以论据为基础的干预是减少无根据信念和疫苗接种犹豫的一种方法

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS ACS Applied Bio Materials Pub Date : 2024-02-29 DOI:10.1002/acp.4187
Peter Teličák, Jakub Šrol, Peter Halama
{"title":"以论据为基础的干预是减少无根据信念和疫苗接种犹豫的一种方法","authors":"Peter Teličák,&nbsp;Jakub Šrol,&nbsp;Peter Halama","doi":"10.1002/acp.4187","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The aim of the experimental study was to verify the reduction of Covid-19 unfounded beliefs through arguments in favor of vaccination. The sample includes 720 participants recruited by Qualtrics (50% women, age: <i>M</i> = 38.8, SD = 10.90). The participants were equally and randomly divided into three groups. The control group was given the task of reading a neutral text about Norway. The first experimental group was provided with a debunking text that corrected popular misinformation and unfounded beliefs about vaccination against polio and vaccination against Covid-19. The second experimental group read the same text as the first, with two additional paragraphs addressing the motives and errors in the thinking of unfounded belief spreaders. The results confirmed that exposing the participants to arguments for vaccination reduces the endorsement of Covid-19 unfounded beliefs and increases the willingness to be vaccinated against Covid-19 disease.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Argument-based intervention as a way to reduce covid-19 unfounded beliefs and vaccination hesitancy\",\"authors\":\"Peter Teličák,&nbsp;Jakub Šrol,&nbsp;Peter Halama\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/acp.4187\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The aim of the experimental study was to verify the reduction of Covid-19 unfounded beliefs through arguments in favor of vaccination. The sample includes 720 participants recruited by Qualtrics (50% women, age: <i>M</i> = 38.8, SD = 10.90). The participants were equally and randomly divided into three groups. The control group was given the task of reading a neutral text about Norway. The first experimental group was provided with a debunking text that corrected popular misinformation and unfounded beliefs about vaccination against polio and vaccination against Covid-19. The second experimental group read the same text as the first, with two additional paragraphs addressing the motives and errors in the thinking of unfounded belief spreaders. The results confirmed that exposing the participants to arguments for vaccination reduces the endorsement of Covid-19 unfounded beliefs and increases the willingness to be vaccinated against Covid-19 disease.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":2,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acp.4187\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acp.4187","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

实验研究的目的是验证通过支持疫苗接种的论据能否减少 Covid-19 毫无根据的信念。样本包括通过 Qualtrics 招募的 720 名参与者(50% 为女性,年龄:M = 38.8,SD = 10.90)。参与者被随机平均分成三组。对照组的任务是阅读一篇关于挪威的中性文章。第一实验组则阅读一篇揭露真相的文章,以纠正关于脊髓灰质炎疫苗接种和Covid-19疫苗接种的错误信息和无稽之谈。第二组实验者阅读的内容与第一组相同,但增加了两段文字,论述毫无根据的信念传播者的动机和思维错误。结果证实,让参与者接触疫苗接种的论据会减少对 Covid-19 毫无根据的信念的认可,并增加接种 Covid-19 疫苗的意愿。
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
Argument-based intervention as a way to reduce covid-19 unfounded beliefs and vaccination hesitancy

The aim of the experimental study was to verify the reduction of Covid-19 unfounded beliefs through arguments in favor of vaccination. The sample includes 720 participants recruited by Qualtrics (50% women, age: M = 38.8, SD = 10.90). The participants were equally and randomly divided into three groups. The control group was given the task of reading a neutral text about Norway. The first experimental group was provided with a debunking text that corrected popular misinformation and unfounded beliefs about vaccination against polio and vaccination against Covid-19. The second experimental group read the same text as the first, with two additional paragraphs addressing the motives and errors in the thinking of unfounded belief spreaders. The results confirmed that exposing the participants to arguments for vaccination reduces the endorsement of Covid-19 unfounded beliefs and increases the willingness to be vaccinated against Covid-19 disease.

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
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
期刊最新文献
A Systematic Review of Sleep Disturbance in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension. Advancing Patient Education in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension: The Promise of Large Language Models. Anti-Myelin-Associated Glycoprotein Neuropathy: Recent Developments. Approach to Managing the Initial Presentation of Multiple Sclerosis: A Worldwide Practice Survey. Association Between LACE+ Index Risk Category and 90-Day Mortality After Stroke.
×
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