17
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Fearing the disease or the vaccine: The case of COVID-19

      research-article
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          As studies indicate that people perceive COVID-19 as a threatening disease, the demand for a vaccine against the disease could be expected to be high. Vaccine safety concerns might nevertheless outweigh the perceived disease risks when an individual decides whether or not to accept the vaccine. We investigated the role of perceived risk of COVID-19 (i.e., perceived likelihood of infection, perceived disease severity, and disease-related worry) and perceived safety of a prospective vaccine against COVID-19 in predicting intentions to accept a COVID-19 vaccine. Three Finnish samples were surveyed: 825 parents of small children, 205 individuals living in an area with suboptimal vaccination coverage, and 1325 Facebook users nationwide. As points of reference, we compared the perceptions of COVID-19 to those of influenza and measles. COVID-19 was perceived as a threatening disease—more so than influenza and measles. The strongest predictor of COVID-19 vaccination intentions was trusting the safety of the potential vaccine. Those perceiving COVID-19 as a severe disease were also slightly more intent on taking a COVID-19 vaccine. Informing the public about the safety of a forthcoming COVID-19 vaccine should be the focus for health authorities aiming to achieve a high vaccine uptake.

          Highlights

          • COVID-19 is perceived as a threatening disease.

          • The perceived risks of COVID-19 play a minor role for vaccination intentions.

          • COVID-19 vaccination intentions are strongly related to perceived vaccine safety.

          Related collections

          Most cited references40

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found
          Is Open Access

          Vaccine hesitancy: Definition, scope and determinants.

          The SAGE Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy concluded that vaccine hesitancy refers to delay in acceptance or refusal of vaccination despite availability of vaccination services. Vaccine hesitancy is complex and context specific, varying across time, place and vaccines. It is influenced by factors such as complacency, convenience and confidence. The Working Group retained the term 'vaccine' rather than 'vaccination' hesitancy, although the latter more correctly implies the broader range of immunization concerns, as vaccine hesitancy is the more commonly used term. While high levels of hesitancy lead to low vaccine demand, low levels of hesitancy do not necessarily mean high vaccine demand. The Vaccine Hesitancy Determinants Matrix displays the factors influencing the behavioral decision to accept, delay or reject some or all vaccines under three categories: contextual, individual and group, and vaccine/vaccination-specific influences.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality.

            Modern theories in cognitive psychology and neuroscience indicate that there are two fundamental ways in which human beings comprehend risk. The "analytic system" uses algorithms and normative rules, such as probability calculus, formal logic, and risk assessment. It is relatively slow, effortful, and requires conscious control. The "experiential system" is intuitive, fast, mostly automatic, and not very accessible to conscious awareness. The experiential system enabled human beings to survive during their long period of evolution and remains today the most natural and most common way to respond to risk. It relies on images and associations, linked by experience to emotion and affect (a feeling that something is good or bad). This system represents risk as a feeling that tells us whether it is safe to walk down this dark street or drink this strange-smelling water. Proponents of formal risk analysis tend to view affective responses to risk as irrational. Current wisdom disputes this view. The rational and the experiential systems operate in parallel and each seems to depend on the other for guidance. Studies have demonstrated that analytic reasoning cannot be effective unless it is guided by emotion and affect. Rational decision making requires proper integration of both modes of thought. Both systems have their advantages, biases, and limitations. Now that we are beginning to understand the complex interplay between emotion and reason that is essential to rational behavior, the challenge before us is to think creatively about what this means for managing risk. On the one hand, how do we apply reason to temper the strong emotions engendered by some risk events? On the other hand, how do we infuse needed "doses of feeling" into circumstances where lack of experience may otherwise leave us too "coldly rational"? This article addresses these important questions.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found
              Is Open Access

              Risk perceptions of COVID-19 around the world

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Pers Individ Dif
                Pers Individ Dif
                Personality and Individual Differences
                The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
                0191-8869
                0191-8869
                14 December 2020
                April 2021
                14 December 2020
                : 172
                : 110590
                Affiliations
                [a ]Department of Psychology, Åbo Akademi University, Finland
                [b ]FinnBrain Birth Cohort Study, Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Turku, Finland
                [c ]School of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, United Kingdom
                [d ]School of Psychological Science, University of Western Australia, Australia
                [e ]Centre for Population Health Research, University of Turku and Turku University Hospital, Finland
                [f ]Department of Child Psychiatry, Turku University Hospital and University of Turku, Finland
                [g ]Department of Psychiatry, Turku University Hospital and University of Turku, Finland
                [h ]Turku Institute for Advanced Studies, Department of Psychology and Speech-Language Pathology, University of Turku, Finland
                [i ]Department of Medical Psychology, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Germany
                [j ]Department of Theological Ethics, Åbo Akademi University, Finland
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author at: Department of Psychology, Åbo Akademi University, Tehtaankatu 2, 20500 Turku, Finland.
                Article
                S0191-8869(20)30781-9 110590
                10.1016/j.paid.2020.110590
                7832025
                33518869
                0cd86e87-e4c0-4b3c-abd2-f6735c6687f6
                © 2020 The Authors

                Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.

                History
                : 7 October 2020
                : 3 December 2020
                : 6 December 2020
                Categories
                Article

                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                covid-19,coronavirus,vaccination intentions,vaccine hesitancy,perceived risk,perceived vaccine safety

                Comments

                Comment on this article