Nien-Tsu Nancy Chen, Kimmy Kee, Bianca T Villalobos, Miriam Ortiz, HyeSun Lee
{"title":"认知和情感重要吗?大学生COVID-19疫苗接种决策研究","authors":"Nien-Tsu Nancy Chen, Kimmy Kee, Bianca T Villalobos, Miriam Ortiz, HyeSun Lee","doi":"10.1177/20551029231179163","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The unparalleled speed of COVID-19 vaccine development has necessitated an expansion of existing knowledge on vaccination decision-making. The current study explored (1) how cognitions and emotions shaped college students' COVID-19 vaccination decisions, and (2) where vaccination-inclined and vaccination-hesitant students converged and diverged in their decision-making process. Seventy-seven students participated in 26 focus groups to discuss their complex thoughts and feelings regarding COVID-19 vaccination, offering a more nuanced understanding of COVID-19 vaccination decision-making that has not been fully captured by quantitative studies. Thematic analysis found that vaccination-inclined participants and their hesitant counterparts reported differential patterns of positive and negative emotions, systematic appraisals, and heuristics in decision-making. Future research should investigate the roles of hope and relief, non-health-related benefits of vaccination, social trust, and interpersonal influence in vaccination decision-making.</p>","PeriodicalId":55856,"journal":{"name":"Health Psychology Open","volume":"10 1","pages":"20551029231179163"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/5e/a5/10.1177_20551029231179163.PMC10227488.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Do cognition and emotion matter? A study of COVID-19 vaccination decision-making in college students.\",\"authors\":\"Nien-Tsu Nancy Chen, Kimmy Kee, Bianca T Villalobos, Miriam Ortiz, HyeSun Lee\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/20551029231179163\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The unparalleled speed of COVID-19 vaccine development has necessitated an expansion of existing knowledge on vaccination decision-making. The current study explored (1) how cognitions and emotions shaped college students' COVID-19 vaccination decisions, and (2) where vaccination-inclined and vaccination-hesitant students converged and diverged in their decision-making process. Seventy-seven students participated in 26 focus groups to discuss their complex thoughts and feelings regarding COVID-19 vaccination, offering a more nuanced understanding of COVID-19 vaccination decision-making that has not been fully captured by quantitative studies. Thematic analysis found that vaccination-inclined participants and their hesitant counterparts reported differential patterns of positive and negative emotions, systematic appraisals, and heuristics in decision-making. Future research should investigate the roles of hope and relief, non-health-related benefits of vaccination, social trust, and interpersonal influence in vaccination decision-making.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55856,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Psychology Open\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"20551029231179163\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/5e/a5/10.1177_20551029231179163.PMC10227488.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Psychology Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/20551029231179163\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Psychology Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20551029231179163","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Do cognition and emotion matter? A study of COVID-19 vaccination decision-making in college students.
The unparalleled speed of COVID-19 vaccine development has necessitated an expansion of existing knowledge on vaccination decision-making. The current study explored (1) how cognitions and emotions shaped college students' COVID-19 vaccination decisions, and (2) where vaccination-inclined and vaccination-hesitant students converged and diverged in their decision-making process. Seventy-seven students participated in 26 focus groups to discuss their complex thoughts and feelings regarding COVID-19 vaccination, offering a more nuanced understanding of COVID-19 vaccination decision-making that has not been fully captured by quantitative studies. Thematic analysis found that vaccination-inclined participants and their hesitant counterparts reported differential patterns of positive and negative emotions, systematic appraisals, and heuristics in decision-making. Future research should investigate the roles of hope and relief, non-health-related benefits of vaccination, social trust, and interpersonal influence in vaccination decision-making.
期刊介绍：
Health Psychology Open (HPO) is an international, peer-reviewed, open access, online-only journal providing rapid publication. HPO is dedicated to publishing cutting-edge research in health psychology from around the world. HPO seeks to provide a platform for both traditional empirical analyses and more qualitative and/or critically oriented approaches to health psychology. All areas of health psychology are covered, but these topics are of particular interest: Clinical health psychology Critical health psychology Community health psychology Health psychology practice Health psychology through a social, cultural or regional lens The journal particularly favours papers that focus on health psychology in practice, including submissions concerning community and/or clinical applications and interventions. Review articles are also welcomed. There is no fixed limit to the length of manuscripts, which is normally strictly limited in other journals, for example HPO’s sister journal, Journal of Health Psychology (JHP). Studies published in this journal are required to obtain ethical approval from an Institutional Review Board. Such approval must include informed, signed consent by all research participants. Any manuscript not containing an explicit statement concerning ethical approval and informed consent will not be considered.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
