Matthijssen Mitchell A M, Cloin Mariëlle, van Leeuwen Florian, van de Goor Ien, Achterberg Peter
Department of Social Psychology, Tilburg University, Tilburg, Warandelaan 2, 5000 LE, P.O. Box 90153, The Netherlands.
Tranzo, Tilburg University, Tilburg, Warandelaan 2, 5000 LE, P.O. Box 90153, The Netherlands.
BMC Public Health. 2025 Feb 4;25(1):441. doi: 10.1186/s12889-024-21027-1.
Despite the associations of certain beliefs and worldviews (e.g., religiosity and belief in conspiracy theories) with non-vaccination behavior, some individuals who hold these views still choose vaccination, and vice versa. This study aims to explore why individuals choose to be vaccinated against COVID-19, despite holding opposing beliefs and worldviews, or refrain from doing so, when their beliefs align with vaccination. By examining both positive and negative deviant behavior, we seek to identify strategies and barriers for public health officials to develop interventions to improve vaccination uptake.
We conducted semi-structured online interviews with 21 Dutch adults aged 28-75 years (13 positive deviants and 8 negative deviants) between January and July 2022. Interviewees were recruited on the basis of their response patterns in a survey that was part of a larger project on understanding vaccine hesitancy in the Netherlands. The interviews focused on how they formed their intention toward the COVID-19 vaccine and what could change it in the future. The data were analyzed via semi-inductive coding with Atlas.ti.23.
Positive deviants got vaccinated because they perceived COVID-19 as a threat, wanted to protect (vulnerable) others, or wanted to regain their freedom. Negative deviants did not get vaccinated because they did not perceive the vaccine as appropriate, the disease not as a threat, for religious reasons, or did not trust the authorities. The most important barriers and strategies that were identified that could improve vaccination uptake were unrelated to underlying beliefs and worldviews but related to characteristics of the vaccine such as effectiveness and (potential) side-effects.
This study demonstrates the applicability of traditional health psychology models, such as the health belief model, in explaining deviant vaccination behavior. Additionally, leveraging prosocial motivations and imposing restrictions on non-vaccinated individuals have been effective strategies for promoting vaccination uptake, albeit restricted to pandemic contexts. As some individuals will remain resistant to vaccination efforts, tailored interventions for vaccine-hesitant individuals may yield greater success rather than attempting to persuade strict opponents of vaccination.
尽管某些信念和世界观（如宗教信仰和对阴谋论的相信）与不接种疫苗的行为有关联，但一些持有这些观点的人仍然选择接种疫苗，反之亦然。本研究旨在探讨为何有些人尽管持有相反的信念和世界观却选择接种新冠疫苗，而另一些信念与接种疫苗相符的人却不这样做。通过研究正向和负向的越轨行为，我们试图为公共卫生官员确定制定干预措施以提高疫苗接种率的策略和障碍。
2022年1月至7月期间，我们对21名年龄在28至75岁之间的荷兰成年人（13名正向越轨者和8名负向越轨者）进行了半结构化在线访谈。受访者是根据他们在一项调查中的回答模式招募的，该调查是荷兰一项关于理解疫苗犹豫的大型项目的一部分。访谈重点关注他们如何形成对新冠疫苗的意向以及未来什么可能改变这种意向。数据通过使用Atlas.ti.23进行半归纳编码进行分析。
正向越轨者接种疫苗是因为他们将新冠视为一种威胁，想要保护（易感染的）他人，或者想要重获自由。负向越轨者不接种疫苗是因为他们认为疫苗不合适、疾病不是威胁、出于宗教原因，或者不信任当局。确定的可提高疫苗接种率的最重要障碍和策略与潜在信念和世界观无关，而是与疫苗的特性有关，如有效性和（潜在）副作用。
本研究证明了传统健康心理学模型，如健康信念模型，在解释越轨疫苗接种行为方面的适用性。此外，利用亲社会动机并对未接种疫苗的个人施加限制是促进疫苗接种的有效策略，尽管仅限于疫情背景。由于一些人将继续抵制疫苗接种努力，针对疫苗犹豫者的量身定制干预措施可能会取得更大成功，而不是试图说服坚决反对接种疫苗的人。
