RISK-TAKING AND DECISION-MAKING UNDER UNCERTAINTY IN THE COVID-19 VACCINE. DOES THE SOMATIC MARKER HYPOTHESIS EXPLAIN VACCINE HESITANCY?

IF 1 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY Acta Neuropsychologica Pub Date : 2023-07-03 DOI:10.5604/01.3001.0053.7282
Hasan Demirci, Hanife Merve Çatan, Ahmet Fatih Sarıkaya, Ülkü Tankut
{"title":"RISK-TAKING AND DECISION-MAKING UNDER UNCERTAINTY IN THE COVID-19 VACCINE. DOES THE SOMATIC MARKER HYPOTHESIS EXPLAIN VACCINE HESITANCY?","authors":"Hasan Demirci, Hanife Merve Çatan, Ahmet Fatih Sarıkaya, Ülkü Tankut","doi":"10.5604/01.3001.0053.7282","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The study aims to compare the decision-making processes of individuals with and without the Covid-19 vaccine under uncertainty.The study included 70 participants vaccinated against Covid-19 and 70 not-vaccinated against Covid-19, matched by age, gender, and education level. Sociodemographic Data Form, Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI), Barratt Impulsivity Scale Short Form (BIS-11-SF), The Scale of Vaccine Hesitancy (SVH), and Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) were administered to the participants.A statistically significant difference was found between the vaccinated and non-vaccinated groups regarding SVH sub-dimensions and the total score (p<0.001). A statistically significant difference was observed between the groups in the IGT-5 sub- dimension (p <0.05). Although there was no statistically significant difference in IGT-total and other sub-dimensions, it was recognized that not-vaccinated participants made more choices for risky decks. A statistically significant negative correlation was found between IGT-5 and the benefit and protective value of the vaccine, solutions for non-vaccination, and SVH-total score. Besides, there was a statistically significant negative correlation between the IGT-Total score and the sub-dimension of solutions for non-vaccination.The non-vaccinated group made more choices from the disadvantageous and risky decks in the long run during the decision-making task under uncertainty; they were prone to take more risks. That is why the impact of implicit and emotional processes should be considered in the risk assessment against vaccine hesitancy.","PeriodicalId":43280,"journal":{"name":"Acta Neuropsychologica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Neuropsychologica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0053.7282","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The study aims to compare the decision-making processes of individuals with and without the Covid-19 vaccine under uncertainty.The study included 70 participants vaccinated against Covid-19 and 70 not-vaccinated against Covid-19, matched by age, gender, and education level. Sociodemographic Data Form, Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI), Barratt Impulsivity Scale Short Form (BIS-11-SF), The Scale of Vaccine Hesitancy (SVH), and Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) were administered to the participants.A statistically significant difference was found between the vaccinated and non-vaccinated groups regarding SVH sub-dimensions and the total score (p<0.001). A statistically significant difference was observed between the groups in the IGT-5 sub- dimension (p <0.05). Although there was no statistically significant difference in IGT-total and other sub-dimensions, it was recognized that not-vaccinated participants made more choices for risky decks. A statistically significant negative correlation was found between IGT-5 and the benefit and protective value of the vaccine, solutions for non-vaccination, and SVH-total score. Besides, there was a statistically significant negative correlation between the IGT-Total score and the sub-dimension of solutions for non-vaccination.The non-vaccinated group made more choices from the disadvantageous and risky decks in the long run during the decision-making task under uncertainty; they were prone to take more risks. That is why the impact of implicit and emotional processes should be considered in the risk assessment against vaccine hesitancy.
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
科维-19 疫苗不确定性下的风险承担和决策。体细胞标记假说能否解释疫苗犹豫不决?
该研究旨在比较接种和未接种 Covid-19 疫苗的个体在不确定情况下的决策过程。研究对象包括 70 名接种了 Covid-19 疫苗的参与者和 70 名未接种 Covid-19 疫苗的参与者,他们的年龄、性别和受教育程度相匹配。研究人员对参与者进行了社会人口学数据表、贝克抑郁量表(BDI)、贝克焦虑量表(BAI)、巴拉特冲动量表简表(BIS-11-SF)、疫苗犹豫量表(SVH)和爱荷华赌博任务(IGT)的测试。在 IGT-5 子维度上,各组之间的差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。尽管在 IGT 总分和其他分维度上没有统计学意义上的显著差异,但未接种疫苗的参与者选择了更多的危险牌。IGT-5与疫苗的益处和保护价值、不接种疫苗的解决方案以及SVH-总分之间存在统计学意义上的负相关。此外,IGT-总分与不接种疫苗的解决方案子维度之间也存在统计学意义上的显著负相关。在不确定条件下的决策任务中,从长远来看,未接种疫苗组在不利和风险牌中做出了更多选择;他们容易冒更大的风险。因此,在针对疫苗犹豫不决进行风险评估时,应考虑内隐过程和情感过程的影响。
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
1.50
自引率
42.90%
发文量
8
期刊最新文献
EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF A COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM OF REHABILITATION OFFERED ACCORDING TO DIFFERENT THERAPEUTIC PROTOCOLS IN REDUCING CHRONIC FRONTAL SYNDROME IN PATIENTS 10-YEARS FOLLOWING NEUROSURGERY FOR POST-TRAUMATIC INTRACEREBRAL HEMATOMA Empathy as a determinant of perceived stress and styles of coping with stress in medical, law and psychology students NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES OF COVID-19: CURRENT APPROACH AND CLINICAL RECOMMENDATIONS FACTORS ASSOCIATED TO BURN-OUT AMONG IBN SINA HOSPITAL PUBLIC HEALTH PROFESSIONALS Psoriasis and atopic dermatitis in terms of psychosomatic effects
×
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