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.

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.

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.

Spillover effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on attitudes to influenza and childhood vaccines.

The current study sought to determine whether public perceptions of other vaccines and diseases than COVID-19 have been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. We longitudinally examined whether there had been a change from before the COVID-19 pandemic to during the pandemic in: (a) influenza vaccination behaviour and intentions; (b) the perceived benefit of childhood vaccines and influenza vaccines; (c) the perceived safety of childhood vaccines and influenza vaccines; (d) the perceived severity of measles and influenza; and (e) trust in healthcare professionals in two samples of Finnish adults (N = 205 in Study 1 and N = 197 in Study 2). The findings showed that during the pandemic, more people than before had received or wanted to receive the influenza vaccine. The respondents also believed that influenza was more dangerous during the pandemic and that vaccinations were safer and more beneficial. On the other hand, for childhood vaccines only perceived safety increased. Finally, in one of the studies, people had more confidence in medical professionals during the pandemic than they had before. Together, these findings imply a spillover of the COVID-19 pandemic on how people view other vaccines and illnesses.

Tailoring interventions to suit self-reported format preference does not decrease vaccine hesitancy.

Individually tailored vaccine hesitancy interventions are considered auspicious for decreasing vaccine hesitancy. In two studies, we measured self-reported format preference for statistical vs. anecdotal information in vaccine hesitant individuals, and experimentally manipulated the format in which COVID-19 and influenza vaccine hesitancy interventions were presented (statistical vs. anecdotal). Regardless of whether people received interventions that were in line with their format preference, the interventions did not influence their vaccine attitudes or vaccination intentions. Instead, a stronger preference for anecdotal information was associated with perceiving the material in both the statistical and the anecdotal interventions as more frustrating, less relevant, and less helpful. However, even if the participants reacted negatively to both intervention formats, the reactions to the statistical interventions were consistently less negative. These results suggest that tailoring COVID-19 and influenza vaccine hesitancy interventions to suit people's format preference, might not be a viable tool for decreasing vaccine hesitancy. The results further imply that using statistics-only interventions with people who hold anti-vaccination attitudes may be a less risky choice than using only anecdotal testimonies.

Attitudes towards mandatory vaccination and sanctions for vaccination refusal.

AIMS: Investigating attitudes towards mandatory vaccination and sanctions for vaccination refusal in an area with insufficient vaccination coverage may help health authorities to assess which strategies for increasing vaccination coverage are appropriate. This study examines attitudes to vaccine mandates and asks questions regarding what kinds of sanctions could legitimately result from vaccination refusal. It seeks to find out if people's attitudes towards mandates and towards sanctions for vaccination refusal are related to their attitudes to vaccines and the degree of trust they feel towards health care professionals and health care authorities. The study also discusses how the observed attitudes towards mandates may be related to perceptions of autonomy, responsibility, and equitability. METHODS: Data collection was carried out in Finland through an online survey in a region with suboptimal vaccine uptake. Statistical analysis was conducted on a sample of 1101 respondents, using confirmatory factor analysis and structural regression analysis. RESULTS: Persons hold different views on mandates and sanctions. Importantly, the persons who support vaccination mandates and sanctions for vaccination refusal are to a great degree the same people who have positive attitudes to vaccines and high trust in health care professionals and health authorities. CONCLUSION: Trust is a key factor which has a bearing on people's attitudes towards mandates and sanctions for noncompliance. A focus on the reasons for lack of trust, and on how to enhance trust, is a more feasible long-term way (than mandates) to promote large- scale compliance with childhood vaccine programmes in the studied country context.

The behavioral immune system and vaccination intentions during the coronavirus pandemic.

The behavioral immune system is considered to be a psychological adaptation that decreases the risk of infection. Research suggests that, in the current environment, this system can produce attitudes with negative health consequences, such as increased vaccine hesitancy. In three studies, we investigated whether two facets of the behavioral immune system-germ aversion (i.e., aversion to potential pathogen transmission) and perceived infectability (i.e., perceived susceptibility to disease)-predicted intentions to accept COVID-19 and influenza vaccination during the pandemic. The behavioral immune system mechanisms were measured before the COVID-19 pandemic in one study, and during the pandemic in two. In contrast to previous research, those with higher germ aversion during the pandemic perceived vaccines to be safer and had higher intentions to accept vaccination. Germ aversion before the pandemic was not associated with vaccination intentions. Individuals who perceived themselves as more susceptible to disease were slightly more willing to accept vaccination. We conjecture that high disease threat reverses the relationship between the behavioral immune system response and vaccination. As the associations were weak, individual differences in germ aversion and perceived infectability are of little practical relevance for vaccine uptake.

Unwillingness to engage in behaviors that protect against COVID-19: the role of conspiracy beliefs, trust, and endorsement of complementary and alternative medicine.

BACKGROUND: We investigated if people's response to the official recommendations during the COVID-19 pandemic is associated with conspiracy beliefs related to COVID-19, a distrust in the sources providing information on COVID-19, and an endorsement of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). METHODS: The sample consisted of 1325 Finnish adults who filled out an online survey marketed on Facebook. Structural regression analysis was used to investigate whether: 1) conspiracy beliefs, a distrust in information sources, and endorsement of CAM predict people's response to the non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) implemented by the government during the COVID-19 pandemic, and 2) conspiracy beliefs, a distrust in information sources, and endorsement of CAM are related to people's willingness to take a COVID-19 vaccine. RESULTS: Individuals with more conspiracy beliefs and a lower trust in information sources were less likely to have a positive response to the NPIs. Individuals with less trust in information sources and more endorsement of CAM were more unwilling to take a COVID-19 vaccine. Distrust in information sources was the strongest and most consistent predictor in all models. Our analyses also revealed that some of the people who respond negatively to the NPIs also have a lower likelihood to take the vaccine. This association was partly related to a lower trust in information sources. CONCLUSIONS: Distrusting the establishment to provide accurate information, believing in conspiracy theories, and endorsing treatments and substances that are not part of conventional medicine, are all associated with a more negative response to the official guidelines during COVID-19. How people respond to the guidelines, however, is more strongly and consistently related to the degree of trust they feel in the information sources, than to their tendency to hold conspiracy beliefs or endorse CAM. These findings highlight the need for governments and health authorities to create communication strategies that build public trust.

Fearing the disease or the vaccine: The case of COVID-19.

As studies indicate that people perceive COVID-19 as a threatening disease, the demand for a vaccine against the disease could be expected to be high. Vaccine safety concerns might nevertheless outweigh the perceived disease risks when an individual decides whether or not to accept the vaccine. We investigated the role of perceived risk of COVID-19 (i.e., perceived likelihood of infection, perceived disease severity, and disease-related worry) and perceived safety of a prospective vaccine against COVID-19 in predicting intentions to accept a COVID-19 vaccine. Three Finnish samples were surveyed: 825 parents of small children, 205 individuals living in an area with suboptimal vaccination coverage, and 1325 Facebook users nationwide. As points of reference, we compared the perceptions of COVID-19 to those of influenza and measles. COVID-19 was perceived as a threatening disease-more so than influenza and measles. The strongest predictor of COVID-19 vaccination intentions was trusting the safety of the potential vaccine. Those perceiving COVID-19 as a severe disease were also slightly more intent on taking a COVID-19 vaccine. Informing the public about the safety of a forthcoming COVID-19 vaccine should be the focus for health authorities aiming to achieve a high vaccine uptake.

Familicide: A Systematic Literature Review.

Familicides have received relatively little attention and are mostly discussed in studies with broader aims. Here, we reviewed 67 studies from 18 countries on familicides, in which an offender killed or attempted to kill their current or former spouse/intimate partner and one or more of their biological or stepchildren. We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar. Eight studies investigated familicide specifically, while the remaining reported on familicide cases as a subsample. We retrieved data on offenders' gender, age, and background as well as on victims and their relationship to the offender. We also retrieved data on contextual factors and offense characteristics (i.e., modus operandi, offense location, premeditation, and whether or not the offender had committed suicide). We also coded methodological aspects of the studies. Familicides were almost exclusively committed by men and about half of the familicide cases led to the suicide of the offender. Mental health problems, relationship problems, and financial difficulties were prevalent. Because few studies reported population base rates of the investigated characteristics, it is difficult to draw conclusions about specific risk factors. Future research should further investigate typologies of familicide and examine risk factors for different types of familicides.

The Effect of Sex and Perpetrator-Victim Relationship on Perceptions of Domestic Homicide.

Previous research on how stereotypes affect perceptions of intimate partner violence and domestic homicide has found that violence committed by men is perceived as more severe and judged more harshly than violence committed by women. The present mock jury study investigated how perpetrator sex (male or female), crime type (familicide or filicide), and relatedness between perpetrator and child victims (biological or step) affect laypeople's perceptions of the appropriate consequence of the crime, the reason for the offense, responsibility of the perpetrator, the likelihood of certain background factors being present, and the risk of future violence. One hundred sixty-seven university students read eight fictive descriptions of cases of multiple-victim domestic homicides, in which the sex of the perpetrator, the crime type, and the relatedness between the perpetrator and the child victims were manipulated. We found that participants recommended equally severe punishments to and placed the same amount of responsibility on male and female offenders. Female offenders were, however, regarded as mentally ill to a larger extent and perceived more likely to have been victims of domestic violence compared with male offenders. Male offenders were seen as more likely to have committed domestic violence in the past, having been unemployed, have substance abuse, hold aggressive attitudes, and commit violent acts in the future. Participants also perceived offenders killing biological children as more mentally ill than those killing stepchildren. The present study extends the literature on the possible effect of stereotypes on decision making in psychiatric and judicial contexts.

Trait reactance and trust in doctors as predictors of vaccination behavior, vaccine attitudes, and use of complementary and alternative medicine in parents of young children.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to investigate whether anti-vaccination attitudes and behavior, and positive attitudes to complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), are driven by trait reactance and a distrust in medical doctors. METHODS: The sample consisted of 770 Finnish parents who filled out an online survey. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to examine if trait reactance plays a role in vaccination decisions, vaccine attitudes, and in the use of CAM, and whether that relationship is mediated by trust in medical doctors. RESULTS: Parents with higher trait reactance had lower trust in doctors, more negative attitudes to vaccines, a higher likelihood of not accepting vaccines for their children and themselves, and a higher likelihood to use CAM treatments that are not included in evidence-based medicine. Our analyses also revealed associations between vaccination behavior and CAM use and vaccine attitudes and CAM use, but there was no support for the previous notion that these associations would be explained by trait reactance and trust in doctors. CONCLUSIONS: Taken together, higher trait reactance seems to be relevant for attitudes and behaviors that go against conventional medicine, because trait reactance is connected to a distrust in medical doctors. Our findings also suggest that high trait reactance and low trust in doctors function differently for different people: For some individuals they might be associated with anti-vaccination attitudes and behavior, while for others they might be related to CAM use. We speculate that this is because people differ in what is important to them, leading them to react against different aspects of conventional medicine.

Test-retest reliability of five frequently used executive tasks in healthy adults.

Executive tasks are important instruments for neuropsychological and cognitive research, but only a limited number of studies have investigated the test-retest reliability of these tasks. Such information is needed for optimizing task usage, for example, in longitudinal and intervention studies. In this study with healthy adults, we investigated the temporal stability of five executive tasks: the Simon task, a visuoverbal N-back task, a visuospatial N-back task, a running memory task, and the Number-letter task. These five tasks are frequently used in research, but previously published reliability data is very limited or totally lacking. The results from the present study showed considerable variability with the highest test-retest reliabilities amongst the three working memory tasks. Furthermore, reaction time measures indicated practice effects between the two sessions across the tasks. The present results set constraints to the interpretation of the results of longitudinal and intervention studies using these tasks.

Willingness to Invest in Children: Psychological Kinship Estimates and Emotional Closeness.

In general, adults invest more in related children compared to unrelated children. To test whether this pattern reflects variations in psychological kinship estimates (i.e., putative relatedness weighted by certainty in relatedness), willingness to invest in children belonging to different categories (direct offspring, nieces/nephews, stepchildren, and friends' children) was measured in a population-based sample of 1,012 adults. Respondents reported more willingness to invest in their own biological children, than in other related children (nieces and nephews), or in stepchildren and friends' children. Compared to putative relatedness, respondents' psychological kinship estimates better predicted the willingness to invest. This association was partially mediated by emotional closeness. Additionally, the age of a child and the number of children in the care of the respondent were negatively associated with willingness to invest. The association between psychological kinship estimates and willingness to invest supports evolutionary predictions. Investment in stepchildren was, however, higher than expected.

Bilingualism and performance on two widely used developmental neuropsychological test batteries.

The present study investigated the effect of bilingualism on the two widely used developmental neuropsychological test batteries Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children - Fourth Edition (WISC-IV) and A Developmental Neuropsychological Assessment, Second Edition (NEPSY-II) in children. The sample consisted of 100 Finland-Swedish children in two age groups. About half (n = 52) of the participants were early simultaneous bilinguals, and the other half (n = 48) were monolinguals. As no Finland-Swedish versions of the tests are available at the moment, both tests were translated and adapted to suit this population. The results revealed no difference in the performance between bilingual and monolingual children. This speaks against a cognitive advantage in bilingual children and indicates that development of separate norms for monolingual and bilingual children is not needed for clinical use.