Dynamic role of personality in explaining COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and refusal.

Vaccine hesitancy and refusal are threats to sufficient response to the COVID-19 pandemic and public health efforts more broadly. We focus on personal characteristics, specifically personality, to explain what types of people are resistant to COVID-19 vaccination and how the influence of these traits changed as circumstances surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic evolved. We use a large survey of over 40,000 Canadians between November 2020 and July 2021 to examine the relationship between personality and vaccine hesitancy and refusal. We find that all five facets of the Big-5 (openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and negative emotionality) are associated with COVID-19 vaccine refusal. Three facets (agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness) tended to decline in importance as the vaccination rate and COVID-19 cases grew. Two facets (extraversion and negative emotionality) maintained or increased in their importance as pandemic circumstances changed. This study highlights the influence of personal characteristics on vaccine hesitancy and refusal and the need for additional study on foundational explanations of these behaviors. It calls for additional research on the dynamics of personal characteristics in explaining vaccine hesitancy and refusal. The influence of personality may not be immutable.

Political uncertainty moderates neural evaluation of incongruent policy positions.

Uncertainty has been shown to impact political evaluation, yet the exact mechanisms by which uncertainty affects the minds of citizens remain unclear. This experiment examines the neural underpinnings of uncertainty in political evaluation using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). During fMRI, participants completed an experimental task where they evaluated policy positions attributed to hypothetical political candidates. Policy positions were either congruent or incongruent with candidates' political party affiliation and presented with varying levels of certainty. Neural activity was modelled as a function of uncertainty and incongruence. Analyses suggest that neural activity in brain regions previously implicated in affective and evaluative processing (anterior cingulate cortex, insular cortex) differed as a function of the interaction between uncertainty and incongruence, such that activation in these areas was greatest when information was both certain and incongruent, and uncertainty influenced processing differently as a function of the valence of the attached information. These findings suggest that individuals are attuned to uncertainty in the stated issue positions of politicians, and that the neural processing of this uncertainty is dependent on congruence of these positions with expectations based on political party identification. Implications for the study of emotion and politics and political cognition are discussed. This article is part of the theme issue 'The political brain: neurocognitive and computational mechanisms'.

Morality is relative: Anger, disgust, and aggression as contingent responses to sibling versus acquaintance harm.

Angry reactions to moral violations should be heightened when wrongs befall oneself in comparison with when wrongs befall acquaintances, as prior research by Molho, Tybur, Güler, Balliet, and Hofmann (2017) demonstrates, because aggressive confrontation is inherently risky and therefore only incentivized by natural selection to curtail significant fitness costs. Here, in 3 preregistered studies, we extend this sociofunctional perspective to cases of wrongs inflicted on siblings. We observed equivalently heightened anger in response to transgressions against either oneself or one's sibling relative to transgressions against acquaintances across studies, whereas transgressions against acquaintances evoked greater disgust and/or fear (both associated with social avoidance) in 2 of the 3 studies. Studies 2 and 3, which incorporated measures of tendencies to confront the transgressor, confirmed that the elevated anger elicited by self or sibling harm partially mediated heightened inclinations toward direct aggression. Finally, in Study 3 we compared tendencies to experience anger and to directly aggress on behalf of siblings and close friends. Despite reporting greater affiliative closeness for friends than for siblings, harm to friends failed to evoke heightened anger relative to acquaintance harm, and participants were inclined to directly aggress against those who had harmed their sibling to a significantly greater extent than when the harm befell their friend. These overall results broadly replicate Molho et al.'s (2017) findings and theoretically extend the sociofunctionalist account of moral emotions to kinship. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).