Testing Psychological Inoculation to Reduce Reactance to Vaccine-Related Communication.

Research has found that vaccine-promoting messages can elicit state reactance (i.e., negative emotions in response to a perceived threat to behavioral freedom), especially among individuals with high trait reactance (i.e., proneness to experiencing reactance). This can result in a lower willingness to accept vaccines. We investigated whether inoculation against reactance - that is, forewarning individuals about potentially experiencing reactance - can reduce the effects of trait reactance on vaccination willingness. Participants (N = 710) recruited through Facebook were randomly allocated to be either inoculated or not. They were then shown a message promoting a fictitious vaccine, which included either a low, medium, or high threat to freedom. Contrary to research on other health topics, inoculation was ineffective at reducing state reactance toward the vaccination message. Inoculation also did not mitigate the effects of trait reactance on vaccination willingness, and was even counterproductive in some cases. High-reactant individuals were less willing to get vaccinated than low-reactant ones, especially at high freedom threat. Conversely, high freedom threat resulted in increased vaccination willingness among low-reactant individuals. Further research is needed to understand why inoculation against reactance produces different results with vaccination, and to develop communication strategies that mitigate reactance to vaccination campaigns without compromising the positive effects of vaccine recommendations for low-reactant individuals.

The empathetic refutational interview to tackle vaccine misconceptions: Four randomized experiments.

OBJECTIVE: We introduce and report early stage testing of a novel, multicomponent intervention that can be used by healthcare professionals (HCPs) to address false or misleading antivaccination arguments while maintaining empathy for and understanding of people's motivations to believe misinformation: the "Empathetic Refutational Interview" (ERI). METHOD: We conducted four experiments in 2022 with participants who were predominantly negative or on the fence about vaccination (total n = 2,545) to test four steps for tailoring an HCP's response to a vaccine-hesitant individual: (a) elicit their concerns, (b) affirm their values and beliefs to the extent possible, (c) refute the misinformed beliefs in their reasoning in a way that is tailored to their psychological motivations, and (d) provide factual information about vaccines. Each of the steps was tested against active control conditions, with participants randomized to conditions. RESULTS: Overall, compared to controls, we found that observing steps of the ERI produced small effects on increasing vaccine acceptance and lowering support for antivaccination arguments. Critically, an HCP who affirmed participants' concerns generated significantly more support for their refutations and subsequent information, with large effects compared to controls. In addition, participants found tailored refutations (compared to control responses) more compelling, and displayed more trust and openness toward the HCP giving them. CONCLUSIONS: The ERI can potentially be leveraged and tested further as a tailored communication tool for HCPs to refute antivaccination misconceptions while maintaining trust and rapport with patients. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Trait reactance as psychological motivation to reject vaccination: Two longitudinal studies and one experimental study.

Anti-science attitudes can be resilient to scientific evidence if they are rooted in psychological motives. One such motive is trait reactance, which refers to the need to react with opposition when one's freedom of choice has been threatened. In three studies, we investigated trait reactance as a psychological motivation to reject vaccination. In the longitudinal studies (n = 199; 293), we examined if trait reactance measured before the COVID-19 pandemic was related to people's willingness to get vaccinated against COVID-19 up to 2 years later during the pandemic. In the experimental study (n = 398), we tested whether trait reactance makes anti-vaccination attitudes more resistant to information and whether this resistance can be mitigated by framing the information to minimize the risk of triggering state reactance. The longitudinal studies showed that higher trait reactance before the COVID-19 pandemic was related to lower willingness to get vaccinated against COVID-19. Our experimental study indicated that highly reactant individuals' willingness to vaccinate was unaffected by the amount and framing of the information provided. Trait reactance has a strong and durable impact on vaccination willingness. This highlights the importance of considering the role of trait reactance in people's vaccination-related decision-making.

Science Communication as a Collective Intelligence Endeavor: A Manifesto and Examples for Implementation.

Effective science communication is challenging when scientific messages are informed by a continually updating evidence base and must often compete against misinformation. We argue that we need a new program of science communication as collective intelligence-a collaborative approach, supported by technology. This would have four key advantages over the typical model where scientists communicate as individuals: scientific messages would be informed by (a) a wider base of aggregated knowledge, (b) contributions from a diverse scientific community, (c) participatory input from stakeholders, and (d) better responsiveness to ongoing changes in the state of knowledge.

Healthcare professionals' attitudes to mandatory COVID-19 vaccination: Cross-sectional survey data from four European countries.

Mandatory vaccinations are widely debated since they restrict individuals' autonomy in their health decisions. As healthcare professionals (HCPs) are a common target group of vaccine mandates, and also form a link between vaccination policies and the public, understanding their attitudes toward vaccine mandates is important. The present study investigated physicians' attitudes to COVID-19 vaccine mandates in four European countries: Finland, France, Germany, and Portugal. An electronic survey assessing attitudes to COVID-19 vaccine mandates and general vaccination attitudes (e.g. perceived vaccine safety, trust in health authorities, and openness to patients) was sent to physicians in the spring of 2022. A total of 2796 physicians responded. Across all countries, 78% of the physicians were in favor of COVID-19 vaccine mandates for HCPs, 49% favored COVID-19 vaccine mandates for the public, and 67% endorsed COVID-19 health passes. Notable differences were observed between countries, with attitudes to mandates found to be more positive in countries where the mandate, or similar mandates, were in effect. The associations between attitudes to mandates and general vaccination attitudes were mostly small to neglectable and differed between countries. Nevertheless, physicians with more positive mandate attitudes perceived vaccines as more beneficial (in Finland and France) and had greater trust in medical authorities (in France and Germany). The present study contributes to the body of research within social and behavioral sciences that support evidence-based vaccination policymaking.

Endorsement of alternative medicine and vaccine hesitancy among physicians: A cross-sectional study in four European countries.

Vaccine hesitancy has become a threat to public health, especially as it is a phenomenon that has also been observed among healthcare professionals. In this study, we analyzed the relationship between endorsement of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) and vaccination attitudes and behaviors among healthcare professionals, using a cross-sectional sample of physicians with vaccination responsibilities from four European countries: Germany, Finland, Portugal, and France (total N = 2,787). Our results suggest that, in all the participating countries, CAM endorsement is associated with lower frequency of vaccine recommendation, lower self-vaccination rates, and being more open to patients delaying vaccination, with these relationships being mediated by distrust in vaccines. A latent profile analysis revealed that a profile characterized by higher-than-average CAM endorsement and lower-than-average confidence and recommendation of vaccines occurs, to some degree, among 19% of the total sample, although these percentages varied from one country to another: 23.72% in Germany, 17.83% in France, 9.77% in Finland, and 5.86% in Portugal. These results constitute a call to consider health care professionals' attitudes toward CAM as a factor that could hinder the implementation of immunization campaigns.

International adaptation and validation of the Pro-VC-Be: measuring the psychosocial determinants of vaccine confidence in healthcare professionals in European countries.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare professionals (HCPs) play an important role in vaccination; those with low confidence in vaccines are less likely to recommend them to their patients and to be vaccinated themselves. The study's purpose was to adapt and validate long- and short-form versions of the International Professionals' Vaccine Confidence and Behaviors (I-Pro-VC-Be) questionnaire to measure psychosocial determinants of HCPs' vaccine confidence and their associations with vaccination behaviors in European countries. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: After the original French-language Pro-VC-Be was culturally adapted and translated, HCPs involved in vaccination (mainly GPs and pediatricians) across Germany, Finland, France, and Portugal completed a cross-sectional online survey in 2022. A 10-factor multigroup confirmatory factor analysis (MG-CFA) of the long-form (10 factors comprising 34 items) tested for measurement invariance across countries. Modified multiple Poisson regressions tested the criterion validity of both versions. RESULTS: 2,748 HCPs participated. The 10-factor structure fit was acceptable to good everywhere. The final MG-CFA model confirmed strong factorial invariance and showed very good fit. The long- and short-form I-Pro-VC-Be had good criterion validity with vaccination behaviors. CONCLUSION: This study validates the I-Pro-VC-Be among HCPs in four European countries; including long- and short-form tools for use in research and public health.

Psychological profiles of anti-vaccination argument endorsement.

The proliferation of anti-vaccination arguments online can threaten immunisation programmes, including those targeting COVID-19. To effectively refute misinformed views about vaccination, communicators need to go beyond providing correct information and debunking of misconceptions, and must consider the underlying motivations of people who hold contrarian views. Drawing on a taxonomy of anti-vaccination arguments that identified 11 "attitude roots"-i.e., psychological attributes-that motivate an individual's vaccine-hesitant attitude, we assessed whether these attitude roots were identifiable in argument endorsements and responses to psychological construct measures corresponding to the presumed attitude roots. In two UK samples (total n = 1250), we found that participants exhibited monological belief patterns in their highly correlated endorsements of anti-vaccination arguments drawn from different attitude roots, and that psychological constructs representing the attitude roots significantly predicted argument endorsement strength and vaccine hesitancy. We identified four different latent anti-vaccination profiles amongst our participants' responses. We conclude that endorsement of anti-vaccination arguments meaningfully dovetails with attitude roots clustering around anti-scientific beliefs and partisan ideologies, but that the balance between those attitudes differs considerably between people. Communicators must be aware of those individual differences.

A taxonomy of anti-vaccination arguments from a systematic literature review and text modelling.

The proliferation of anti-vaccination arguments is a threat to the success of many immunization programmes. Effective rebuttal of contrarian arguments requires an approach that goes beyond addressing flaws in the arguments, by also considering the attitude roots-that is, the underlying psychological attributes driving a person's belief-of opposition to vaccines. Here, through a pre-registered systematic literature review of 152 scientific articles and thematic analysis of anti-vaccination arguments, we developed a hierarchical taxonomy that relates common arguments and themes to 11 attitude roots that explain why an individual might express opposition to vaccination. We further validated our taxonomy on coronavirus disease 2019 anti-vaccination misinformation, through a combination of human coding and machine learning using natural language processing algorithms. Overall, the taxonomy serves as a theoretical framework to link expressed opposition of vaccines to their underlying psychological processes. This enables future work to develop targeted rebuttals and other interventions that address the underlying motives of anti-vaccination arguments.

Validation of the Spanish Version of the Generic Conspiracist Beliefs Scale.

Theorists acknowledge that conspiracy beliefs represent an established psychological construct. The study of conspiracy beliefs is important because allied ideation potentially influences everyday attitudes and behaviors across a range of domains (i.e., cognitive, social, cross-cultural, and political psychology). In this article, we analyze the internal structure and construct validity of the Spanish adaptation of the Generic Conspiracist Beliefs Scale (GCBS). Correlational and confirmatory factor analyses using an international sample of 732 Spanish-speakers revealed a five-factor structure equivalent to the original instrument. Convergent validity was demonstrated using educational level, political orientation, need for uniqueness, and four social axioms (social cynicism, religiosity, reward for application, and fate control). In comparison to two English samples (N = 794 and N = 421), the adaptation demonstrated satisfactory, although restricted, levels of invariance. Accordingly, findings support the use of this translated form of the GCBS with Spanish speakers.

Measuring psychosocial determinants of vaccination behavior in healthcare professionals: validation of the Pro-VC-Be short-form questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: Vaccine confidence among health care professionals (HCPs) is a key determinant of vaccination behaviors. We validate a short-form version of the 31-item Pro-VC-Be (Health Professionals Vaccine Confidence and Behaviors) questionnaire that measures HCPs' confidence in and commitment to vaccination. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A cross-sectional survey among 2,696 HCPs established a long-form tool to measure 10 dimensions of psychosocial determinants of vaccination behaviors. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) models tested the construct validity of 69,984 combinations of items in a 10-item short form tool. The criterion validity of this tool was tested with four behavioral and attitudinal outcomes using weighted modified Poisson regressions. An immunization resource score was constructed from summing the responses of the dimensions that can influence HCPs' pro-vaccination behaviors: vaccine confidence, proactive efficacy, and trust in authorities. RESULTS: The short-form tool showed good construct validity in CFA analyses (RMSEA = 0.035 [0.024; 0.045]; CFI = 0.956; TLI = 0.918; SRMR 0.027) and comparable criterion validity to the long-form tool. The immunization resource score showed excellent criterion validity. CONCLUSIONS: The Pro-VC-Be short-form showed good construct validity and criterion validity similar to the long-form and can therefore be used to measure determinants of vaccination behaviors among HCPs.

An instrument to measure psychosocial determinants of health care professionals' vaccination behavior: Validation of the Pro-VC-Be questionnaire.

OBJECTIVES: The lack of validated instruments assessing vaccine hesitancy/confidence among health care professionals (HCPs) for themselves, and their patients led us to develop and validate the Pro-VC-Be instrument to measure vaccine confidence and other psychosocial determinants of HCPs' vaccination behavior among diverse HCPs in different countries. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey in October-November 2020 among 1,249 GPs in France, 432 GPs in French-speaking parts of Belgium, and 1,055 nurses in Quebec (Canada), all participating in general population immunization. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses evaluated the instrument's construct validity. We used HCPs' self-reported vaccine recommendations to patients, general immunization activity, self-vaccination, and future COVID-19 vaccine acceptance to test criterion validity. RESULTS: The final results indicated a 6-factor structure with good fit: vaccine confidence (combining complacency, perceived vaccine risks, perceived benefit-risk balance, perceived collective responsibility), trust in authorities, perceived constraints, proactive efficacy (combining commitment to vaccination and self-efficacy), reluctant trust, and openness to patients. The instrument showed good convergent and criterion validity and adequate discriminant validity. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that the Pro-VC-Be is a valid instrument for measuring psychosocial determinants of HCPs' vaccination behaviors in different settings. Its validation is currently underway in Europe among various HCPs in different languages.

Spanish Adaptation of the Left-Wing Authoritarianism Index.

Notwithstanding long-simmering controversies around the construct, several studies have gathered consistent evidence of authoritarian attitudes among left-wing voters and activists. Recently, Costello et al. (Clarifying the structure and nature of left-wing authoritarianism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2021) validated, in the English-speaking context, a three-factor scale to measure left-wing authoritarianism, as well as two shortened versions of the same scale (Costello & Patrick, Development and initial validation of two brief measures of left-wing authoritarianism: A machine learning approach, 2021; composed of 39, 25 and 13 items, respectively). In this article, we used three samples (total N = 2586) to validate the structural and construct validity of a Spanish adaptation of these three versions. The resulting scales exhibited an analogous three-factor structure, adequate internal consistency, and convergent and discriminant validity regarding sex, religion, moral exporting, conspiracy theories, social and economic conservatism, and right-wing authoritarianism.

Validation of the Spanish Version of the Generic Conspiracist Beliefs Scale

Theorists acknowledge that conspiracy beliefs represent an established psychological construct. The study of conspiracy beliefs is important because allied ideation potentially influences everyday attitudes and behaviors across a range of domains (i.e., cognitive, social, cross-cultural, and political psychology). In this article, we analyze the internal structure and construct validity of the Spanish adaptation of the Generic Conspiracist Beliefs Scale (GCBS). Correlational and confirmatory factor analyses using an international sample of 732 Spanish-speakers revealed a five-factor structure equivalent to the original instrument. Convergent validity was demonstrated using educational level, political orientation, need for uniqueness, and four social axioms (social cynicism, religiosity, reward for application, and fate control). In comparison to two English samples (N = 794 and N = 421), the adaptation demonstrated satisfactory, although restricted, levels of invariance. Accordingly, findings support the use of this translated form of the GCBS with Spanish speakers. (AU)

Do as the Romans do: On the authoritarian roots of pseudoscience.

Recent research highlights the implications of group dynamics in the acceptance and promotion of misconceptions, particularly in relation to the identity-protective attitudes that boost polarisation over scientific information. In this study, we successfully test a mediational model between right-wing authoritarianism and pseudoscientific beliefs. First, we carry out a comprehensive literature review on the socio-political background of pseudoscientific beliefs. Second, we conduct two studies (n = 1189 and n = 1097) to confirm our working hypotheses: H1 - intercorrelation between pseudoscientific beliefs, authoritarianism and three axioms (reward for application, religiosity and fate control); H2 - authoritarianism and social axioms fully explain rightists' proneness to pseudoscience; and H3 - the association between pseudoscience and authoritarianism is partially mediated by social axioms. Finally, we discuss our results in relation to their external validity regarding paranormal and conspiracy beliefs, as well as to their implications for group polarisation and science communication.