从消极权利和积极权利的角度审视美国人在COVID-19大流行期间对疫苗接种的态度

Q2 Social Sciences Politics and the Life Sciences Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1017/pls.2023.17
Amanda Koong, Rose McDermott, Robert Kaplan
{"title":"从消极权利和积极权利的角度审视美国人在COVID-19大流行期间对疫苗接种的态度","authors":"Amanda Koong, Rose McDermott, Robert Kaplan","doi":"10.1017/pls.2023.17","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract We examine the likely acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine in the period prior to political polarization around vaccine mandates. Two representative cross-sectional surveys of 1,000 respondents were fielded in August and December 2020. The surveys included items about the COVID-19 vaccine and vaccine mandates. Respondents self-identifying as liberal were the least likely to believe the vaccine had undisclosed harmful effects ( p < .001), conservatives were the most likely ( p < .001), and moderates fell in between. Individuals with a bachelor’s degree were less likely to think the vaccine had undisclosed harmful effects than individuals without a bachelor’s degree ( p < .001), and 60.5% of those individuals did not support a government vaccine mandate. Political ideology was more often strongly associated with avoiding government involvement compared to education level. In summary, both liberal political ideology and higher education were significantly associated with endorsing intended vaccine uptake. We discuss these results in terms of positive versus negative rights.","PeriodicalId":35901,"journal":{"name":"Politics and the Life Sciences","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Examining American attitudes toward vaccination during the COVID-19 pandemic from the perspective of negative and positive rights\",\"authors\":\"Amanda Koong, Rose McDermott, Robert Kaplan\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/pls.2023.17\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract We examine the likely acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine in the period prior to political polarization around vaccine mandates. Two representative cross-sectional surveys of 1,000 respondents were fielded in August and December 2020. The surveys included items about the COVID-19 vaccine and vaccine mandates. Respondents self-identifying as liberal were the least likely to believe the vaccine had undisclosed harmful effects ( p < .001), conservatives were the most likely ( p < .001), and moderates fell in between. Individuals with a bachelor’s degree were less likely to think the vaccine had undisclosed harmful effects than individuals without a bachelor’s degree ( p < .001), and 60.5% of those individuals did not support a government vaccine mandate. Political ideology was more often strongly associated with avoiding government involvement compared to education level. In summary, both liberal political ideology and higher education were significantly associated with endorsing intended vaccine uptake. We discuss these results in terms of positive versus negative rights.\",\"PeriodicalId\":35901,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Politics and the Life Sciences\",\"volume\":\"7 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Politics and the Life Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/pls.2023.17\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Politics and the Life Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/pls.2023.17","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们研究了在围绕疫苗授权的政治两极分化之前,COVID-19疫苗可能被接受的情况。在2020年8月和12月对1000名受访者进行了两次代表性的横断面调查。调查包括有关COVID-19疫苗和疫苗授权的项目。自认为是自由派的受访者最不可能相信疫苗有未披露的有害影响(p <.001),保守派最有可能(p <.001),温和派介于两者之间。与没有学士学位的人相比,拥有学士学位的人不太可能认为疫苗有未披露的有害影响(p <.001),其中60.5%的人不支持政府强制接种疫苗。与教育水平相比,政治意识形态往往与避免政府干预有更强的联系。总之,自由的政治意识形态和高等教育都与支持疫苗接种有显著关联。我们从积极权利与消极权利的角度来讨论这些结果。
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
Examining American attitudes toward vaccination during the COVID-19 pandemic from the perspective of negative and positive rights
Abstract We examine the likely acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine in the period prior to political polarization around vaccine mandates. Two representative cross-sectional surveys of 1,000 respondents were fielded in August and December 2020. The surveys included items about the COVID-19 vaccine and vaccine mandates. Respondents self-identifying as liberal were the least likely to believe the vaccine had undisclosed harmful effects ( p < .001), conservatives were the most likely ( p < .001), and moderates fell in between. Individuals with a bachelor’s degree were less likely to think the vaccine had undisclosed harmful effects than individuals without a bachelor’s degree ( p < .001), and 60.5% of those individuals did not support a government vaccine mandate. Political ideology was more often strongly associated with avoiding government involvement compared to education level. In summary, both liberal political ideology and higher education were significantly associated with endorsing intended vaccine uptake. We discuss these results in terms of positive versus negative rights.
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
Politics and the Life Sciences
Politics and the Life Sciences Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
期刊介绍: POLITICS AND THE LIFE SCIENCES is an interdisciplinary peer-reviewed journal with a global audience. PLS is owned and published by the ASSOCIATION FOR POLITICS AND THE LIFE SCIENCES, the APLS, which is both an American Political Science Association (APSA) Related Group and an American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) Member Society. The PLS topic range is exceptionally broad: evolutionary and laboratory insights into political behavior, including political violence, from group conflict to war, terrorism, and torture; political analysis of life-sciences research, health policy, environmental policy, and biosecurity policy; and philosophical analysis of life-sciences problems, such as bioethical controversies.
期刊最新文献
The effect of acute stress response on conspiracy theory beliefs. Strategic policy options to improve quality and productivity of biomedical research. BWC confidence-building measures: Increasing BWC assurance through transparency and information sharing. A leader I can(not) trust: understanding the path from epistemic trust to political leader choices via dogmatism. Evolutionary biology as a frontier for research on misinformation.
×
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