通过解释疫苗科学来减少对疫苗的犹豫。

IF 2.7 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED Journal of Experimental Psychology-Applied Pub Date : 2023-09-01 DOI:10.1037/xap0000464
Susan Joslyn, Chao Qin, Jee Hoon Han, Sonia Savelli, Nidhi Agrawal
{"title":"通过解释疫苗科学来减少对疫苗的犹豫。","authors":"Susan Joslyn, Chao Qin, Jee Hoon Han, Sonia Savelli, Nidhi Agrawal","doi":"10.1037/xap0000464","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Vaccine hesitancy in the COVID-19 pandemic remained a problem long after mRNA vaccines became available. This may be due in part to misunderstandings about the vaccines, arising from complexities of the science involved. Two experiments, conducted on unvaccinated Americans at two periods postvaccine rollout in 2021, demonstrated that providing explanations, expressed in everyday language, and correcting known misunderstandings, reduced vaccine hesitancy compared to a no-information control group. Four explanations addressing misunderstandings about mRNA vaccine safety and effectiveness were tested in Experiment 1 (n = 3,787). Some included expository text while others included refutational text, explicitly stating and refuting the misunderstanding. Vaccine effectiveness statistics were expressed either as text or an icon array. Although all four explanations reduced vaccine hesitancy, the refutational format of those addressing vaccine safety (explaining the mRNA mechanism and mild side effects) was the most effective. These two explanations were retested individually and jointly in Experiment 2 (n = 1,476) later in the summer of 2021. Again, vaccine hesitancy was significantly reduced by all explanations despite differences in political ideology, trust, and prior attitudes. These results suggest that nontechnical explanations of critical issues in vaccine science can reduce vaccine hesitancy, especially when accompanied by refutational text. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":48003,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Applied","volume":"29 3","pages":"489-528"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reducing vaccine hesitancy by explaining vaccine science.\",\"authors\":\"Susan Joslyn, Chao Qin, Jee Hoon Han, Sonia Savelli, Nidhi Agrawal\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/xap0000464\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Vaccine hesitancy in the COVID-19 pandemic remained a problem long after mRNA vaccines became available. This may be due in part to misunderstandings about the vaccines, arising from complexities of the science involved. Two experiments, conducted on unvaccinated Americans at two periods postvaccine rollout in 2021, demonstrated that providing explanations, expressed in everyday language, and correcting known misunderstandings, reduced vaccine hesitancy compared to a no-information control group. Four explanations addressing misunderstandings about mRNA vaccine safety and effectiveness were tested in Experiment 1 (n = 3,787). Some included expository text while others included refutational text, explicitly stating and refuting the misunderstanding. Vaccine effectiveness statistics were expressed either as text or an icon array. Although all four explanations reduced vaccine hesitancy, the refutational format of those addressing vaccine safety (explaining the mRNA mechanism and mild side effects) was the most effective. These two explanations were retested individually and jointly in Experiment 2 (n = 1,476) later in the summer of 2021. Again, vaccine hesitancy was significantly reduced by all explanations despite differences in political ideology, trust, and prior attitudes. These results suggest that nontechnical explanations of critical issues in vaccine science can reduce vaccine hesitancy, especially when accompanied by refutational text. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).\",\"PeriodicalId\":48003,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Applied\",\"volume\":\"29 3\",\"pages\":\"489-528\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Applied\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000464\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Applied","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000464","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在mRNA疫苗问世很久之后,COVID-19大流行中的疫苗犹豫仍然是一个问题。这可能部分是由于对疫苗的误解,这是由于所涉及的科学的复杂性造成的。在2021年疫苗推出后的两个时期对未接种疫苗的美国人进行的两项实验表明,与没有信息的对照组相比,提供解释,用日常语言表达,纠正已知的误解,减少了疫苗犹豫。在实验1 (n = 3,787)中,对关于mRNA疫苗安全性和有效性的误解进行了四种解释。一些包括说明性文本,而另一些包括反驳文本,明确地说明和驳斥误解。疫苗有效性统计数据以文本或图标数组表示。虽然所有四种解释都减少了疫苗犹豫,但解决疫苗安全性的反驳形式(解释mRNA机制和轻微副作用)是最有效的。这两种解释在2021年夏天晚些时候在实验2 (n = 1476)中分别和联合重新测试。同样,尽管政治意识形态、信任和先前态度存在差异,但所有解释都显著减少了疫苗犹豫。这些结果表明,对疫苗科学中关键问题的非技术解释可以减少对疫苗的犹豫,特别是在附有反驳文本的情况下。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c) 2023 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Reducing vaccine hesitancy by explaining vaccine science.
Vaccine hesitancy in the COVID-19 pandemic remained a problem long after mRNA vaccines became available. This may be due in part to misunderstandings about the vaccines, arising from complexities of the science involved. Two experiments, conducted on unvaccinated Americans at two periods postvaccine rollout in 2021, demonstrated that providing explanations, expressed in everyday language, and correcting known misunderstandings, reduced vaccine hesitancy compared to a no-information control group. Four explanations addressing misunderstandings about mRNA vaccine safety and effectiveness were tested in Experiment 1 (n = 3,787). Some included expository text while others included refutational text, explicitly stating and refuting the misunderstanding. Vaccine effectiveness statistics were expressed either as text or an icon array. Although all four explanations reduced vaccine hesitancy, the refutational format of those addressing vaccine safety (explaining the mRNA mechanism and mild side effects) was the most effective. These two explanations were retested individually and jointly in Experiment 2 (n = 1,476) later in the summer of 2021. Again, vaccine hesitancy was significantly reduced by all explanations despite differences in political ideology, trust, and prior attitudes. These results suggest that nontechnical explanations of critical issues in vaccine science can reduce vaccine hesitancy, especially when accompanied by refutational text. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
3.80%
发文量
110
期刊介绍: The mission of the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied® is to publish original empirical investigations in experimental psychology that bridge practically oriented problems and psychological theory. The journal also publishes research aimed at developing and testing of models of cognitive processing or behavior in applied situations, including laboratory and field settings. Occasionally, review articles are considered for publication if they contribute significantly to important topics within applied experimental psychology. Areas of interest include applications of perception, attention, memory, decision making, reasoning, information processing, problem solving, learning, and skill acquisition.
期刊最新文献
A rate-them-all lineup procedure increases information but reduces discriminability. Comparing generating predictions with retrieval practice as learning strategies for primary school children. A comparison between numeric confidence ratings and verbal confidence statements. Prior knowledge and new learning: An experimental study of domain-specific knowledge. Time on task effects during interactive visual search.
×
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