)implementation of preventive measures in vaccinated and unvaccinated German citizens. Method: Vaccinated ( N = 136) and unvaccinated ( N = 170) participants indicated their positivity, negativity and experienced ambivalence toward the (non-)implementation of preventive measures (e.g., mask mandatory). Results: The structure of positive and negative evaluations (i.e., objective ambivalence) indicates that unvaccinated people are more univalent (negative) and vaccinated people are neutral toward the preventive measures. Interestingly, results indicate a dissociation between objective ambivalence and experienced ambivalence. Limitation: The results are limited by the measurement choice, data collection time, and sample. Conclusion: The findings indicate that the experienced ambivalence increases with increasing personal costs. Implications for behavior change interventions and health psychology are discussed.","PeriodicalId":51983,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Health Psychology","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Health Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1027/2512-8442/a000137","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract: Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has changed life around the world. To fight the pandemic, preventive measures were implemented. Despite being accepted by a majority of citizens in Germany, these measures elicited fierce protest from others. It seems that people either like or dislike them. Given the immense complexity of the topic, it is also likely that people hold ambivalent attitudes (i.e., simultaneously positive and negative). Aims: The purpose of this study is to explore ambivalence toward the (non-)implementation of preventive measures in vaccinated and unvaccinated German citizens. Method: Vaccinated ( N = 136) and unvaccinated ( N = 170) participants indicated their positivity, negativity and experienced ambivalence toward the (non-)implementation of preventive measures (e.g., mask mandatory). Results: The structure of positive and negative evaluations (i.e., objective ambivalence) indicates that unvaccinated people are more univalent (negative) and vaccinated people are neutral toward the preventive measures. Interestingly, results indicate a dissociation between objective ambivalence and experienced ambivalence. Limitation: The results are limited by the measurement choice, data collection time, and sample. Conclusion: The findings indicate that the experienced ambivalence increases with increasing personal costs. Implications for behavior change interventions and health psychology are discussed.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
(未)接种疫苗的德国公民对实施预防措施的矛盾心理
摘要:背景:新冠肺炎大流行改变了世界各地的生活。为防治这一流行病,采取了预防措施。尽管这些措施得到了大多数德国公民的接受,但却引发了其他人的强烈抗议。似乎人们不是喜欢他们就是不喜欢他们。鉴于这个话题的巨大复杂性,人们也可能持有矛盾的态度(即同时积极和消极)。目的:本研究的目的是探讨接种疫苗和未接种疫苗的德国公民对(不)实施预防措施的矛盾心理。方法:接种疫苗(N = 136)和未接种疫苗(N = 170)的参与者表明了他们对(非)实施预防措施(例如,强制戴口罩)的积极、消极和矛盾心理。结果:正面和负面评价结构(即客观矛盾心理)表明,未接种者对预防措施的评价更为单价(负面),接种者对预防措施的评价较为中性。有趣的是,结果表明客观矛盾心理和经验矛盾心理之间存在分离。局限性:结果受到测量选择,数据收集时间和样本的限制。结论:研究结果表明,随着个人成本的增加,经历的矛盾心理也随之增加。讨论了行为改变干预和健康心理学的意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
29
期刊介绍: Die "Zeitschrift für Gesundheitspsychologie" wurde gegründet, um dem raschen Anwachsen gesundheitspsychologischer Forschung sowie deren Relevanz für verschiedene Anwendungsfelder gerecht zu werden. Gesundheitspsychologie versteht sich als wissenschaftlicher Beitrag der Psychologie zur Förderung und Erhaltung von Gesundheit, zur Verhütung und Behandlung von Krankheiten, zur Bestimmung von Risikoverhaltensweisen, zur Diagnose und Ursachenbestimmung von gesundheitlichen Störungen sowie zur Verbessung des Systems gesundheitlicher Vorsorge.
期刊最新文献
Ambivalence Toward the Implementation of Preventive Measures in (Un-)Vaccinated German Citizens Personality Factors and Health Beliefs Related to Attitudes Toward Wearing Face Masks During the COVID-19 Pandemic Meeting Calendar List of Reviewers 2023 How Communicating Vaccine Benefits and Harms in Fact Boxes Affects Risk Perceptions
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1