Jab my arm, not my morality: Perceived moral reproach as a barrier to COVID-19 vaccine uptake.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Vaccinating the public against COVID-19 is critical for pandemic recovery, yet a large proportion of people remain unwilling to get vaccinated. Beyond known factors like perceived vaccine safety or COVID-19 risk, an overlooked sentiment contributing to vaccine hesitancy may rest in moral cognition. Specifically, we theorize that a factor fueling hesitancy is perceived moral reproach: the feeling, among unvaccinated people, that vaccinated people are judging them as immoral.Approach
Through a highly powered, preregistered study of unvaccinated U.S. adults (N = 832), we found that greater perceived moral reproach independently predicted stronger refusal to get vaccinated against COVID-19, over and above other relevant variables. Of 18 predictors tested, perceived moral reproach was the fifth strongest-stronger than perceived risk of COVID-19, underlying health conditions status, and trust in scientists.Conclusion
These findings suggest that considering the intersections of morality and upward social comparison may help to explain vaccine hesitancy.
SUBMITTER: Rosenfeld DL
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8734058 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:In recent years a new sub-field of moral psychology has emerged: moral psychology of AI and robotics. In this field there are several outstanding questions on how robot appearance and other perceived properties of the robots influences the way their decisions are evaluated. Researchers have observed that robot decision are not treated identically to human decisions, even if their antecedents and consequences are identical to human decisions. To study this moral judgment asymmetry effect further, two studies with a series of high conflict moral dilemmas were conducted: Study 1 - which used photorealistic full body imagery -- revealed that utilitarian decisions by human or non-creepy (i.e., nice) looking robotic agents were less condemned than "creepy" (i.e., unease inducing) robots, whereas "creepy" robots received higher moral approval when making deontological decisions. Furthermore, an exploratory analysis demonstrated that the creepiest robot did not cause moral surprise or disappointment when making utilitarian decisions. However, Study 2 showed that mere symbolic representation of the agent's face did not trigger the Moral Uncanny Valley (where decisions of creepy robots are perceived negatively), suggesting that the effect is dependent on the photorealistic appearance of the agent. These results are in tension with some previous findings in robot moral judgment literature. Future research should focus on creating standardized stimuli for studying moral decisions involving robots and elucidating the complex interactions between agent appearance, decision type, and pre-decision expectations. This work deepens our understanding of the relationship between a decision-making agent's appearance and the moral judgment of their decisions. The findings have significant implications for the design and implementation of autonomous agents in morally charged situations.
| S-EPMC10706005 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Vaccination is the most cost-effective way of preventing Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) although there was a considerable delay in its institution in Tanzania. This study assessed health care workers' (HCWs) self-perceived infection risk and uptake of COVID-19 vaccines. A concurrent embedded, mixed methods design was utilized to collect data among HCWs in seven Tanzanian regions. Quantitative data was collected using a validated, pre-piloted, interviewer administered questionnaire whereas in-depth interviews (IDIs) and focus group discussions (FGDs) gathered qualitative data. Descriptive analyses were performed while chi-square test and logistic regression were used to test for associations across categories. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the qualitative data. A total of 1,368 HCWs responded to the quantitative tool, 26 participated in the IDIs and 74 in FGDs. About half of the HCW (53.6%) reported to have been vaccinated and three quarters (75.5%) self-perceived to be at a high risk of acquiring COVID-19 infection. High perceived infection risk was associated with increased COVID-19 vaccine uptake (OR 1.535). Participants perceived that the nature of their work and the working environment in the health facilities increased their infection risk. Limited availability and use of personal protective equipment (PPE) was reported to elevate the perceived infection risks. Participants in the oldest age group and from low and mid-level health care facilities had higher proportions with a high-risk perception of acquiring COVID-19 infection. Only about half of the HCWs reported to be vaccinated albeit the majority recounted higher perception of risk to contracting COVID-19 due to their working environment, including limited availability and use of PPE. Efforts to address heightened perceived-risks should include improving the working environment, availability of PPE and continue updating HCWs on the benefits of COVID-19 vaccine to limit their infection risks and consequent transmission to their patients and public.
| S-EPMC10246783 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Children's movies often provide messages about morally appropriate and inappropriate conduct. In two studies, we draw on Moral Foundations Theory (MFT) to derive predictions about actual depictions of morality, and people's preferences for different moral depictions, within children's movies. According to MFT, people's moral concerns include individualizing foundations of care and fairness and binding foundations of loyalty, authority, and sanctity. Prior work reveals that although there are political differences in the endorsement of these two broad categories-whereby stronger political conservatism predicts stronger binding concerns and weaker individualizing concerns-there nonetheless is broad agreement across political identity in the importance of individualizing concerns. We therefore predicted that heroes would value individualizing foundations more than villains, and that despite political differences in preferences for moral messages, there would be more agreement in the importance of messages promoting individualizing concerns. In Study 1, we coded heroes and villains from popular children's movies for their valuation of moral foundations. Heroes valued individualizing concerns more, and binding concerns less, than villains did. Participants in Study 2 considered moral dilemmas faced by children's movie characters, and rated their preferences for resolutions that promoted either individualizing or binding foundations. Although liberals preferred individualizing-promoting resolutions and conservatives preferred binding-promoting resolutions, there was stronger agreement across political identity in the importance of individualizing concerns. Despite political differences in moral preferences, popular depictions of children's movie characters and people's self-reported moral endorsement suggest a shared belief in the importance of the individualizing moral virtues of care and fairness. Movies are often infused with moral messages. From their exploration of overarching themes, their ascription of particular traits to heroic and villainous characters, and their resolution of pivotal moral dilemmas, movies provide viewers with depictions of morally virtuous (and morally suspect) behavior. Moral messaging in children's movies is of particular importance, since it is targeted at an audience for which morality is actively developing. What moral messages do filmmakers (and consumers, including parents) want children's movies to depict? Are these preferences related to people's political identity? And what are the actual moral depictions presented in movies? In the present two studies, we draw on an influential theory of moral judgment-Moral Foundations Theory-to develop and test predictions about the depiction of morality in children's movies.
| S-EPMC7996984 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Moral rules are a cornerstone of many societies. Most moral rules are concerned with the welfare of other individuals, reflecting individuals' innate aversion against harming other individuals. Harming others is associated with aversive experiences, implying that individuals who are sensitive to the aversiveness of these experiences are more likely to follow moral rules than individuals who are insensitive to the aversiveness of these experiences. Individuals' sensitivity for aversive experiences depends on individuals' ability to integrate the underlying neural and physiological processes: Individuals who are more efficient in integrating these processes are more sensitive to the aversiveness that is associated with moral rule violations than individuals who are less efficient in integrating these processes. Individuals who differ in their ability to integrate these processes may, thus, also differ in their inclination to follow moral rules. We tested this assumption in a sample of healthy individuals (67 males) who completed measures of moral rule adherence and integration abilities. Moral rule adherence was assessed with self-report measure and integration abilities were assessed with a resting state measure of heart rate variability (HRV), which reflects prefrontal-(para-)limbic engagement during the integration of physical and neural processes. We found a positive association between individuals' HRV and individuals' moral rule adherence, implying that individuals with efficient integration abilities were more inclined to follow moral rules than individuals with inefficient integration abilities. Our findings support the assumption that individuals with different integration abilities also differ in moral rule adherence, presumably because of differences in aversiveness sensitivity.
| S-EPMC8452936 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Trends in the cultural salience of morality across the 20th century in the Anglophone world, as reflected in changing use of moral language, were explored using the Google Books (English language) database. Relative frequencies of 304 moral terms, organized into six validated sets corresponding to general morality and the five moral domains proposed by moral foundations theory, were charted for the years 1900 to 2007. Each moral language set displayed unique, often nonlinear historical trajectories. Words conveying general morality (e.g., good, bad, moral, evil), and those representing Purity-based morality, implicating sanctity and contagion, declined steeply in frequency from 1900 to around 1980, when they rebounded sharply. Ingroup-based morality, emphasizing group loyalty, rose steadily over the 20th century. Harm-based morality, focused on suffering and care, rose sharply after 1980. Authority-based morality, which emphasizes respect for hierarchy and tradition, rose to a peak around the social convulsions of the late 1960s. There were no consistent tendencies for moral language to become more individualist or less grounded in concern for social order and cohesion. These differing time series suggest that the changing moral landscape of the 20th century can be divided into five distinct periods and illuminate the re-moralization and moral polarization of the last three decades.
| S-EPMC6392263 | biostudies-literature
Project description:People are motivated by shared social values that, when held with moral conviction, can serve as compelling mandates capable of facilitating support for ideological violence. The current study examined this dark side of morality by identifying specific cognitive and neural mechanisms associated with beliefs about the appropriateness of sociopolitical violence, and determining the extent to which the engagement of these mechanisms was predicted by moral convictions. Participants reported their moral convictions about a variety of sociopolitical issues prior to undergoing functional MRI scanning. During scanning, they were asked to evaluate the appropriateness of violent protests that were ostensibly congruent or incongruent with their views about sociopolitical issues. Complementary univariate and multivariate analytical strategies comparing neural responses to congruent and incongruent violence identified neural mechanisms implicated in processing salience and in the encoding of subjective value. As predicted, neuro-hemodynamic response was modulated parametrically by individuals' beliefs about the appropriateness of congruent relative to incongruent sociopolitical violence in ventromedial prefrontal cortex, and by moral conviction in ventral striatum. Overall moral conviction was predicted by neural response to congruent relative to incongruent violence in amygdala. Together, these findings indicate that moral conviction about sociopolitical issues serves to increase their subjective value, overriding natural aversion to interpersonal harm.
| S-EPMC7939028 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The proportion of the population vaccinated in Israel against COVID-19 in 2021 was significantly higher than that of the annual uptake rates of the influenza vaccine over time. Understanding the reasons behind the high vaccination rate may facilitate maintaining these rates if annual COVID-19 vaccination is required. Using a mixed-methods design, we characterized the individuals who were vaccinated and studied their attitudes toward vaccines and motivators for the COVID-19 vaccine. The first part was a cross-sectional study of adults aged 65 and over who were vaccinated against COVID-19. We stratified them according to their annual influenza vaccination patterns, and compared variables such as age, gender, health status, and timing of COVID-19 vaccination. The second part consisted of a questionnaire administered to a subsample of the above population, inquiring about vaccine hesitancy, motivators for vaccination, and intention to be vaccinated in the future. We found that motivating factors for COVID-19 vaccination are similar between those who regularly vaccinate against influenza and those who don't. Internal motivators such as perceived vaccine effectiveness and the desire to protect others were stronger than external rewards or sanctions. High adherence to annual influenza vaccine recommendations was associated with earlier COVID-19 vaccine uptake. Respondents with lower adherence to influenza vaccines were more likely to demonstrate higher levels of vaccine hesitancy. These factors should be addressed in future vaccination campaigns.
| S-EPMC10583610 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Moral foundations research suggests that liberals care about moral values related to individual rights such as harm and fairness, while conservatives care about those foundations in addition to caring more about group rights such as loyalty, authority, and purity. However, the question remains about how conservatives and liberals differ in relation to group-level moral principles. We used two versions of the moral foundations questionnaire with the target group being either abstract or specific ingroups or outgroups. Across three studies, we observed that liberals showed more endorsement of Individualizing foundations (Harm and Fairness foundations) with an outgroup target, while conservatives showed more endorsement of Binding foundations (Loyalty, Authority, and Purity foundations) with an ingroup target. This general pattern was found when the framed, target-group was abstract (i.e., 'ingroups' and 'outgroups' in Study 1) and when target groups were specified about a general British-ingroup and an immigrant-outgroup (Studies 2 and 3). In Studies 2 and 3, both Individualizing-Ingroup Preference and Binding-Ingroup Preference scores predicted more Attitude Bias and more Negative Attitude Bias toward immigrants (Studies 2 and 3), more Implicit Bias (Study 3), and more Perceived Threat from immigrants (Studies 2 and 3). We also demonstrated that increasing liberalism was associated with less Attitude Bias and less Negative Bias toward immigrants (Studies 2 and 3), less Implicit Bias (Study 3), and less Perceived Threat from immigrants (Studies 2 and 3). Outgroup-individualizing foundations and Ingroup-Binding foundations showed different patterns of mediation of these effects.
| S-EPMC8096906 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8646724 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Punishment facilitates large-scale cooperation among humans, but how punishers, who incur an extra cost of punishment, can successfully compete with non-punishers, who free-ride on the punisher's policing, poses an evolutionary puzzle. One answer is by coordinating punishment to minimise its cost. Notice, however, that in order to effectively coordinate their punishment, potential punishers must know in advance whether others would also be willing to punish a particular norm violator. Such knowledge might hinder coordination by tempting potential punishers to free-ride on other punishers. Previous research suggests that moral emotions, such as moral outrage and moral disgust, serve as a commitment device and drive people to carry out the costly act of punishment. Accordingly, we tested whether the perception of socially shared condemnation (i.e., knowledge that others also condemn a particular violator) would amplify moral outrage and moral disgust, and diminish empathy for the violator. Study 1 (scenario-based study) revealed that perceived shared condemnation was correlated positively with moral outrage and moral disgust, and negatively with empathy. Study 2 experimentally demonstrated that information indicating that others also condemn a particular norm violation amplified moral outrage. Lastly, Study 3 (autobiographical recall study) confirmed the external validity of the finding.
| S-EPMC5544740 | biostudies-literature