A longitudinal assessment of variability in COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and psychosocial correlates in a national United States sample.

Recent evidence suggests that COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is not static. In order to develop effective vaccine uptake interventions, we need to understand the extent to which vaccine hesitancy fluctuates and identify factors associated with both between- and within-person differences in vaccine hesitancy. The goals of the current study were to assess the extent to which COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy varied at an individual level across time and to determine whether disgust sensitivity and germ aversion were associated with between- and within-person differences in COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. A national sample of U.S. adults (N = 1025; 516 woman; Mage = 46.34 years, SDage = 16.56, range: 18 to 85 years; 72.6 % White) completed six weekly online surveys (March 20 - May 3, 2020). Between-person mean COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy rates were relatively stable across the six-week period (range: 38-42 %). However, there was considerable within-person variability in COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Approximately, 40 % of the sample changed their vaccine hesitancy at least once during the six weeks. There was a significant between-person effect for disgust sensitivity, such that greater disgust sensitivity was associated with a lower likelihood of COVID-19 vaccine hesitance. There was also a significant within-person effect for germ aversion. Participants who experienced greater germ aversion for a given week relative to their own six week average were less likely to be COVID-19 vaccine hesitant that week relative to their own six-week average. This study provides important information on rapidly changing individual variability in COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy on a weekly basis, which should be taken into consideration with any efforts to decrease vaccine hesitancy and increase vaccine uptake. Further, these findings identify-two psychological factors (disgust sensitivity and germ aversion) with malleable components that could be leveraged in developing vaccine uptake interventions.

A Mixed-Method Assessment of a 10-Day Mobile Mindfulness Intervention.

Mobile mindfulness interventions represent a promising alternative to traditional in-person interventions that are resource demanding and have limited accessibility, preventing use by many populations. Despite greater accessibility and popularity of mobile mindfulness applications (apps), research is needed testing the effectiveness of brief interventions delivered via these platforms. The present study assessed the efficacy of a brief mobile mindfulness intervention compared to an active control for increasing state and trait mindfulness and improving mood, as well as the acceptability of the app, in a sample of undergraduate students. Participants (N=139; M age=19.43years, 80.6% female, 83.5% White) were randomly assigned to either a 10-day mobile mindfulness (Headspace) or cognitive training (Peak) condition. Trait mindfulness was measured pre- and post-intervention. During the 10-day intervention, participants completed 10-min daily exercises on the assigned app, responded to daily questionnaires of state mindfulness and mood, and completed a daily written log of their reactions to the app exercises. Attrition was low (90% completion rate) and did not differ by condition. Participants in the mindfulness condition spent an average of 88.15min (SD=24.75) meditating out of the full 100min prescribed by the intervention. State mindfulness significantly increased across the 10-day intervention for participants in the mindfulness, but not the cognitive training, condition beginning around days 5 and 6. Some aspects of trait mindfulness increased and mood improved from pre- to post-intervention, but these changes were observed in both conditions (i.e., no significant differences were observed by condition). Qualitative analysis of open-ended reactions to the mindfulness app indicated that participants reported more likes than dislikes. Common themes for likes were that participants experienced feelings of calm and focus following the daily mindfulness exercises. Dislikes included discomfort and anxiety associated with increased awareness of thoughts and physical sensations. These findings suggest that while a brief mobile mindfulness intervention is acceptable to undergraduate college students and effective at increasing state mindfulness, a longer intervention may be needed in order to elicit corresponding changes in trait-level mindfulness or mood.

The effect of affective versus cognitive persuasive messages on African American women's attitudes toward condom use.

OBJECTIVE: Health decision making models propose that affective associations at both the implicit and explicit level and cognitive beliefs influence health behaviours. The current studies investigated whether affective or cognitive persuasive messages would lead to more positive implicit and explicit condom use attitudes and higher intentions among African American college women. DESIGN: Participants (Study 1 N = 109; Study 2 N = 112) explicit attitudes were assess prior to watching a short video that contained either affective (e.g., safe sex is pleasurable) or cognitive messages (e.g., latex condoms are effective in preventing HIV) in favour of condom use. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Following the video, participants completed the Affect Misattribution Procedure (AMP), a measure of implicit attitudes, explicit measures of condom use attitudes that assessed attitudes at the overall and component level, intentions to use condoms, and interest in receiving free sample of condoms. RESULTS: Participants in the affective message condition reported more positive condom use attitudes on both the implicit and explicit measure, higher intentions to use condoms, and more interest in receiving free condoms than those in the cognitive message condition. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that affective messages may be more effective in changing condom use attitudes, which can be used in interventions to promote protective condom use behaviours.

Job Insecurity and Financial Concern During the COVID-19 Pandemic Are Associated With Worse Mental Health.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether job insecurity due to COVID-19 and financial concern were associated with worse mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHOD: Participants (N = 474 employed U.S. individuals) completed an online survey from April 6 to 12, 2020. Linear regressions were used to examine factors associated with mental health. RESULTS: After accounting for demographic characteristics, health status, other COVID-19 experiences, and anxiety symptoms, greater job insecurity due to COVID-19 was related to greater depressive symptoms. Conversely, after accounting for covariates and depressive symptoms, greater financial concern was related to greater anxiety symptoms. Further, greater job insecurity was indirectly related to greater anxiety symptoms due to greater financial concern. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that employers should aim to reduce job insecurity and financial concern among employees during the COVID-19 pandemic to address the associated mental health consequences.

A matter of fact? Adolescents' assumptions about crime, laws, and authority and their domain-specific beliefs about punishment.

This study examined adolescents' beliefs about the amount of punishment individuals should receive for violating different laws and whether these beliefs are connected with their informational assumptions (i.e., perceived facts) about crime, laws, and authority. American adolescents (N = 340; Mage = 16.64, 58.2% female) reported their judgments concerning the appropriate punishment for violating laws regulating domain-specific behaviors and their informational assumptions regarding the prevalence and causes of crime, beliefs that authority is knowledgeable, and the purpose of punishment. Greater internal attributions for crime was associated with stronger punishment judgments for violating laws that regulate moral and conventional issues. Greater beliefs that punishment teaches right from wrong was associated with stronger punishment judgments for violating laws that regulate drug-related prudential issues, and lower punishment judgments for violating laws that regulate personal issues. Greater beliefs that authorities are more knowledgeable than others was associated with stronger punishment judgments for violating laws that regulate personal issues.