Spirituality and intentions to engage in Covid‐19 protective behaviours

Accumulating evidence points to spirituality as a belief system that contributes to low trust in science, with self‐identified spiritual individuals reporting high levels of unwarranted scepticism towards science in general and vaccination specifically. We investigated whether self‐identified spirituality also predicts intentions to engage with Covid‐19 protective measures during the pandemic. In Studies 1–3 (N = 774), we asked participants to report their spirituality and desire to be vaccinated against Covid‐19 shortly after the first vaccine rollout. In Studies 2–3, we included measures of scepticism towards and intentions to comply with Covid‐19 prevention measures (handwashing, wearing face coverings, distancing). As expected, stronger self‐reported spirituality involved lower desire to be vaccinated, controlling for various worldview and demographic variables. Yet, we found no evidence for spirituality to predict scepticism towards other Covid‐19 preventative behaviours or intentions to engage with them. Our findings corroborate and extend previous literature on science rejection, demonstrating that spirituality is uniquely involved in vaccine rejection. [ 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.)

Science skepticism in times of COVID-19

In the current paper, we argue that to get a better understanding of the psychological antecedents of COVID-related science skepticism, it is pivotal to review what is known about the (social) psychology of science skepticism. Recent research highlighting the role of ideologies and worldviews in shaping science skepticism can inform research questions as well as pandemic responses to COVID-19. It is likely that the antecedents of general COVID-19-related skepticism substantially overlap with the antecedents of climate change skepticism. Additionally, skepticism about a potential vaccine in particular will likely be fueled by similar worries and misperceptions to those shaping more general antivaccination attitudes, of which conspiracy thinking is particularly worth highlighting. We conclude by reflecting on how the COVID-19 crisis may shape future social-psychological research aimed at understanding trust in science and science skepticism. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved)

Spirituality is associated with Covid-19 vaccination scepticism.

Vaccine scepticism poses a significant global health risk, which has again become clear during the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic. Previous research has identified spirituality as an important contributor to general vaccine scepticism. In the present manuscript, we assessed whether self-identified spirituality similarly contributes to scepticism towards Covid-19 vaccines, vaccine uptake, and indecisiveness in intention to be vaccinated. We conducted three studies online in the UK in late 2020, early 2021, and the summer 2021. In Studies 1 and 2 (N = 585), as expected, individuals who strongly identified as spiritual were more sceptical about Covid-19 vaccines. This association was explained by low faith in science, but not by conspiracy beliefs. Importantly, among the vaccinated participants, those who were more spiritual were more indecisive to get a Covid-19 vaccine. Using structural equation modelling (SEM), we further found that spirituality directly predicted lower likelihood of being vaccinated against Covid-19 (Study 3, N = 456). We also identified low science literacy as an additional predictor of Covid-19 scepticism, but not self-reported vaccine uptake. To conclude, spiritual beliefs are an important factor to consider when aiming to increase understanding of vaccine-related science scepticism and vaccination rejection.

Spirituality and religiosity contribute to ongoing COVID-19 vaccination rates: Comparing 195 regions around the world.

Vaccine hesitancy has taken global prominence with the rapid spread of COVID-19, but what factors are related to this considerable variation in vaccination rates globally? Three studies that encompass 195 unique regions from around the world found that the relative spirituality and religiosity of a region predict ongoing COVID-19 vaccination rates, such that those regions higher in spirituality and/or religiosity are regions with lower COVID-19 vaccination rates. In Study 1, data from 23 regions globally were obtained, and both spirituality and religiosity were negatively associated with vaccination rates. These effects held when applying two methods to account for vaccine supply issues. In Study 2, data from 144 regions globally were obtained, and once again religiosity negatively predicted COVID-19 vaccination rates. It remained a significant predictor of vaccination rates when controlling for GDP, population age, collectivism, general skepticism towards vaccinations, and previous inoculation history. In Study 3, data from all USA states and the District of Columbia were obtained, and religiosity and spirituality once again were negatively associated with COVID-19 vaccination rates. Effects held controlling for other factors. Across studies, spirituality and religiosity account for a large amount of the variance in vaccination rates. These results suggest that real-world behavior can be predicted by the relative spirituality and religiosity of a region.

The (im-)moral scientist? Measurement and framing effects shape the association between scientists and immorality.

Recent years have not only seen growing public distrust in science, but also in the people conducting science. Yet, attitudes toward scientists remain largely unexplored, and the limited body of literature that exists points to an interesting ambivalence. While survey data suggest scientists to be positively evaluated (e.g., respected and trusted), research has found scientists to be perceived as capable of immoral behavior. We report two experiments aimed at identifying what contributes to this ambivalence through systematic investigations of stereotypical perceptions of scientists. In these studies, we particularly focus on two potential sources of inconsistencies in previous work: divergent operationalizations of morality (measurement effects), and different specifications of the broad group of scientists (framing effects). Results show that scientists are generally perceived as more likely to violate binding as opposed to individualizing moral foundations, and that they deviate from control groups more strongly on the latter. The extent to which different morality measures reflect the differentiation between binding and individualizing moral foundations at least partially accounts for previous contradictory findings. Moreover, the results indicate large variation in perceptions of different types of scientists: people hold more positive attitudes toward university-affiliated scientists as compared to industry-affiliated scientists, with perceptions of the 'typical scientist' more closely resembling the latter. Taken together, the findings have important academic ramifications for science skepticism, morality, and stereotyping research as well as valuable practical implications for successful science communication.

Psychological Distance to Science as a Predictor of Science Skepticism Across Domains.

This article presents and tests psychological distance to science (PSYDISC) as a domain-general predictor of science skepticism. Drawing on the concept of psychological distance, PSYDISC reflects the extent to which individuals perceive science as a tangible undertaking conducted by people similar to oneself (social), with effects in the here (spatial) and now (temporal), and as useful and applicable in the real world (hypothetical distance). In six studies (two preregistered; total N = 1,630) and two countries, we developed and established the factor structure and validity of a scale measuring PSYDISC. Crucially, higher PSYDISC predicted skepticism beyond established predictors, across science domains. A final study showed that PSYDISC shapes real-world behavior (COVID-19 vaccination uptake). This work thus provides a novel tool to predict science skepticism, as well as a construct that can help to further develop a unifying framework to understand science skepticism across domains.

The psychological impact of threat and lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic: exacerbating factors and mitigating actions.

In spring 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic was declared. The threat the pandemic poses as well as associated lockdown measures created challenging times for many. This study aimed to investigate the individual and social factors associated with low mental health, particularly perceived threat and lockdown measures, and factors associated with psychological well-being, particularly sense of control. An online survey was completed by participants (N = 8,229) recruited from 79 countries. In line with pre-registered hypotheses, participants showed elevated levels of anxiety and depression worldwide. This poor mental health was predicted by perceived threat. The effect of threat on depression was further moderated by social isolation, but there was no effect of sense of control. Sense of control was low overall, and was predicted negatively by maladaptive coping, but positively by adaptive coping and the perception that the government is dealing with the outbreak. Social isolation increased with quarantine duration, but was mitigated by frequent communication with close ones. Engaging in individual actions to avoid contracting the virus was associated with higher anxiety, except when done professionally. We suggest that early lockdown of the pandemic may have had detrimental psychological effects, which may be alleviated by individual actions such as maintaining frequent social contact and adaptive coping, and by governmental actions which demonstrate support in a public health crisis. Citizens and governments can work together to adapt better to restrictive but necessary measures during the current and future pandemics.

The COVID-19 pandemic is a difficult time for many; not only are people isolated at home, they may also experience the threat that COVID-19 will have a severe impact on their lives. We ran an online survey with 8,229 individuals from 79 countries in April 2020. After establishing levels of psychological well-being, we investigated which factors contribute to better psychological well-being, and which to worse. We found that levels of anxiety and depression were markedly elevated worldwide. The more people thought that COVID-19 was going to have severe effects on their lives, the more anxious and depressed they felt. This effect was even stronger when the individuals felt socially isolated, which was increased when people had been in quarantine for a long time, but reduced when people frequently communicated with their close ones. People felt more in control of their lives when they engaged in positive coping behaviors, such as reframing their situation positively, but not negative coping behaviors, such as substance use. People also felt in control when their government was dealing with the crisis well. We conclude that there are several ways in which psychological well-being can be supported, in the current pandemic but also potential future pandemics.