Anti-vaccination attitudes are associated with less analytical and more intuitive reasoning.

Online anti-vaccination rhetoric has produced far reaching negative health consequences. Persons who endorse anti-vaccination attitudes may employ less analytical reasoning when problem solving. Considering limitations in previous research, we used an online web-based survey (n = 760; mean age = 47.69; 388 males, 372 females) to address this question. Analytical reasoning was negatively correlated with anti-vaccination attitudes (r = -.18, p < .0001). This relationship remained significant after statistically controlling for potential confounders, including age, sex, education, and religiosity (r = -.16, p < .0001). We hope that elucidating the cognitive, non-information-based aspects of anti-vaccination attitudes will help to guide effective educational interventions aimed at improving public health in the future.

Attitudes and practices against COVID-19 vaccines in Turkiye.

OBJECTIVE: Vaccination is the primary way to mitigate the COVID-19 pandemic. Vaccine hesitancy and refusal are one of the most important challenges against to reach herd immunity. The aim of this study is to examine the reasons for not getting vaccinated and the attitudes toward vaccines by people in Turkiye, who were not vaccinated, even though a COVID-19 vaccine was available for them. METHODS: This cross-sectional study is conducted in Eyupsultan district of Istanbul. The study population is 12,540. A questionnaire consisted of three sections as sociodemographic characteristics, attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccines, and Vaccination Attitudes Examination (VAX) scale was used. Among the sample size, participation rate is 69.4%. RESULTS: About 50.2% of the participants (n=259) are male, 80.3% are married, 13.1% are university graduates, and 44.0% are working in a job. About 32.8% of the participants have COVID-19 history. About 34.4% of the participants stated that they would be vaccinated against COVID-19. Although those who define themselves as vaccine refuser are 5.4%, those who still refuse to be vaccinated for COVID-19 are 20.1%. In addition to this, those who are hesitant about COVID-19 vaccines are 45.6%. The most frequently preferred vaccine is comirnaty (41.7%). About 13.1% of the participants stated that "if we had a domestic COVID-19 vaccine, I would have it." The most common sources of information about vaccines are television with 78.4%, and health workers are in the last place with 14.7%. "Concerns about side effects" are the most frequently cited (85.9%) reason for not vaccinating. The mean score of the VAX scale is 42.34±10.93, and the "mistrust of vaccine benefit" is higher among primary school graduates than other educational status groups (p=0.001). CONCLUSION: Anti-vaccination attitudes have increased with the COVID-19 vaccines during pandemic. Our study is valuable in terms of examining the reasons of individuals who have not gotten vaccinated even though they had no access problems. Prominent concerns of the population should be approached seriously. Otherwise, vaccine hesitancy can be a decisive factor that would prevent the success of the struggle against pandemic.

Strengthening the Link between Vaccine Predispositions and Vaccine Advocacy through Certainty.

BACKGROUND: Instruments designed to assess individual differences in predispositions towards vaccination are useful in predicting vaccination-related outcomes. Despite their importance, there is relatively little evidence regarding the conditions under which these instruments are more predictive. The current research was designed to improve the ability of these kinds of instruments to predict vaccination advocacy by considering the certainty associated with the responses to vaccination scales. METHOD: Across two studies, participants completed the Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire BMQ scale (Study 1) or the Vaccination Attitudes Examination (VAX) scale (Study 2). The certainty participants had in their responses to each scale was either measured (Study 1) or manipulated (Study 2). Intentions to advocate in favor of vaccination served as the criterion measure in both studies. RESULTS: As expected, the scales significantly predicted vaccination advocacy, contributing to enhancing the predictive validity of the instruments used in the studies. Most relevant, certainty moderated the extent to which these scales predicted vaccination advocacy, with greater consistency between the initial scores and the subsequent advocacy willingness obtained for those with higher certainty. CONCLUSIONS: Certainty can be useful to predict when the relationship between vaccination-related cognitions (i.e., beliefs or attitudes) and advocacy willingness is likely to be stronger.