SunYoung Kim, Peter M Gollwitzer, Gabriele Oettingen
{"title":"期望与幻想和疫苗犹豫不决：COVID-19 与疫苗之间的相互影响。","authors":"SunYoung Kim, Peter M Gollwitzer, Gabriele Oettingen","doi":"10.1093/abm/kaae034","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Previous research on COVID-19 vaccination highlights future thoughts associated with possible Coronavirus infection and vaccine side effects as key predictors of vaccine hesitancy. Yet, research has focused on independent contributions of such future thoughts, neglecting their interactive aspects.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>We examined whether thoughts about two possible COVID-related futures (suffering from COVID-19 and vaccine side effects) interactively predict vaccine hesitancy and vaccination behavior among unvaccinated and vaccinated people. Importantly, we compared two forms of future thinking: beliefs or expectations (likelihood judgments) versus fantasies (free thoughts and images describing future events).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In Study 1, we conducted a longitudinal study with an unvaccinated group (N = 210). We assessed expectations versus fantasies about the two COVID-related futures as predictors. As outcome variables, we measured vaccine hesitancy, and 9 weeks later we assessed information seeking and vaccine uptake. Study 2 was a cross-sectional study comparing vaccine hesitancy of an unvaccinated group (N = 307) to that of a vaccinated group (N = 311).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Study 1 found that more negative fantasies about COVID-19 impact and less negative fantasies about vaccine side effects interactively predicted lower vaccine hesitancy and more vaccine-related behaviors among unvaccinated people; no such interaction was observed between respective expectations. Study 2 replicated these results of Study 1. Additionally, for vaccinated people, low expectations of negative COVID-19 impact and high expectations of negative vaccine impact interactively predicted higher vaccine hesitancy, whereas no such interaction was observed for respective fantasies.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Research on vaccine hesitancy should explore interactions between future thinking about disease and about vaccine side effects. Importantly, there is much to be gained by distinguishing expectations versus fantasies: vaccination interventions aiming to boost vaccine uptake among unvaccinated people should tap into their negative future fantasies regarding both disease and vaccine side effects.</p>","PeriodicalId":7939,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Behavioral Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Expectations Versus Fantasies and Vaccine Hesitancy: How Suffering From COVID-19 Versus Suffering From Vaccines Interact.\",\"authors\":\"SunYoung Kim, Peter M Gollwitzer, Gabriele Oettingen\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/abm/kaae034\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Previous research on COVID-19 vaccination highlights future thoughts associated with possible Coronavirus infection and vaccine side effects as key predictors of vaccine hesitancy. Yet, research has focused on independent contributions of such future thoughts, neglecting their interactive aspects.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>We examined whether thoughts about two possible COVID-related futures (suffering from COVID-19 and vaccine side effects) interactively predict vaccine hesitancy and vaccination behavior among unvaccinated and vaccinated people. Importantly, we compared two forms of future thinking: beliefs or expectations (likelihood judgments) versus fantasies (free thoughts and images describing future events).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In Study 1, we conducted a longitudinal study with an unvaccinated group (N = 210). We assessed expectations versus fantasies about the two COVID-related futures as predictors. As outcome variables, we measured vaccine hesitancy, and 9 weeks later we assessed information seeking and vaccine uptake. Study 2 was a cross-sectional study comparing vaccine hesitancy of an unvaccinated group (N = 307) to that of a vaccinated group (N = 311).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Study 1 found that more negative fantasies about COVID-19 impact and less negative fantasies about vaccine side effects interactively predicted lower vaccine hesitancy and more vaccine-related behaviors among unvaccinated people; no such interaction was observed between respective expectations. Study 2 replicated these results of Study 1. Additionally, for vaccinated people, low expectations of negative COVID-19 impact and high expectations of negative vaccine impact interactively predicted higher vaccine hesitancy, whereas no such interaction was observed for respective fantasies.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Research on vaccine hesitancy should explore interactions between future thinking about disease and about vaccine side effects. Importantly, there is much to be gained by distinguishing expectations versus fantasies: vaccination interventions aiming to boost vaccine uptake among unvaccinated people should tap into their negative future fantasies regarding both disease and vaccine side effects.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7939,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Behavioral Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Behavioral Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/abm/kaae034\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Behavioral Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/abm/kaae034","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Expectations Versus Fantasies and Vaccine Hesitancy: How Suffering From COVID-19 Versus Suffering From Vaccines Interact.
Background: Previous research on COVID-19 vaccination highlights future thoughts associated with possible Coronavirus infection and vaccine side effects as key predictors of vaccine hesitancy. Yet, research has focused on independent contributions of such future thoughts, neglecting their interactive aspects.
Purpose: We examined whether thoughts about two possible COVID-related futures (suffering from COVID-19 and vaccine side effects) interactively predict vaccine hesitancy and vaccination behavior among unvaccinated and vaccinated people. Importantly, we compared two forms of future thinking: beliefs or expectations (likelihood judgments) versus fantasies (free thoughts and images describing future events).
Methods: In Study 1, we conducted a longitudinal study with an unvaccinated group (N = 210). We assessed expectations versus fantasies about the two COVID-related futures as predictors. As outcome variables, we measured vaccine hesitancy, and 9 weeks later we assessed information seeking and vaccine uptake. Study 2 was a cross-sectional study comparing vaccine hesitancy of an unvaccinated group (N = 307) to that of a vaccinated group (N = 311).
Results: Study 1 found that more negative fantasies about COVID-19 impact and less negative fantasies about vaccine side effects interactively predicted lower vaccine hesitancy and more vaccine-related behaviors among unvaccinated people; no such interaction was observed between respective expectations. Study 2 replicated these results of Study 1. Additionally, for vaccinated people, low expectations of negative COVID-19 impact and high expectations of negative vaccine impact interactively predicted higher vaccine hesitancy, whereas no such interaction was observed for respective fantasies.
Conclusions: Research on vaccine hesitancy should explore interactions between future thinking about disease and about vaccine side effects. Importantly, there is much to be gained by distinguishing expectations versus fantasies: vaccination interventions aiming to boost vaccine uptake among unvaccinated people should tap into their negative future fantasies regarding both disease and vaccine side effects.
期刊介绍：
Annals of Behavioral Medicine aims to foster the exchange of knowledge derived from the disciplines involved in the field of behavioral medicine, and the integration of biological, psychosocial, and behavioral factors and principles as they relate to such areas as health promotion, disease prevention, risk factor modification, disease progression, adjustment and adaptation to physical disorders, and rehabilitation. To achieve these goals, much of the journal is devoted to the publication of original empirical articles including reports of randomized controlled trials, observational studies, or other basic and clinical investigations. Integrative reviews of the evidence for the application of behavioral interventions in health care will also be provided. .
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
