不信任的自满情绪与 COVID-19 疫苗:关注与政治信任如何相互作用,影响疫苗接种意愿。

IF 4 1区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Fanny Lalot, Dominic Abrams, Maria S Heering, Jacinta Babaian, Hilal Ozkececi, Linus Peitz, Kaya Davies Hayon, Jo Broadwood
{"title":"不信任的自满情绪与 COVID-19 疫苗:关注与政治信任如何相互作用,影响疫苗接种意愿。","authors":"Fanny Lalot, Dominic Abrams, Maria S Heering, Jacinta Babaian, Hilal Ozkececi, Linus Peitz, Kaya Davies Hayon, Jo Broadwood","doi":"10.1111/pops.12871","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We test the hypothesis that COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is attributable to <i>distrustful complacency</i>-an interactive combination of low concern and low trust. Across two studies, 9,695 respondents from different parts of Britain reported their level of concern about COVID-19, trust in the UK government, and intention to accept or refuse the vaccine. Multilevel regression analysis, controlling for geographic area and relevant demographics, confirmed the predicted interactive effect of concern and trust. Across studies, respondents with <i>both</i> low trust and low concern were 10%-22% more vaccine hesitant than respondents with <i>either</i> high trust or high concern, and 26%-29% more hesitant than respondents with <i>both</i> high trust and high concern. Results hold equally among White, Black, and Muslim respondents, consistent with the view that regardless of mean-level differences, a common process underlies vaccine hesitancy, underlining the importance of tackling distrustful complacency both generally and specifically among unvaccinated individuals and populations.</p>","PeriodicalId":48332,"journal":{"name":"Political Psychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9878109/pdf/POPS-9999-0.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Distrustful Complacency and the COVID-19 Vaccine: How Concern and Political Trust Interact to Affect Vaccine Hesitancy.\",\"authors\":\"Fanny Lalot, Dominic Abrams, Maria S Heering, Jacinta Babaian, Hilal Ozkececi, Linus Peitz, Kaya Davies Hayon, Jo Broadwood\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/pops.12871\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>We test the hypothesis that COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is attributable to <i>distrustful complacency</i>-an interactive combination of low concern and low trust. Across two studies, 9,695 respondents from different parts of Britain reported their level of concern about COVID-19, trust in the UK government, and intention to accept or refuse the vaccine. Multilevel regression analysis, controlling for geographic area and relevant demographics, confirmed the predicted interactive effect of concern and trust. Across studies, respondents with <i>both</i> low trust and low concern were 10%-22% more vaccine hesitant than respondents with <i>either</i> high trust or high concern, and 26%-29% more hesitant than respondents with <i>both</i> high trust and high concern. Results hold equally among White, Black, and Muslim respondents, consistent with the view that regardless of mean-level differences, a common process underlies vaccine hesitancy, underlining the importance of tackling distrustful complacency both generally and specifically among unvaccinated individuals and populations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48332,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Political Psychology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9878109/pdf/POPS-9999-0.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Political Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12871\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12871","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们检验了这样一个假设:COVID-19 疫苗的犹豫不决可归因于不信任的自满情绪--一种低关注度和低信任度的互动组合。在两项研究中,来自英国不同地区的 9,695 名受访者报告了他们对 COVID-19 的关注程度、对英国政府的信任度以及接受或拒绝接受疫苗的意愿。在控制了地理区域和相关人口统计学因素后,多层次回归分析证实了所预测的关注度和信任度的交互作用。在所有研究中,低信任度和低关注度的受访者比高信任度或高关注度的受访者对疫苗犹豫不决的程度高 10%-22%,比高信任度和高关注度的受访者犹豫不决的程度高 26%-29%。结果在白人、黑人和穆斯林受访者中同样成立,这与无论平均水平差异如何,疫苗犹豫不决的背后都有一个共同的过程这一观点是一致的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Distrustful Complacency and the COVID-19 Vaccine: How Concern and Political Trust Interact to Affect Vaccine Hesitancy.

We test the hypothesis that COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is attributable to distrustful complacency-an interactive combination of low concern and low trust. Across two studies, 9,695 respondents from different parts of Britain reported their level of concern about COVID-19, trust in the UK government, and intention to accept or refuse the vaccine. Multilevel regression analysis, controlling for geographic area and relevant demographics, confirmed the predicted interactive effect of concern and trust. Across studies, respondents with both low trust and low concern were 10%-22% more vaccine hesitant than respondents with either high trust or high concern, and 26%-29% more hesitant than respondents with both high trust and high concern. Results hold equally among White, Black, and Muslim respondents, consistent with the view that regardless of mean-level differences, a common process underlies vaccine hesitancy, underlining the importance of tackling distrustful complacency both generally and specifically among unvaccinated individuals and populations.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.00
自引率
6.50%
发文量
70
期刊介绍: Understanding the psychological aspects of national and international political developments is increasingly important in this age of international tension and sweeping political change. Political Psychology, the journal of the International Society of Political Psychology, is dedicated to the analysis of the interrelationships between psychological and political processes. International contributors draw on a diverse range of sources, including clinical and cognitive psychology, economics, history, international relations, philosophy, political science, political theory, sociology, personality and social psychology.
×
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