Converting the maybes: Crucial for a successful COVID-19 vaccination strategy.

BACKGROUND: Broad community acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccination will be critical for effectively halting the spread of the virus. In this study, we focus on factors that differentiate those who are undecided from those who are either willing or unwilling to accept a prospective COVID-19 vaccine. METHODS: An online survey in May 2020 assessed Australian adults' willingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccine (yes, maybe, no). A multinomial logistical regression of responses (N = 1,313) was used to identify correlates of vaccine willingness between the three groups. RESULTS: 65% were willing to vaccinate, with 27% being in the 'maybe' category. Respondents were more likely to be in the 'maybe' than the 'yes' group when they perceived COVID-19 to be less severe, had less trust in science, were less willing to vaccinate for influenza, and were female. They were more likely to be in the 'maybe' than 'no' group when they perceived COVID-19 as severe, and less likely to be a hoax, had more trust in science, and greater willingness to vaccinate for influenza. A repeat of the survey in November 2020 with a subset of participants found fewer of them saying yes to the vaccine (56%) and more saying maybe (31%). CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of any COVID-19 vaccine rollout will be reliant on maximizing uptake. The significant number of people who remain undecided about whether or not to get a COVID-19 vaccine, despite the ongoing devastating consequences of the virus for individuals, communities, and economies, is concerning. Our findings aid current research seeking to inform policy regarding how to convince the undecided to vaccinate.

We're all in this together, but for different reasons: Social values and social actions that affect COVID-19 preventative behaviors.

We examined how personal values, beliefs and concerns about COVID-19, and socio-demographics, relate to two important COVID-19 preventative behaviors: willingness to get vaccinated for COVID-19 and social distancing, in 1413 Australian adults. As expected, social focus values influenced the extent of compliance with these preventative behaviors, even when controlling for beliefs and concerns about COVID-19 and socio-demographics. We also examined the persuasiveness of four different value-expressive messages promoting social distancing, in a subsample of 737 Australian adults. We found that the message expressing self-transcendence values was ranked most persuasive by 77% of respondents. However, as hypothesized, personal values were related to message persuasiveness. As the importance ascribed to social focus values increased, the likelihood that the self-transcendence message was ranked as most persuasive increased. In contrast, the likelihood that the openness to change message was ranked as most persuasive increased for those who ascribed lesser importance to social focus values. Our findings can help the framing of government messaging around preventative behaviors, including maintaining social distancing in vaccinated populations who may still spread the disease, and preventing COVID-19 spread by or to vaccine refusers.

Does the cognitive reflection test measure cognitive reflection? A mathematical modeling approach.

We used a mathematical modeling approach, based on a sample of 2,019 participants, to better understand what the cognitive reflection test (CRT; Frederick In Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19, 25-42, 2005) measures. This test, which is typically completed in less than 10 min, contains three problems and aims to measure the ability or disposition to resist reporting the response that first comes to mind. However, since the test contains three mathematically based problems, it is possible that the test only measures mathematical abilities, and not cognitive reflection. We found that the models that included an inhibition parameter (i.e., the probability of inhibiting an intuitive response), as well as a mathematical parameter (i.e., the probability of using an adequate mathematical procedure), fitted the data better than a model that only included a mathematical parameter. We also found that the inhibition parameter in males is best explained by both rational thinking ability and the disposition toward actively open-minded thinking, whereas in females this parameter was better explained by rational thinking only. With these findings, this study contributes to the understanding of the processes involved in solving the CRT, and will be particularly useful for researchers who are considering using this test in their research.

Injunctive social norms primacy over descriptive social norms in retirement savings decisions.

Consistent with the global trend to shift responsibility for retirement income provision from the public purse to individuals has been encouragement to save more and to manage investment strategy. Analyzing data from 2,300 respondents to a randomly distributed questionnaire, this article focuses on the motivational importance of social norms. The study finds injunctive social norms (what is commonly approved or disapproved of) exert greater influence than descriptive social norms (what is commonly done) in predicting retirement savings intentions. Modeling employs the theory of planned behavior, and also finds injunctive social norm has predictive primacy over attitude and perceived behavioral control. Discussion advocates a balanced approach to intervention design, and identifies opportunities for the further study of normative message framing.