To vaccinate or not to vaccinate? The interplay between pro- and against- vaccination reasons.

BACKGROUND: By mid 2023, European countries reached 75% of vaccine coverage for COVID-19 and although vaccination rates are quite high, many people are still hesitant. A plethora of studies have investigated factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, however, insufficient attention has been paid to the reasons why people get vaccinated against COVID-19. Our work aims to investigate the role of reasons in the decision to get vaccinated against COVID-19 in a representative sample of 1,689 adult Italians (March-April 2021) balanced in terms of age, gender, educational level and area of residence. METHODS: Through an online questionnaire, we asked participants to freely report up to three reasons for and against COVID-19 vaccination, and the weight each had in the decision to get vaccinated. We first investigated the role of emotional competence and COVID-19 risk perception in the generation of both reasons using regression models. Next, we studied the role that the different reasons had in the vaccination decision, considering both the intention to vaccinate (using a beta regression model) and the decision made by the participants who already had the opportunity to get vaccinated (using a logistic regression model). Finally, two different classification tree analyses were carried out to characterize profiles with a low or high willingness to get vaccinated or with a low or high probability to accept/book the vaccine. RESULTS: High emotional competence positively influences the generation of both reasons (ORs > 1.5), whereas high risk perception increases the generation of positive reasons (ORs > 1.4) while decreasing reasons against vaccination (OR = 0.64). As pro-reasons increase, vaccination acceptance increases, while the opposite happens as against-reasons increase (all p < 0.001). One strong reason in favor of vaccines is enough to unbalance the decision toward acceptance of vaccination, even when reasons against it are also present (p < 0.001). Protection and absence of distrust are the reasons that mostly drive willingness to be vaccinated and acceptance of an offered vaccine. CONCLUSIONS: Knowing the reasons that drive people's decision about such an important choice can suggest new communication insights to reduce possible negative reactions toward vaccination and people's hesitancy. Results are discussed considering results of other national and international studies.

Who is likely to vacillate in their COVID-19 vaccination decision? Free-riding intention and post-positive reluctance.

Despite the actual availability of COVID-19 vaccines to combat the pandemic, many people are still vacillating in their decision to vaccinate. In this study, we considered the effect of two relevant contextual issues on vaccination intention: the number of people infected with COVID-19 is increasing, and the pace of vaccination is gaining speed. Specifically, we hypothesized that having already contracted SARS-CoV-2 (post-positive reluctance) could lead people to underestimate the importance of vaccination. Moreover, as the number of vaccinated people increases, more hesitant people could fall into the free-riding intention category, benefitting from the immunity provided by others' vaccinations. Vaccine hesitancy becomes more critical as the vaccination campaign proceeds: at one point, it will be inevitable to deal with hesitant people. This study is part of a WHO Regional Office for Europe project and involved a representative sample of 5006 Italians interviewed in January-February 2021. In case of post-positive reluctance, both young age and female gender increase vaccine hesitancy, while a high level of education reduces free-riding intention. Considering post-positive reluctance and free riding, a protective effect on hesitancy is associated with negative affective states, adherence to protective behaviors, trust in health information sources, and resilience. In contrast, increased vaccine hesitancy is associated with a high level of conspiracy-mindedness and trust in media information sources. Recognizing and studying the post-positive reluctance and the phenomenon of free-riding people can help us to become more efficient in combatting the virus.

Protecting youth from the vaping epidemic.

E-cigarettes (e-cigs) have been initially proposed as an aid to smoke cessation in adults, whereas they turned into a paradoxical preferential gateway to tobacco and nicotine initiation for adolescents naïve to tobacco. More than 25% of US school-age students is an e-cigs user with a steep rise over the past years. A marketing strategy on media and social network targeting youths, in the absence of rules to protect the pediatric users, resulted in an unprecedented trend up in tobacco consumption among adolescents and gave rise to a new generation of nicotine-addicted teenagers. Flavored e-cigs liquids and aerosols contain airway irritants and toxicants, that, in turn, produced an increase in asthma prevalence and its exacerbations among adolescents. In addition, since August 2019 an outbreak of e-cigarette, or vaping, product use-associated lung injury (EVALI) has been described. In view of this, e-cigs must no longer be considered harmless, especially in adolescents never used a tobacco product before. This is a call-for-action to establish effective rules and campaigns targeting youths aimed to limit their access to e-cigs, thereby preserving the potential benefit in quitting tobacco addiction described in adults. Behavioral and educational actions, out of the conventional primary care setting, have been described as a model for a youth-centered campaign. We call for stricter regulations on e-cigs products, with respect to their marketing to the youngest ones, along with public health and primary care interventions that could curb the spread of this "vaping" epidemic.

The Interplay of Perceived Risks and Benefits in Deciding to Become Vaccinated against COVID-19 While Pregnant or Breastfeeding: A Cross-Sectional Study in Italy.

The present study examined the role of the perception of risks and benefits for the mother and her babies in deciding about the COVID-19 vaccination. In this cross-sectional study, five hypotheses were tested using data from a convenience sample of Italian pregnant and/or breastfeeding women (N = 1104, July-September 2021). A logistic regression model estimated the influence of the predictors on the reported behavior, and a beta regression model was used to evaluate which factors influenced the willingness to become vaccinated among unvaccinated women. The COVID-19 vaccination overall risks/benefits tradeoff was highly predictive of both behavior and intention. Ceteris paribus, an increase in the perception of risks for the baby weighed more against vaccination than a similar increase in the perception of risks for the mother. Additionally, pregnant women resulted in being less likely (or willing) to be vaccinated in their status than breastfeeding women, but they were equally accepting of vaccination if they were not pregnant. COVID-19 risk perception predicted intention to become vaccinated, but not behavior. In conclusion, the overall risks/benefits tradeoff is key in predicting vaccination behavior and intention, but the concerns for the baby weigh more than those for the mother in the decision, shedding light on this previously neglected aspect.

Look Behind Me! Highly Informative Picture Backgrounds Increase Stated Generosity Through Perceived Tangibility, Impact, and Warm Glow.

In this study, we investigated whether background information of a visual charity appeal can influence people's motivation to donate and the hypothetical amount donated. Specifically, participants were presented with a charity appeal to help a local hospital respond to the Coronavirus Disease-19 (COVID-19) emergency depicting a man sitting on a bed in a hospital room. The number of visual details (i.e., medical equipment) depicted in the background was manipulated according to three conditions: (1) "High information" condition (i.e., a room full of medical equipment), (2) "low information" condition (i.e., room with few pieces of medical equipment), and (3) "no information" condition (i.e., non-contextual background). We investigated whether the number of visual background details would have increased the tangibility of the cause measured as the hospital's adequate preparedness to deal with the COVID-19 emergency and severity of the patient's medical conditions. We also investigated whether increased tangibility, elicited by a higher amount of background information, would heighten participants' perceived impact of their donation and warm glow, which in turn would have led to increased motivation to donate and the amount donated. We found no significant direct effect of condition on the donated amount. However, path models revealed that more background information positively influenced participants' motivation to donate and the amount donated indirectly through increased tangibility, impact, and warm glow. Finally, we showed that a higher risk perception of COVID-19 was associated with higher donations. Results are discussed in line with relevant literature.

How perceived scarcity predicted cooperation during early pandemic lockdown.

Both material resources (jobs, healthcare), and socio-psychological resources (social contact) decreased during the COVID-19 pandemic. We investigated whether individual differences in perceived material and socio-psychological scarcity experienced during the pandemic predicted preference for cooperation, measured using two Public Good Games (PGGs), where participants contributed money or time (i.e., hours indoors contributed to shorten the lockdown). Material scarcity had no relationship with cooperation. Increased perceived scarcity of socio-psychological wellbeing (e.g., connecting with family) predicted increased preference for cooperation, suggesting that missing social contact fosters prosociality, whilst perceived scarcity of freedom (e.g., limited movement) predicted decreased willingness to spend time indoors to shorten the lockdown. The importance of considering individual differences in scarcity perception to best promote norm compliance is discussed.

Joint analysis of the intention to vaccinate and to use contact tracing app during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Pharmacological and non-pharmacological measures will overlap for a period after the onset of the pandemic, playing a strong role in virus containment. We explored which factors influence the likelihood to adopt two different preventive measures against the COVID-19 pandemic. An online snowball sampling (May-June 2020) collected a total of 448 questionnaires in Italy. A Bayesian bivariate Gaussian regression model jointly investigated the willingness to get vaccinated against COVID-19 and to download the national contact tracing app. A mixed-effects cumulative logistic model explored which factors affected the motivation to adopt one of the two preventive measures. Despite both COVID-19 vaccines and tracing apps being indispensable tools to contain the spread of SARS-CoV-2, our results suggest that adherence to the vaccine or to the national contact tracing app is not predicted by the same factors. Therefore, public communication on these measures needs to take in consideration not only the perceived risk associated with COVID-19, but also the trust people place in politics and science, their concerns and doubts about vaccinations, and their employment status. Further, the results suggest that the motivation to comply with these measurements was predominantly to protect others rather than self-protection.

People's perspectives about COVID-19 vaccination certificate: Findings from a representative Italian sample.

In Italy, like in other countries, issues still exist regarding how to reach high vaccine coverage and several countries have considered policies to increase vaccine uptake. In the present study, we focused on people who have a favorable attitude towards vaccination. In March-April 2021, we asked a representative sample of Italian participants (N = 1,530) to assess to what extent they would support the adoption of a COVID-19 vaccination certificate, excluding unvaccinated people from participating in public and cultural events. Furthermore, as the vaccination coverage increases, severe forms of COVID-19 requiring hospitalization more likely involve unvaccinated individuals, who might be perceived as those who don't contribute to ending the pandemic and who constitute a significant health cost for society. We then asked participants to assess to what extent they would favor the idea of requiring people who refuse the vaccine to pay for their own medical expenses in case of hospitalization. We hypothesized that support for the adoption of the vaccination certificate would be predicted by the COVID-19 vaccination status (received, booked, high-, medium-, low-willingness to be vaccinated, or refused) and by the same factors that are known to affect the willingness to get vaccinated. These factors were also tested in a model aimed at investigating if a vaccinated person would favor a measure requiring the unvaccinated individuals to pay for medical expenses. Results confirmed that the support towards the vaccination certificate policy was strongly predicted by the vaccination status and by factors known to affect the willingness to get vaccinated. Interestingly (and surprisingly), a similar pattern was observed for the support of the policy about medical expenses. In conclusion, support for a COVID-19 vaccination certificate was high among the Italian population in the early phases of the vaccination rollout. The findings are discussed considering potential policies to tackle the pandemic.

Psychological well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy assessed in a four-waves survey.

COVID-19 pandemic had a negative impact on the mental health and well-being (WB) of citizens. This cross-sectional study included 4 waves of data collection aimed at identifying profiles of individuals with different levels of WB. The study included a representative stratified sample of 10,013 respondents in Italy. The WHO 5-item well-being scale (WHO-5) was used for the assessment of WB. Different supervised machine learning approaches (multinomial logistic regression, partial least-square discriminant analysis-PLS-DA-, classification tree-CT-) were applied to identify individual characteristics with different WB scores, first in waves 1-2 and, subsequently, in waves 3 and 4. Forty-one percent of participants reported "Good WB", 30% "Poor WB", and 28% "Depression". Findings carried out using multinomial logistic regression show that Resilience was the most important variable able for discriminating the WB across all waves. Through the PLS-DA, Increased Unhealthy Behaviours proved to be the more important feature in the first two waves, while Financial Situation gained most relevance in the last two. COVID-19 Perceived Risk was relevant, but less than the other variables, across all waves. Interestingly, using the CT we were able to establish a cut-off for Resilience (equal to 4.5) that discriminated good WB with a probability of 65% in wave 4. Concluding, we found that COVID-19 had negative implications for WB. Governments should support evidence-based strategies considering factors that influence WB (i.e., Resilience, Perceived Risk, Healthy Behaviours, and Financial Situation).

COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in Italy: Predictors of Acceptance, Fence Sitting and Refusal of the COVID-19 Vaccination.

Background: The hesitancy in taking the COVID-19 vaccine is a global challenge. The need to identify predictors of COVID-19 vaccine reluctance is critical. Our objectives were to evaluate sociodemographic, psychological, and behavioral factors, as well as attitudes and beliefs that influence COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy in the general population of Italy. Methods: A total of 2,015 people were assessed in two waves (March, April and May, 2021). Participants were divided into three groups: (1) individuals who accepted the vaccination ("accepters"); (2) individuals who refused the vaccination ("rejecters"); and (3) individuals who were uncertain about their attitudes toward the vaccination ("fence sitters"). Group comparisons were performed using ANOVA, the Kruskal-Wallis test and chi-square tests. The strength of the association between the groups and the participants' characteristics was analyzed using a series of multinomial logistic regression models with bootstrap internal validation (one for each factor). Results: The "fence sitters" group, when compared to the others, included individuals of younger age, lower educational level, and worsening economic situation in the previous 3 months. After controlling for sociodemographic factors, the following features emerged as the main risk factors for being "fence sitters" (compared with vaccine "accepters"): reporting lower levels of protective behaviors, trust in institutions and informational sources, frequency of use of informational sources, agreement with restrictions and higher conspirative mentality. Higher levels of COVID-19 perceived risk, trust in institutions and informational sources, frequency of use of informational sources, agreement with restrictions and protective behaviors were associated with a higher likelihood of becoming "fence sitters" rather than vaccine "rejecters." Conclusions: The "fence sitters" profile revealed by this study is intriguing and should be the focus of public programmes aimed at improving adherence to the COVID-19 vaccination campaign.

Associations of COVID-19 risk perception with vaccine hesitancy over time for Italian residents.

RATIONALE: Many countries were and are still struggling with the COVID-19 emergency. Despite efforts to limit the viral transmission, the vaccine is the only solution to ending the pandemic. However, vaccine hesitancy could reduce coverage and hinder herd immunity. OBJECTIVE: People's intention to get vaccinated can be shaped by several factors, including risk perception which, in turn, is influenced by affect. The present work aimed at investigating how risk perception and some factors associated with the decision to comply with vaccination modulated vaccine acceptance for COVID-19 as compared to seasonal influenza, and how these have varied during the lockdown phases. METHOD: The study followed the main phases of the emergency in Italy, investigating the intention to get vaccinated against flu and against SARS-CoV-2 (if a vaccine was available) before, during and after the first national lockdown, covering the period from the end of February to the end of June 2020. We investigated the effect of risk perception and other predictors on the decision of getting vaccinated. RESULTS: Compared to the pre-lockdown phase, during the lockdown more people were willing to get vaccinated for COVID-19, regardless of their beliefs about vaccines, and as risk perception increased, so did the intention to accept the vaccine. The acceptance of the flu vaccine increased after the re-opening phase. In addition, the intention to get vaccinated against COVID-19 and against flu increased if there was previous flu vaccination behavior but decreased with increasing doubts about the vaccines in general. CONCLUSIONS: The observation of vaccination intentions across the three main phases of the emergency allows important considerations regarding psychological, affect, and demographic determinants useful to tailor public health communication to improve public response to future epidemics.

The Role of Emotional Competences in Parents' Vaccine Hesitancy.

The role of parents' emotional competencies on vaccine hesitancy and decision making has been seldom examined. Two studies investigated the relationship between parents' attitudes towards childhood vaccines and self-reported behavior (Study 1) and between parents' emotional competence and attitudes towards vaccines (Study 2). In Study 1, predictors of temporal, partial, or complete vaccine refusal (having voluntarily postponed/forgone some/all vaccines) were examined in 2778 parents. In Study 2, psychological predictors of the attitude towards vaccines were examined in 593 parents, using the Profile of Emotional Competence and the valence of mental images spontaneously associated with the term "vaccine". In Study 1, attitudes were aggregated in three independent factors (concerns about vaccine safety; diseases prevented by vaccines; and naturalistic views) that independently predicted vaccine refusal. In Study 2, a significant mediational analysis showed a positive indirect effect of intrapersonal emotional competences on attitudes towards vaccines, through mental images associated with the word "vaccine". Parents' intrapersonal emotional competences affected all dimensions of attitudes towards vaccines, suggesting that being able to manage, identify, and recognize one's own emotions is central to vaccine acceptance. These findings suggest that intervention strategies, rather than stressing the pro-social benefits of vaccinating, should focus on aspects related to one's own emotions.

'Three is better than two': Increasing donations with the attraction effect.

Five experiments (Ntotal  = 2,503) tested the attraction effect and its boundary conditions in the context of helping behaviour. Participants could choose one donation appeal in a set of either two or three alternatives. The three alternatives set included a decoy - an alternative that resembled but was clearly inferior to a target (i.e., the most beneficial) alternative. A clear and consistent pattern emerged: Participants chose the target alternative more frequently and perceived it as more beneficial (and somewhat less costly) when the decoy was present compared to when it was absent. This finding was robust when the attribute ratings of the alternatives were unclear, when the target alternative offered a bundle of unrelated products, and when participants could refrain from donating altogether, or contribute any amount they wished. Our findings offer concrete and simple strategies that charities can implement at zero cost to increase giving and the perceived benefits that people's good deed bring about to those in need.

Emotional intelligence buffers the effect of physiological arousal on dishonesty.

We studied the emotional processes that allow people to balance two competing desires: benefitting from dishonesty and keeping a positive self-image. We recorded physiological arousal (skin conductance and heart rate) during a computer card game in which participants could cheat and fail to report a certain card when presented on the screen to avoid losing their money. We found that higher skin conductance corresponded to lower cheating rates. Importantly, emotional intelligence regulated this effect; participants with high emotional intelligence were less affected by their physiological reactions than those with low emotional intelligence. As a result, they were more likely to profit from dishonesty. However, no interaction emerged between heart rate and emotional intelligence. We suggest that the ability to manage and control emotions can allow people to overcome the tension between doing right or wrong and license them to bend the rules.