您会接种疫苗吗?纯洁、自由和关爱之间的权衡预示着对接种 Covid-19 疫苗的态度

IF 2.8 2区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL European Journal of Social Psychology Pub Date : 2024-03-05 DOI:10.1002/ejsp.3057
Amrita Ahluwalia-McMeddes, Sarah L. Guthrie, Catriona Z. Taylor
{"title":"您会接种疫苗吗?纯洁、自由和关爱之间的权衡预示着对接种 Covid-19 疫苗的态度","authors":"Amrita Ahluwalia-McMeddes,&nbsp;Sarah L. Guthrie,&nbsp;Catriona Z. Taylor","doi":"10.1002/ejsp.3057","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>How do tensions between moral values predict how likely we are to receive Covid-19 vaccination? Previous work suggests that moral foundations, particularly purity and liberty, relate to decisions to vaccinate. In addition, research on the moral trade-off hypothesis suggests value in exploring trade-offs between foundations. We conducted three studies across the pandemic: at the start of the vaccine rollout (Study 1, N = 170); during delivery (Study 2, N = 328) and 2 years later (Study 3, N = 388). We find that trade-offs between purity and care and between liberty and care are predictive of higher levels of vaccine reluctance—individuals who endorse purity or liberty more, relative to care, were more reluctant towards Covid-19 vaccination, less likely to have received a vaccine and have lower intention to get future Covid-19 vaccines. This research highlights the relevance of moral values, and trade-offs between them, in vaccine attitudes and decisions.</p>","PeriodicalId":48377,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Social Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ejsp.3057","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Will you get vaccinated? Trade-offs between purity, liberty and care predict attitudes towards Covid-19 vaccination\",\"authors\":\"Amrita Ahluwalia-McMeddes,&nbsp;Sarah L. Guthrie,&nbsp;Catriona Z. Taylor\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/ejsp.3057\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>How do tensions between moral values predict how likely we are to receive Covid-19 vaccination? Previous work suggests that moral foundations, particularly purity and liberty, relate to decisions to vaccinate. In addition, research on the moral trade-off hypothesis suggests value in exploring trade-offs between foundations. We conducted three studies across the pandemic: at the start of the vaccine rollout (Study 1, N = 170); during delivery (Study 2, N = 328) and 2 years later (Study 3, N = 388). We find that trade-offs between purity and care and between liberty and care are predictive of higher levels of vaccine reluctance—individuals who endorse purity or liberty more, relative to care, were more reluctant towards Covid-19 vaccination, less likely to have received a vaccine and have lower intention to get future Covid-19 vaccines. This research highlights the relevance of moral values, and trade-offs between them, in vaccine attitudes and decisions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48377,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Social Psychology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ejsp.3057\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Social Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.3057\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Social Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.3057","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

道德价值观之间的矛盾如何预测我们接受 Covid-19 疫苗接种的可能性?以往的研究表明,道德基础,尤其是纯洁和自由,与接种疫苗的决定有关。此外,有关道德权衡假说的研究表明,探索不同基础之间的权衡很有价值。我们在大流行期间进行了三项研究:疫苗推广初期(研究 1,N = 170);疫苗接种期间(研究 2,N = 328)和两年后(研究 3,N = 388)。我们发现,在纯洁与关爱之间以及在自由与关爱之间进行权衡可预测更高水平的疫苗接种意愿--相对于关爱而言,更认可纯洁或自由的个体更不愿意接种 Covid-19,接种疫苗的可能性更低,未来接种 Covid-19 疫苗的意愿也更低。这项研究强调了道德价值观以及它们之间的权衡在疫苗态度和决策中的相关性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Will you get vaccinated? Trade-offs between purity, liberty and care predict attitudes towards Covid-19 vaccination

How do tensions between moral values predict how likely we are to receive Covid-19 vaccination? Previous work suggests that moral foundations, particularly purity and liberty, relate to decisions to vaccinate. In addition, research on the moral trade-off hypothesis suggests value in exploring trade-offs between foundations. We conducted three studies across the pandemic: at the start of the vaccine rollout (Study 1, N = 170); during delivery (Study 2, N = 328) and 2 years later (Study 3, N = 388). We find that trade-offs between purity and care and between liberty and care are predictive of higher levels of vaccine reluctance—individuals who endorse purity or liberty more, relative to care, were more reluctant towards Covid-19 vaccination, less likely to have received a vaccine and have lower intention to get future Covid-19 vaccines. This research highlights the relevance of moral values, and trade-offs between them, in vaccine attitudes and decisions.

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
6.10
自引率
7.70%
发文量
84
期刊介绍: Topics covered include, among others, intergroup relations, group processes, social cognition, attitudes, social influence and persuasion, self and identity, verbal and nonverbal communication, language and thought, affect and emotion, embodied and situated cognition and individual differences of social-psychological relevance. Together with original research articles, the European Journal of Social Psychology"s innovative and inclusive style is reflected in the variety of articles published: Research Article: Original articles that provide a significant contribution to the understanding of social phenomena, up to a maximum of 12,000 words in length.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information ‘(N)One of us but all of them!’ Ingroup favouritism on individual and group levels in the context of deviant behaviour Never again: Lessons of genocide in survivor testimonies from the Holocaust, Nanjing massacre and Rwandan genocide Age of the examiner and older people's memory performances: A test of the stereotype threat theory using variations on negative age stereotypes across 18 European countries Do women only apply when they are 100% qualified, whereas men already apply when they are 60% qualified?
×
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