Unvaxxed and unafraid: Unvaccinated Americans perceive less disease risk than do vaccinated Americans

Is disease risk perception accurately calibrated among the unvaccinated? People shift their attitudes to rationalize their choices, so those who choose to be unvaccinated may be motivated to feel less at risk. In three studies (total N = 1446), we asked Americans how worried they were about catching/spreading influenza and COVID‐19 and whether they were vaccinated against those diseases. Unvaccinated participants felt less at risk of catching/spreading the diseases they were unvaccinated against than vaccinated participants. For instance, unvaccinated participants felt ∼24% less at risk of catching/spreading COVID‐19 and had ∼28% stronger intention to engage in activities that carried a high risk of COVID‐19 transmission (Study 3). Overall, those who choose to be the most vulnerable to disease feel and act the least vulnerable. [ FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Social & Personality Psychology Compass is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full . (Copyright applies to all s.)

Religiosity and the Naturalness Bias in Drug and Vaccine Choices.

Research reveals a bias for natural versus synthetic drugs. We sought to determine if this bias is associated with religiosity. Three cross-sectional studies (N = 1399 U.S. participants) were conducted to examine the impact of religiosity on the naturalness bias in the drug and vaccine domains. We assessed measures of religiosity, preferences for natural versus synthetic drugs and vaccines in hypothetical scenarios, and a health-related behavior (COVID-19 vaccination status). The results revealed that participants high versus low in religiosity had stronger preferences for natural versus synthetic drugs and vaccines. Furthermore, participants high versus low in religiosity were less likely to have taken the COVID-19 vaccine, and the natural drug bias was a mediator of this effect. Overall, participants higher in religiosity had a stronger preference for natural versus synthetic drugs and vaccines, and this preference had implications for health behavior.

Getting COVID-19: Anticipated negative emotions are worse than experienced negative emotions.

OBJECTIVE: When people think about negative events that may occur in the future, they tend to overestimate their emotional reactions, and these "affective forecasts" can influence their present behavior (Wilson and Gilbert, 2003). The present research examined affective forecasting for COVID-19 infection including the associations between emotions and preventive intentions and behavior. METHODS: In two studies, we compared individuals' anticipated emotions and recalled emotions for COVID-19 infection. Study 1 asked college students (N = 219) and Study 2 asked general adults (N = 401) to either predict their emotions in response to a future COVID-19 infection or to recall their emotions associated with a previous infection. RESULTS: In both studies, reliable differences in negative emotions emerged. Those who were predicting their feelings associated with a future infection anticipated more negative emotion than those who were recalling their feelings associated with a past infection reported. Greater negative emotion in both studies was significantly associated with being more likely to have been vaccinated as well as higher intentions to get the booster vaccine. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that compared to those who have had a COVID-19 infection, those who have not yet experienced infection anticipate they will experience greater negative emotion, and this may have implications for preventive behaviors. In general, these findings suggest that people may have an impact bias for COVID-19 infection.

Social psychology and COVID-19: What the field can tell us about behavior in a pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has wreaked havoc in the lives of people around the world. Pandemics are powerful situations that can be examined from a social psychological lens. In this special section, four articles present data collected before and during the pandemic, providing a type of quasi-experimental design that helped examine the impact of the pandemic on social behavior. A number of findings emerged: the pandemic potentially increased instances of cyberbullying; the pandemic may have increased reports that Black-White intergroup interactions are more competitive and discriminatory; the pandemic may have reduced negative attitudes and bias in domestic versus international students in the U.S; and the pandemic may have allowed feelings of helplessness to provide a fear-reducing mechanism. We expand upon these findings by discussing how social psychology can help us understand and modify behaviors related to health and social relations during major threats like a pandemic.

Trait mindfulness is negatively associated with distress related to COVID-19.

Research suggests that mindfulness is associated with psychological health including a healthier response to stressors. OBJECTIVE: This research tested associations between trait mindfulness and mental health factors related to the novel coronavirus (COVID-19). METHODS: Two studies (Study 1 N = 248 college students; Study 2 N = 300 U.S adults) assessed trait mindfulness, perceived stress and anxiety, worry about the coronavirus, and anticipated negative affect of a coronavirus diagnosis. Additionally, Study 2 assessed depressive symptoms and coping with the coronavirus. RESULTS: In both studies, findings indicated that individuals higher in trait mindfulness reported less stress and anxiety. Higher mindfulness in both studies was also associated with less worry about the virus and anticipating less negative affect if one gets the virus. In Study 2, trait mindfulness was negatively related to depression, and numerous associations between mindfulness and coping emerged, showing higher trait mindfulness was associated with healthier strategies in coping with coronavirus. CONCLUSIONS: These data are consistent with research that has revealed that those who think and act more mindfully are less stressed and anxious. By revealing these associations with mindfulness in the context of a real-world, novel stressor, this research makes an important contribution to the literature.

Predictors of the intention to receive a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine.

BACKGROUND: It is imperative to understand the predictors of vaccine hesitancy for current and future pandemics. METHODS: A representative sample (age, race & gender) of 1054 US adults was collected in October 2020 to examine the predictors of vaccine hesitancy. Participants were asked several questions including their intention to receive a vaccine for the novel coronavirus. RESULTS: Predictors significantly associated with a greater intention to receive a COVID-19 vaccine included greater perceived feelings of vulnerability to COVID-19, having received a flu vaccination at the time the question was asked, more liberal political orientation, non-Black race, male gender, and a lower naturalness bias. CONCLUSIONS: Vaccines are essential for mitigating current and future pandemics. Multiple strategies are important in encouraging people to be vaccinated and the predictors highlighted here and elsewhere are likely to be useful targets.