University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, United Kingdom.
University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, United Kingdom.
Soc Sci Med. 2022 Sep;308:115218. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115218. Epub 2022 Jul 14.
RATIONAL/OBJECTIVE: Mandating vaccinations can harm public trust, and informational interventions can backfire. An alternative approach could align pro-vaccination messages with the automatic moral values and intuitions that vaccine-hesitant people endorse. The current study evaluates the relationships between six automatic moral intuitions and vaccine hesitancy.
A cross-sectional survey was designed using Qualtrics (2020) software and conducted online from April 6th to April 13, 2021. A representative sample of 1201 people living in Great Britain took part, of which 954 (514 female) passed the attention check items. Participants responded to items about their automatic moral intuitions, vaccination behaviours or intentions related to COVID-19 vaccines, and general vaccine hesitancy. Regressions (with and without adjustments for age, gender, and ethnicity) were performed assessing the association between endorsement of each automatic intuition and self-reported uptake of COVID-19 vaccines, and between each automatic intuition and general vaccine hesitancy.
People who endorsed the authority foundation and those who more strongly endorsed the liberty foundation tended to be more vaccine hesitant. This pattern generalises across people's self-reported uptake of COVID-19 vaccines and people's hesitancy towards vaccines in general. To a lesser extent people who expressed less need for care and a greater need for sanctity also displayed greater hesitancy towards vaccines in general. The results were consistent across the adjusted and non-adjusted analyses. Age and ethnicity significantly contributed to some models but gender did not.
Four automatic moral intuitions (authority, liberty, care, and sanctity) were significantly associated with vaccine hesitancy. Foundation-aligned messages could be developed to motivate those people who may otherwise refuse vaccines, e.g., messages that strongly promote liberty or that de-emphasize authority voices. This suggestion moves away from mandates and promotes the inclusion of a more diverse range of voices in pro-vaccination campaigns.
强制接种疫苗可能会损害公众信任，而信息干预可能会适得其反。一种替代方法可以将支持疫苗接种的信息与疫苗犹豫者所认同的自动道德价值观和直觉联系起来。本研究评估了六种自动道德直觉与疫苗犹豫之间的关系。
使用 Qualtrics（2020 年）软件设计了一项横断面调查，并于 2021 年 4 月 6 日至 4 月 13 日在网上进行。来自英国的 1201 名具有代表性的参与者参加了这项研究，其中 954 名（514 名女性）通过了注意力检查项目。参与者回答了关于他们的自动道德直觉、与 COVID-19 疫苗相关的接种行为或意图以及一般疫苗犹豫的问题。进行回归分析（有和没有调整年龄、性别和种族），评估每个自动直觉与自我报告的 COVID-19 疫苗接种率之间的关联，以及每个自动直觉与一般疫苗犹豫之间的关联。
认同权威基础的人和更强烈认同自由基础的人往往更倾向于疫苗犹豫。这种模式适用于人们自我报告的 COVID-19 疫苗接种率和人们对一般疫苗的犹豫。在较小程度上，表达较少关怀需求和更大圣洁需求的人也对一般疫苗表现出更大的犹豫。调整和未调整分析的结果一致。年龄和种族对一些模型有显著贡献，但性别没有。
四种自动道德直觉（权威、自由、关怀和圣洁）与疫苗犹豫显著相关。可以制定基于基础的信息，以激励那些可能拒绝接种疫苗的人，例如强烈促进自由或不强调权威声音的信息。这一建议摆脱了强制接种疫苗的做法，促进了在支持疫苗接种的运动中纳入更多样化的声音。
