Infographics on risks associated with COVID-19 and the willingness to get the AstraZeneca vaccine: two randomized online experiments.

BACKGROUND: Germans hesitated to get vaccinated with AstraZeneca in the COVID-19 pandemic after reports of blood clots. METHODS: In two preregistered online experiments with stratified randomization (Study 1 N = 824, Study 2: N = 1,056), we tested whether providing evidence-based benefit-risk information reduces the perceived risk of the AstraZeneca vaccine and the perceived probability of blood clots due to the AstraZeneca vaccine and increases the vaccination intention. In Study 1, participants saw no infographic (control) or one of two infographics (low vs. high exposure risk varied by the underlying incidence rates). Study 2 additionally varied the infographic design displaying the risk information (presented as table, circle icons, or manikin-like icons). RESULTS: The infographic decreased the risk perception of the vaccine compared to no infographic (Study 1: Cohens d = 0.31, 95% CI [0.14, 0.48]; Study 2: Cohens d = 0.34, 95% CI [0.06, 0.62]), but it did not influence the perceived probability of blood clots due to the AstraZeneca vaccine (Study 2: Cohens d = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.33]). Also, the infographic design did not affect the perceived probability of blood clots (Study 2). The vaccination intention was not affected by viewing the infographic (Study 1: Cohens d = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.21]; Study 2: Cohens d = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.32]) nor the presented infection rate (Study 1: Cohens d = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.24], Study 2: Cohens d = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.15]) but by risk perceptions, sociodemographic characteristics, confidence in the AstraZeneca vaccine, and preference for alternative vaccines. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence-based benefit-risk information helped putting the risk of vaccinations into perspective. Nevertheless, objective risk information alone did not affect vaccination intention that was low due to the preexisting lacking vaccine confidence.

Attitude toward a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy and its determinants: Evidence from serial cross-sectional surveys conducted throughout the pandemic in Germany.

BACKGROUND: Mandating vaccination against COVID-19 is often discussed as a means to counter low vaccine uptake. Beyond the potential legal, ethical, and psychological concerns, a successful implementation also needs to consider citizens' support for such a policy. Public attitudes toward vaccination mandates and their determinants might differ over time and, hence, should be monitored. METHODS: Between April 2020 and April 2021, we investigated public support for mandatory vaccination policies in Germany and examined individual correlates, such as vaccination intentions, confidence in vaccine safety, and perceived collective responsibility, using a series of cross-sectional, quota-representative surveys (overall N = 27,509). RESULTS: Support for a vaccination mandate declined before the approval of the first vaccine against COVID-19 in December 2020 and increased afterwards. However, at the end of April 2021, only half of respondents were in favor of mandatory regulations. In general, mandates were endorsed by those who considered the vaccines to be safe, anticipated practical barriers, and felt responsible for the collective. On the contrary, perceiving vaccination as unnecessary and weighing the benefits and risks of vaccination was related to lower support. Older individuals and males more often endorsed vaccination mandates than did younger participants and females. Interestingly, there was a gap between vaccination intentions and support for mandates, showing that the attitude toward mandatory vaccination was not only determined by vaccination-related factors such as vaccine safety or prosocial considerations. CONCLUSIONS: Because of low public support, mandatory vaccination against COVID-19 should be considered a measure of last resort in Germany. However, if removing barriers to vaccination and educational campaigns about vaccine safety and the societal benefits of high vaccination uptake are not sufficient for increasing vaccination uptake to the required levels, mandates could be introduced. In this case, measures to ensure and increase acceptance and adherence should be taken.

Good night: Experimental evidence that nighttime curfews may fuel disease dynamics by increasing contact density.

BACKGROUND: Nighttime curfews have been discussed and implemented in many countries as a means of controlling the COVID-19 pandemic. However, there is evidence that such curfews have little or no effect on disease dynamics when other measures such as bans on gatherings or business and school closures are already in place. There are two possible explanations for this. First, nighttime curfews may elicit reactance-a feeling of anger that drives non-adherence; second, nighttime curfews may motivate people to shift activities from night to daytime, thereby increasing contact density. METHODS: A survey experiment was conducted with German participants (N = 997) to investigate public perceptions of nighttime curfews and possible detrimental effects on contact behaviors. RESULTS: Most participants perceived nighttime curfews as ineffective. The introduction of a hypothetical curfew did not affect intentions to reduce private contacts but instead elicited reactance, motivating participants to violate curfew hours or to shift a fictitious dinner meeting to an earlier time rather than cancelling it. CONCLUSIONS: When people do not support nighttime curfews or do not understand the rationale behind them, introduction of this measure may fuel the spread of the disease. For that reason, nighttime curfews should be a measure of last resort and should be accompanied by a public communication campaign explaining the importance of contact reduction during both nighttime and daylight hours.

Empirical evidence to understand the human factor for effective rapid testing against SARS-CoV-2.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) rapid antigen point-of-care and home tests are available to laypeople. In four cross-sectional mixed-methods data collections conducted between December 2020 and March 2021 (n = 4,026), we showed that a majority of subjects were willing to test despite mistrust and ignorance regarding rapid tests' validity. Experimental evidence shows that low costs and access to events could increase testing intentions. Mandatory reporting and isolation after positive results were not identified as major barriers. Instead, assuming that testing and isolation can slow down the pandemic and the possibility to protect others were related to greater willingness to get tested. While we did not find evidence for risk compensation for past tests, experimental evidence suggests that there is a tendency to show less mask wearing and physical distancing in a group of tested individuals. A short communication intervention reduced complacent behavior. The derived recommendations could make rapid testing a successful pillar of pandemic management.