The vaccination divide: Exploring moral reasoning associated with intergroup antipathy between vaccinated and unvaccinated people

IF 3.5 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Kate Hatchman, Matthew J. Hornsey, Fiona Kate Barlow
{"title":"The vaccination divide: Exploring moral reasoning associated with intergroup antipathy between vaccinated and unvaccinated people","authors":"Kate Hatchman,&nbsp;Matthew J. Hornsey,&nbsp;Fiona Kate Barlow","doi":"10.1111/bjhp.12736","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>There is growing evidence of intergroup hostility between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, a process of polarization that threatens to derail population health efforts. This study explores the moral underpinnings of intergroup antipathy between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Design</h3>\n \n <p>A cross-sectional design was employed to investigate the associations between the view of vaccination as a social contract or individual choice, perceived vulnerability to disease, perceptions of outgroup morality, feelings of warmth, and experiences of schadenfreude.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Data were extracted from an online, quantitative survey of 233 vaccinated and 237 unvaccinated participants collected between June and July 2022.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Results revealed that vaccinated people had stronger negative attitudes towards unvaccinated people than vice versa. In line with hypotheses, the extent to which vaccinated people saw vaccination as a social contract was significantly associated with perceiving unvaccinated people as immoral. For unvaccinated people, seeing vaccination as an individual choice (the opposite of a social contract) was significantly associated with perceiving vaccinated people as immoral. Among both groups, viewing the other as immoral was associated with feeling significantly less warmth towards the opposing vaccination group, and more schadenfreude in the face of an outgroup member's suffering. Participants' perceived vulnerability to disease played a relatively small role in explaining polarization between vaccinated and unvaccinated people.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>This research builds on previous studies by identifying moral mechanisms associated with intergroup antipathy in the vaccine debate.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":48161,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Health Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/bjhp.12736","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Health Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjhp.12736","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

There is growing evidence of intergroup hostility between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, a process of polarization that threatens to derail population health efforts. This study explores the moral underpinnings of intergroup antipathy between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.

Design

A cross-sectional design was employed to investigate the associations between the view of vaccination as a social contract or individual choice, perceived vulnerability to disease, perceptions of outgroup morality, feelings of warmth, and experiences of schadenfreude.

Methods

Data were extracted from an online, quantitative survey of 233 vaccinated and 237 unvaccinated participants collected between June and July 2022.

Results

Results revealed that vaccinated people had stronger negative attitudes towards unvaccinated people than vice versa. In line with hypotheses, the extent to which vaccinated people saw vaccination as a social contract was significantly associated with perceiving unvaccinated people as immoral. For unvaccinated people, seeing vaccination as an individual choice (the opposite of a social contract) was significantly associated with perceiving vaccinated people as immoral. Among both groups, viewing the other as immoral was associated with feeling significantly less warmth towards the opposing vaccination group, and more schadenfreude in the face of an outgroup member's suffering. Participants' perceived vulnerability to disease played a relatively small role in explaining polarization between vaccinated and unvaccinated people.

Conclusions

This research builds on previous studies by identifying moral mechanisms associated with intergroup antipathy in the vaccine debate.

Abstract Image

疫苗接种的鸿沟:探索接种疫苗者与未接种疫苗者之间群体间反感的道德推理。
目的:越来越多的证据表明,已接种疫苗者和未接种疫苗者之间存在群体间敌意,这种两极分化的过程有可能破坏人口健康工作。本研究探讨了接种疫苗者与未接种疫苗者之间群体间敌意的道德基础:设计:采用横断面设计,调查接种疫苗是社会契约还是个人选择的观点、感知到的疾病易感性、对外群体道德的感知、温暖感和幸灾乐祸体验之间的关联:数据取自 2022 年 6 月至 7 月期间对 233 名已接种疫苗和 237 名未接种疫苗的参与者进行的在线定量调查:结果显示,已接种疫苗者对未接种者的负面态度比未接种者更强烈。与假设相符的是,接种疫苗者将接种疫苗视为一种社会契约的程度与认为未接种疫苗者不道德的程度显著相关。对于未接种疫苗者来说,将接种疫苗视为个人选择(与社会契约相反)与认为接种疫苗者不道德显著相关。在这两个群体中,认为他人不道德与对接种疫苗的反对群体的温暖感明显降低以及面对外群体成员的痛苦时更多的幸灾乐祸有关。在解释接种疫苗者和未接种疫苗者之间的两极分化时,参与者对疾病的易感性所起的作用相对较小:本研究在以往研究的基础上,确定了与疫苗辩论中群体间反感情绪相关的道德机制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
British Journal of Health Psychology
British Journal of Health Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
14.10
自引率
1.30%
发文量
58
期刊介绍: The focus of the British Journal of Health Psychology is to publish original research on various aspects of psychology that are related to health, health-related behavior, and illness throughout a person's life. The journal specifically seeks articles that are based on health psychology theory or discuss theoretical matters within the field.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信