I Think I Should Get Vaccinated, I Feel I Should Not. Individual Differences in Information Processing and Vaccination Behavior (COVID-19)
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Participants
2.2. Procedure
2.3. Measures
2.4. Statistical Approach
3. Results
3.1. Preliminary Analyses
3.1.1. Hypotheses Testing
3.1.2. Supplementary Analyses
4. Discussion
4.1. Practical Implications
4.2. Limitations and Future Research
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Martel, C.; Pennycook, G.; Rand, D.G. Reliance on emotion promotes belief in fake news. Cogn. Res. Princ. Implic. 2020, 5, 47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Evans, J.S.B.T.; Stanovich, K.E. Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2013, 8, 223–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Stanovich, K.E. Rationality and the Reflective Mind; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Gawronski, B.; Creighton, L.A. Dual process theories. In The Oxford Handbook of Social Cognition; Carlston, D.E., Ed.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 282–312. [Google Scholar]
- Frederick, S. Cognitive reflection and decision making. J. Econ. Perspect. 2005, 19, 25–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Luz, P.M.; Nadanovsky, P.; Leask, J. How heuristics and cognitive biases affect vaccination decisions. Cad. De Saúde Pública 2020, 36, e00136620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Stanley, M.L.; Barr, N.; Peters, K.; Seli, P. Analytic-thinking predicts hoax beliefs and helping behaviors in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Think. Reason. 2021, 27, 464–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nurse, M.S.; Ross, R.M.; Isler, O.; Van Rooy, D. Analytic thinking predicts accuracy ratings and willingness to share COVID-19 misinformation in Australia. Mem. Cogn. 2022, 50, 425–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xie, W.; Campbell, S.; Zhang, W. Working memory capacity predicts individual differences in social-distancing compliance during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2020, 117, 17667–17674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stupple, E.; Gale, M.; Richmond, C. Working memory, cognitive miserliness and logic as predictors of performance on the cognitive reflection test. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Berlin, Germany, 31 July–3 August 2013; Volume 35, p. No. 35. [Google Scholar]
- Grüner, S.; Krüger, F. The intention to be vaccinated against COVID-19: Stated preferences before vaccines were available. Appl. Econ. Lett. 2021, 28, 1847–1851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Murphy, J.; Vallières, F.; Bentall, R.P.; Shevlin, M.; McBride, O.; Hartman, T.K.; McKay, R.; Bennett, K.; Mason, L.; Gibson-Miller, J.; et al. Psychological characteristics associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and resistance in Ireland and the United Kingdom. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Phillips, W.J.; Fletcher, J.M.; Marks, A.D.; Hine, D.W. Thinking styles and decision making: A meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 2016, 142, 260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Epstein, S.; Pacini, R.; Denes-Raj, V.; Heier, H. Individual differences in intuitive–experiential and analytical–rational thinking styles. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1996, 71, 390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ripstein, A.; Gibbard, A. Wise Choices, Apt Feelings: A Theory of Normative Judgment; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1990; Volume 101, pp. 934–936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tomljenovic, H.; Bubic, A.; Erceg, N. It just doesn’t feel right–the relevance of emotions and intuition for parental vaccine conspiracy beliefs and vaccination uptake. Psychol. Health 2020, 35, 538–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lazarević, L.B.; Purić, D.; Teovanović, P.; Lukić, P.; Zupan, Z.; Knežević, G. What drives us to be (ir)responsible for our health during the COVID-19 pandemic? The role of personality, thinking styles, and conspiracy mentality. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2021, 176, 110771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Swami, V.; Barron, D. Analytic thinking, rejection of coronavirus (COVID-19) conspiracy theories, and compliance with mandated social-distancing: Direct and indirect relationships in a nationally representative sample of adults in the United Kingdom. OSF Prepr. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chou, W.-Y.S.; Budenz, A. Considering emotion in COVID-19 vaccine communication: Addressing vaccine hesitancy and fostering vaccine confidence. Health Commun. 2020, 35, 1718–1722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schindler, J.; Schindler, S.; Pfattheicher, S. The role of intuition in vaccination attitudes. J. Health Psychol. 2021, 26, 2950–2957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Albarracin, D.; Johnson, B.T.; Zanna, M.P. (Eds.) The Handbook of Attitudes; Psychology Press: New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Haddock, G.; Maio, G.R.; Arnold, K.; Huskinson, T. Should persuasion be affective or cognitive? The moderating effects of Need for Affect and Need for Cognition. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2008, 34, 769–778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- van Giesen, R.I.; Fischer, A.R.H.; van Dijk, H.; van Trijp, H.C.M. Affect and cognition in attitude formation toward familiar and unfamiliar attitude objects. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0141790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hwang, Y.; Jeong, S.-H. Misinformation Exposure and Acceptance: The Role of Information Seeking and Processing. Health Commun. 2021, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajzen, I.; Fishbein, M.; Lohmann, S.; Albarracín, D. The influence of attitudes on behavior. In The Handbook of Attitudes; Albarracín, D., Johnson, B.T., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 197–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- LaVail, K.H.; Kennedy, A.M. The role of attitudes about vaccine safety, efficacy, and value in explaining parents’ reported vaccination behavior. Health Educ. Behav. 2013, 40, 544–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martin, L.R.; Petrie, K.J. Understanding the dimensions of anti-vaccination attitudes: The vaccination attitudes examination (VAX) scale. Ann. Behav. Med. 2017, 51, 652–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Paul, E.; Steptoe, A.; Fancourt, D. Attitudes towards vaccines and intention to vaccinate against COVID-19: Implications for public health communications. Lancet Reg. Health Eur. 2021, 1, 100012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Miton, H.; Mercier, H. Cognitive obstacles to pro-vaccination beliefs. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2015, 19, 633–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Brown, K.F.; Kroll, J.S.; Hudson, M.J.; Ramsay, M.; Green, J.; Vincent, C.A.; Fraser, G.; Sevdalis, N. Omission bias and vaccine rejection by parents of healthy children: Implications for the influenza A/H1N1 vaccination programme. Vaccine 2010, 28, 4181–4185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Curtis, V.; Aunger, R.; Rabie, T. Evidence that disgust evolved to protect from risk of disease. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B Biol. Sci. 2004, 271, S131–S133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Toplak, M.E.; West, R.F.; Stanovich, K.E. Assessing miserly information processing: An expansion of the Cognitive Reflection Test. Think. Reason. 2014, 20, 147–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Čavojová, V.; Secară, E.-C.; Jurkovič, M.; Šrol, J. Reception and willingness to share pseudo-profound bullshit and their relation to other epistemically suspect beliefs and cognitive ability in Slovakia and Romania. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 2019, 33, 299–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paloș, R.; Dorobot, L.; Costea, I.; Munteanu, A. Cognitive and motivational variables that shape academic learning: A preliminary study. Rom. J. Appl. Psychol. 2013, 15, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
- Fridman, A.; Gershon, R.; Gneezy, A. COVID-19 and vaccine hesitancy: A longitudinal study. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0250123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sarathchandra, D.; Navin, M.C.; Largent, M.A.; McCright, A.M. A survey instrument for measuring vaccine acceptance. Prev. Med. 2018, 109, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hayes, A.F. Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis. In Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach Edn; Guilford Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Zhao, X.; Lynch, J.G., Jr.; Chen, Q. Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. J. Consum. Res. 2010, 37, 197–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kata, A. A postmodern Pandora’s box: Anti-vaccination misinformation on the Internet. Vaccine 2010, 28, 1709–1716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lawes-Wickwar, S.; Ghio, D.; Tang, M.; Keyworth, C.; Stanescu, S.; Westbrook, J.; Jenkinson, E.; Kassianos, A.; Scanlan, D.; Garnett, N.; et al. A rapid systematic review of public responses to health messages encouraging vaccination against infectious diseases in a pandemic or epidemic. Vaccines 2021, 9, 72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sirota, M.; Dewberry, C.; Juanchich, M.; Valuš, L.; Marshall, A.C. Measuring cognitive reflection without maths: Development and validation of the verbal cognitive reflection test. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 2021, 34, 322–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hammond, K.R.; Hamm, R.M.; Grassia, J.; Pearson, T. Direct comparison of the efficacy of intuitive and analytical cognition in expert judgment. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 1987, 17, 753–770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Epstein, S. Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. Am. Psychol. 1994, 49, 709–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dijksterhuis, A.; Nordgren, L.F. A theory of unconscious thought. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2006, 1, 95–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chia, J.L.; Hartanto, A. Cognitive Barriers to COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake among Older Adults. Front. Med. 2021, 8, 756275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, K.F.; Kroll, J.S.; Hudson, M.J.; Ramsay, M.E.; Green, J.; Long, S.J.; Vincent, C.; Fraser, G.; Sevdalis, N. Factors underlying parental decisions about combination childhood vaccinations including MMR: A systematic review. Vaccine 2010, 28, 4235–4248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Okuhara, T.; Ishikawa, H.; Okada, H.; Ueno, H.; Kiuchi, T. Dual-process theories to counter the anti-vaccination movement. Prev. Med. Rep. 2020, 20, 101205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maranges, H.M.; Schmeichel, B.J.; Baumeister, R.F. Comparing cognitive load and self-regulatory depletion: Effects on emotions and cognitions. Learn. Instr. 2017, 51, 74–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Betsch, T.; Haberstroh, S.; Molter, B.; Glöckner, A. Oops, I did it again—Relapse errors in routinized decision making. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 2004, 93, 62–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pham, M.T.; Cohen, J.B.; Pracejus, J.W.; Hughes, G.D. Affect monitoring and the primacy of feelings in judgment. J. Consum. Res. 2001, 28, 167–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
M | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sex | 2 | - | - | |||||
Age | 24.58 | 8.31 | −0.26 ** | - | ||||
Cognitive reflection | 2.62 | 2.20 | −0.21 ** | 0.003 | - | |||
Rational thinking style | 3.72 | 0.53 | 0.002 | −0.01 | 0.18 ** | - | ||
Experiential thinking style | 3.29 | 0.58 | 0.11 | −0.10 | −0.14 * | 0.02 | - | |
Vaccination attitudes | 3.59 | 0.69 | −0.02 | −0.07 | 0.12 | 0.07 | −0.15 * | - |
Vaccination | 0 | - | −0.10 | 0.15 * | 0.19 ** | 0.05 | −0.07 | 0.43 ** |
Variable | B | Standard Error | Wald | p | Odds Ratio | 95% Confidence Interval |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Age | 0.06 | 0.02 | 8.27 | <0.01 | 1.06 | [1.02, 1.10] |
Cognitive reflection | 0.17 | 0.07 | 5.08 | <0.05 | 1.18 | [1.02, 1.37] |
Rational thinking style | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.10 | >0.05 | 0.99 | [0.97, 1.03] |
Experiential thinking style | −0.01 | 0.02 | 0.22 | >0.05 | 1.01 | [0.98, 1.04] |
Vaccination attitudes | 0.18 | 0.03 | 32.86 | <0.001 | 1.20 | [1.13, 1.27] |
Predictor | Indirect Effect | Standard Error | 95% Confidence Interval | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Lower Limit | Upper Limit | |||
Main model | ||||
Experiential thinking style | −0.02 | 0.01 | −0.04 | −0.001 |
Alternative models | ||||
Cognitive reflection | 0.06 | 0.04 | −0.003 | 0.14 |
Rational thinking style | 0.01 | 0.01 | −0.01 | 0.03 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Maroiu, C.; Rusu, A.; Pap, Z. I Think I Should Get Vaccinated, I Feel I Should Not. Individual Differences in Information Processing and Vaccination Behavior (COVID-19). Healthcare 2022, 10, 1302. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10071302
Maroiu C, Rusu A, Pap Z. I Think I Should Get Vaccinated, I Feel I Should Not. Individual Differences in Information Processing and Vaccination Behavior (COVID-19). Healthcare. 2022; 10(7):1302. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10071302
Chicago/Turabian StyleMaroiu, Cristina, Andrei Rusu, and Zselyke Pap. 2022. "I Think I Should Get Vaccinated, I Feel I Should Not. Individual Differences in Information Processing and Vaccination Behavior (COVID-19)" Healthcare 10, no. 7: 1302. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10071302