澳大利亚的宗教、信任和疫苗犹豫

IF 0.5 0 RELIGION Journal for the Academic Study of Religion Pub Date : 2022-07-22 DOI:10.1558/jasr.22476
Thomas Aechtner, Jeremy Farr
{"title":"澳大利亚的宗教、信任和疫苗犹豫","authors":"Thomas Aechtner, Jeremy Farr","doi":"10.1558/jasr.22476","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Religion has been identified as a potential driver of vaccine hesitancy. Nevertheless, the connections between religion and immunisation refusal can be complex, while there is a deficit of research exploring religion and vaccination doubts in Australia. With that in mind, this study considers Australian vaccine hesitancy with respect to religion and trust by analysing the 2018 Australian Survey of Social Attitudes and the Australian dataset of the 2018 Wellcome Global Monitor. Statistical analyses reveal no significant correlations between religion and vaccine hesitancy, while participants with negative vaccine attitudes identify that they do not have religious reasons for being vaccine hesitant. Nonetheless, a higher proportion of respondents with negative vaccine attitudes self-identify as religious or spiritual and maintain pro-religious views. It was also found that negative vaccine attitudes are correlated with unfavourable perceptions of both Jews and Muslims. Notably, religious self-identification divides two main groups of vaccine hesitant participants, described as Religious Conservatives and Nonreligious Progressives. These groups diverge on sexual ethics and social concerns, as well as around whether they trust in science as opposed to religion, while differing in their perceptions of Jews. What unites these vaccine hesitant participants, however, is a mutual lack of trust in government and scientists. ","PeriodicalId":41609,"journal":{"name":"Journal for the Academic Study of Religion","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Religion, Trust, and Vaccine Hesitancy in Australia\",\"authors\":\"Thomas Aechtner, Jeremy Farr\",\"doi\":\"10.1558/jasr.22476\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Religion has been identified as a potential driver of vaccine hesitancy. Nevertheless, the connections between religion and immunisation refusal can be complex, while there is a deficit of research exploring religion and vaccination doubts in Australia. With that in mind, this study considers Australian vaccine hesitancy with respect to religion and trust by analysing the 2018 Australian Survey of Social Attitudes and the Australian dataset of the 2018 Wellcome Global Monitor. Statistical analyses reveal no significant correlations between religion and vaccine hesitancy, while participants with negative vaccine attitudes identify that they do not have religious reasons for being vaccine hesitant. Nonetheless, a higher proportion of respondents with negative vaccine attitudes self-identify as religious or spiritual and maintain pro-religious views. It was also found that negative vaccine attitudes are correlated with unfavourable perceptions of both Jews and Muslims. Notably, religious self-identification divides two main groups of vaccine hesitant participants, described as Religious Conservatives and Nonreligious Progressives. These groups diverge on sexual ethics and social concerns, as well as around whether they trust in science as opposed to religion, while differing in their perceptions of Jews. What unites these vaccine hesitant participants, however, is a mutual lack of trust in government and scientists. \",\"PeriodicalId\":41609,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal for the Academic Study of Religion\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal for the Academic Study of Religion\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1558/jasr.22476\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"RELIGION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal for the Academic Study of Religion","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1558/jasr.22476","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

宗教已被确定为疫苗犹豫的潜在驱动因素。然而,宗教和拒绝接种疫苗之间的联系可能是复杂的,而在澳大利亚,探索宗教和疫苗接种怀疑的研究存在缺陷。考虑到这一点,本研究通过分析2018年澳大利亚社会态度调查和2018年惠康全球监测的澳大利亚数据集,考虑了澳大利亚在宗教和信任方面的疫苗犹豫。统计分析显示,宗教信仰与疫苗犹豫之间没有显著的相关性,而对疫苗持否定态度的参与者指出,他们对疫苗犹豫没有宗教上的原因。尽管如此,对疫苗持否定态度的答复者中有较高比例的人自我认定为宗教或精神信仰,并保持亲宗教观点。研究还发现,对疫苗的负面态度与对犹太人和穆斯林的不利看法有关。值得注意的是,宗教自我认同将疫苗犹豫不决的参与者分为两个主要群体,称为宗教保守派和非宗教进步派。这些群体在性伦理和社会问题上存在分歧,以及他们是否相信科学而不是宗教,同时他们对犹太人的看法也存在分歧。然而,将这些对疫苗犹豫不决的参与者联合起来的是对政府和科学家的相互缺乏信任。
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
Religion, Trust, and Vaccine Hesitancy in Australia
Religion has been identified as a potential driver of vaccine hesitancy. Nevertheless, the connections between religion and immunisation refusal can be complex, while there is a deficit of research exploring religion and vaccination doubts in Australia. With that in mind, this study considers Australian vaccine hesitancy with respect to religion and trust by analysing the 2018 Australian Survey of Social Attitudes and the Australian dataset of the 2018 Wellcome Global Monitor. Statistical analyses reveal no significant correlations between religion and vaccine hesitancy, while participants with negative vaccine attitudes identify that they do not have religious reasons for being vaccine hesitant. Nonetheless, a higher proportion of respondents with negative vaccine attitudes self-identify as religious or spiritual and maintain pro-religious views. It was also found that negative vaccine attitudes are correlated with unfavourable perceptions of both Jews and Muslims. Notably, religious self-identification divides two main groups of vaccine hesitant participants, described as Religious Conservatives and Nonreligious Progressives. These groups diverge on sexual ethics and social concerns, as well as around whether they trust in science as opposed to religion, while differing in their perceptions of Jews. What unites these vaccine hesitant participants, however, is a mutual lack of trust in government and scientists. 
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
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
20
期刊介绍: The Journal for the Academic Study of Religion is a fully refereed interdisciplinary academic journal. The journal reflects the wide variety of research dealing with all aspects of the academic study of religion. The journal is committed to presenting cutting edge research from both established and new scholars. As well as articles, it publishes book and film reviews, conference reports, and the annual lectures delivered to members of its partner organisation, the Australian Association for the Study of Religion. The Journal for the Academic Study of Religion is published three times a year and issues alternate between thematic and regular issues. Regular issues include articles on any topic that bears upon the academic study of religion.
期刊最新文献
Kirk Lougheed, Motsamai Molefe and Thaddeus Metz, African Philosophy of Religion and Western Monotheism Respect on Social Media W. Y. Alice Chan, Teaching Religious Literacy to Combat Religious Bullying: Insights from North American Secondary Schools Anne F. Elvey, Reading the Magnificat in Australia: Unsettling Engagements Adam Possamai and David Tittensor, Religion and Change in Australia
×
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