Attitudes and personal beliefs about the COVID-19 vaccine among people with COVID-19: a mixed-methods analysis.

BACKGROUND: Little research is available regarding vaccination attitudes among those recently diagnosed with COVID-19. This is important to investigate, particularly among those experiencing mild-to-moderate illness, given the ongoing need to improve uptake of both initial vaccine series and booster doses, and the divergent ways such an experience could impact attitudes. METHODS: From September 3 - November 12, 2021, all patients enrolled in Baylor Scott & White's "COVID-19 Digital Care Journey for Home Monitoring" were invited to participate in an online survey that included questions about vaccination status and attitudes/opinions regarding COVID-19 and the COVID-19 vaccines. Following an item asking about accordance of COVID-19 vaccination with religious/personal beliefs, participants were asked to describe those beliefs and how they relate to taking/not taking the vaccine. RESULTS: Of 8,075 patients age ≥ 18 years diagnosed with COVID-19 and invited to join the survey during the study period, 3242 (40.2%) were fully vaccinated. In contrast, among the 149 who completed the questionnaire, 95(63.8%) reported full vaccination. Responses differed significantly between vaccination groups. The vaccinated group strongly agreed that COVID-19 is a major public health problem, the vaccines are safe and effective, and their decision to vaccinate included considering community benefit. The unvaccinated group responded neutrally to most questions addressing safety and public health aspects of the vaccine, while strongly disagreeing with statements regarding vaccine effectiveness and other preventative public health measures. The vaccinated group strongly agreed that taking the vaccine accorded with their religious/personal beliefs, while the unvaccinated group was neutral. In qualitative analysis of the free text responses "risk perception/calculation" and "no impact" of religious/personal beliefs on vaccination decisions were frequent themes/subthemes in both groups, but beliefs related to the "greater good" were a strong driver among the vaccinated, while statements emphasizing "individual choice" were a third frequent theme for the unvaccinated. CONCLUSION: Our results show that two of the three factors that drive vaccine hesitancy (complacency, and lack of confidence in the vaccines) are present among unvaccinated adults recently diagnosed with COVID-19. They also show that beliefs emphasizing the importance of the greater good promote public health participation.

Gratitude and the greater good: Effects on two dimensions of utilitarianism

There are long standing theoretical links between gratitude and morality, and accumulating experimental evidence finds gratitude is associated with a broad range of moral and prosocial behaviors. However, no research has examined how gratitude relates specifically to moral judgment, the process of how people consider what is morally right and wrong. In the present research, I explored how gratitude relates to utilitarianism, a moral ethics framework that prioritizes the most good for the most people. Recently, two dimensions of utilitarianism have been delineated: impartial beneficence, defined as self-sacrifice and impartiality for the greater good, and instrumental harm, defined as harming others for the greater good. There is strong evidence that gratitude increases self-sacrifice behaviors;and, while there are not gratitude-specific findings for instrumental harm, there is mixed evidence that emotions as a category may decrease instrumental harm. In three studies, I examined if 1) gratitude positively related to impartial beneficence and 2) did not relate to or negatively related to instrumental harm.In Study 1, participants were randomly assigned to a gratitude or neutral mood induction. They then reported their state emotions, and afterwards they completed a personality trait scale for utilitarian preferences and two versions of the Trolley Problem, which assesses instrumental harm. Participants made to feel grateful, relative to neutral participants, were more likely to endorse trait impartial beneficence and did not significantly differ in endorsement with trait instrumental harm. There were no significant group differences found for the Trolley Problem responses. The results suggested manipulated and self-reported gratitude positively related to impartial beneficence and did not relate to instrumental harm. However, a general positivity effect could not be disambiguated from a state gratitude effect because another positive emotion induction was not included.Study 2, a replication and an extension, added a happiness condition (another positive emotion induction) and new moral dilemmas assessing both impartial beneficence and instrumental harm. The first hypothesis was only partially supported. There was a null effect of gratitude induction on impartial beneficence measures, but there was also a positive association between state gratitude and trait impartial beneficence. Supporting the second hypothesis, there was no effect of condition or state gratitude on instrumental harm measures. Further analyses revealed that positive emotions had the same pattern of results as state gratitude on the utilitarian measures and suggested that any effect seen on impartial beneficence might be due to positive emotions, rather than a distinct gratitude effect. In Study 3, an extension of the two prior studies, participants were randomly assigned to a mood induction (neutral, happiness, or gratitude). Next, they were randomly assigned to economic games in which they could sacrifice their points to increase group compensation (impartial beneficence) or take away points from another player to increase group compensation (instrumental harm). There was a null effect of condition and state gratitude on impartial beneficence game behavior, which did not support the first hypothesis. There was a null effect of condition and state positive emotions on instrumental harm game behavior, which supported the second hypothesis. Study 1 was conducted before the COVID-19 pandemic, while Studies 2 and 3 were conducted during the pandemic. Study comparisons using meta-analytic procedures and other analyses revealed that Study 2 and 3 participants exhibited elevated positive emotions relative to Study 1 participants, and Study 2 participants exhibited higher trait impartial beneficence relative to Study 1 participants. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved)

Convergence innovation in the digital age and in the COVID-19 pandemic crisis.

Sustainable innovation is imperative for organizational survival and success in the turbulent market environment of the digital age, especially more so in the current COVID-19 pandemic crisis. This paper presents convergence innovation (CI), powered by the exponential fusion effect of the various objects, technologies, ideas, and strategies, as a new sustainable core competence of organizations. We present the concept of CI including its autonomous ecosystem enabled by advanced technologies, unique life cycle features, relationships with other innovation approaches, and its purpose of value creation for the stakeholders and beyond (for the greater good). The paper also explores how CI can be a catalyst for managing the current COVID-19 pandemic and charting the path to post crisis. The study makes contributions to both innovation literature and to practicing managers with new insights on sustainable innovation strategies for organizational performance and beyond.