Trust in scientists, risk perception, conspiratorial beliefs, and unrealistic optimism: A network approach to investigating the psychological underpinnings of COVID-19 vaccination intentions

Q2 Psychology Social Psychological Bulletin Pub Date : 2022-10-12 DOI:10.32872/spb.7807
Bruno Gabriel Salvador Casara, S. Martinez-Conde, D. Doliński, Caterina Suitner, O. Genschow, Paweł Muniak, Wojciech Kulesza
{"title":"Trust in scientists, risk perception, conspiratorial beliefs, and unrealistic optimism: A network approach to investigating the psychological underpinnings of COVID-19 vaccination intentions","authors":"Bruno Gabriel Salvador Casara, S. Martinez-Conde, D. Doliński, Caterina Suitner, O. Genschow, Paweł Muniak, Wojciech Kulesza","doi":"10.32872/spb.7807","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Using a network approach, we addressed in two studies interrelations among potential antecedents of vaccine intentions, related to both COVID-19 risk perception and epistemic beliefs (i.e., trust in scientists and conspiracy beliefs). In Study 1 and 2, we assessed a US (N = 994) and an international sample (N = 902) during spring and summer 2020. The network analysis reveals a complex interplay of factors where trust in scientists, the closest predictor of vaccine intention, is associated with conspiracy beliefs and danger perception. Furthermore, we found evidence for unrealistic optimism, with participants perceiving the risk of getting infected with COVID-19 as lower compared to the risk they attributed to other people. However, this bias was not associated with vaccine intention. Study 2 corroborated these results. The results call for a global change in the narrative which should highlight the epistemic authority of science in order to build a stronger trust in the scientific community. However, tackling trust in scientists needs a wider field of persuasion that includes conspiracy beliefs and risk perception factors.","PeriodicalId":32922,"journal":{"name":"Social Psychological Bulletin","volume":"96 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Psychological Bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.32872/spb.7807","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Psychology","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Using a network approach, we addressed in two studies interrelations among potential antecedents of vaccine intentions, related to both COVID-19 risk perception and epistemic beliefs (i.e., trust in scientists and conspiracy beliefs). In Study 1 and 2, we assessed a US (N = 994) and an international sample (N = 902) during spring and summer 2020. The network analysis reveals a complex interplay of factors where trust in scientists, the closest predictor of vaccine intention, is associated with conspiracy beliefs and danger perception. Furthermore, we found evidence for unrealistic optimism, with participants perceiving the risk of getting infected with COVID-19 as lower compared to the risk they attributed to other people. However, this bias was not associated with vaccine intention. Study 2 corroborated these results. The results call for a global change in the narrative which should highlight the epistemic authority of science in order to build a stronger trust in the scientific community. However, tackling trust in scientists needs a wider field of persuasion that includes conspiracy beliefs and risk perception factors.
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
对科学家的信任、风险认知、阴谋论信念和不切实际的乐观:一种调查COVID-19疫苗接种意向心理基础的网络方法
使用网络方法,我们在两项研究中解决了疫苗意向的潜在前因之间的相互关系,这些前因与COVID-19风险感知和认知信念(即对科学家的信任和阴谋信念)相关。在研究1和2中,我们评估了2020年春夏期间的美国(N = 994)和国际样本(N = 902)。网络分析揭示了各种因素的复杂相互作用,其中对科学家的信任(最接近疫苗意图的预测因子)与阴谋信念和危险感知有关。此外,我们还发现了不切实际的乐观主义的证据,参与者认为感染COVID-19的风险低于他们归咎于其他人的风险。然而,这种偏倚与疫苗意向无关。研究2证实了这些结果。研究结果呼吁在全球范围内改变叙事方式,强调科学的认知权威,以便在科学界建立更强的信任。然而,解决对科学家的信任问题需要更广泛的说服领域,包括阴谋信念和风险感知因素。
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
5.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊最新文献
Correction of Paulina Banaszkiewicz (2022). Biological sex and psychological gender differences in the experience and expression of romantic jealousy Correction of Nathan Vidal et al. (2023). Assessing the reliability of an infrared thermography protocol to assess cold-induced brown adipose tissue activation in French psychology students Willingness to use moral reframing: Support comes from perceived effectiveness, opposition comes from integrity concerns Feeling bad about feeling good? how avengers and observers evaluate the hedonic pleasure of taking revenge Anticipated and achieved individual mobility amongst Portuguese immigrants in Switzerland: Social identity adjustment and inter-minority relations
×
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