Explore the vast range of titles available.

In the current absence of medical treatment and vaccination, the unfolding COVID-19 pandemic can only be brought under control by massive and rapid behaviour change. To achieve this we need to systematically monitor and understand how different individuals perceive risk and what prompts them to act upon it, argues Cornelia Betsch.

Science deniers question scientific milestones and spread misinformation, contradicting decades of scientific endeavour. Advocates for science need effective rebuttal strategies and are concerned about backfire effects in public debates. We conducted six experiments to assess how to mitigate the influence of a denier on the audience. An internal meta-analysis across all the experiments revealed that not responding to science deniers has a negative effect on attitudes towards behaviours favoured by science (for example, vaccination) and intentions to perform these behaviours. Providing the facts about the topic or uncovering the rhetorical techniques typical for denialism had positive effects. We found no evidence that complex combinations of topic and technique rebuttals are more effective than single strategies, nor that rebutting science denialism in public discussions backfires, not even in vulnerable groups (for example, US conservatives). As science deniers use the same rhetoric across domains, uncovering their rhetorical techniques is an effective and economic addition to the advocates’ toolbox. Schmid and Betsch show that countering science denialism as it happens using topic and technique rebuttal reduces the influence of science deniers on attitudes and behaviours.

Monitoring the reasons why a considerable number of people do not receive recommended vaccinations allows identification of important trends over time, and designing and evaluating strategies to address vaccine hesitancy and increase vaccine uptake. Existing validated measures assessing vaccine hesitancy focus primarily on confidence in vaccines and the system that delivers them. However, empirical and theoretical work has stated that complacency (not perceiving diseases as high risk), constraints (structural and psychological barriers), calculation (engagement in extensive information searching), and aspects pertaining to collective responsibility (willingness to protect others) also play a role in explaining vaccination behavior. The objective was therefore to develop a validated measure of these 5C psychological antecedents of vaccination. Three cross-sectional studies were conducted. Study 1 uses factor analysis to develop an initial scale and assesses the sub-scales' convergent, discriminant, and concurrent validity (N = 1,445, two German convenience-samples). In Study 2, a sample representative regarding age and gender for the German population (N = 1,003) completed the measure for vaccination in general and for specific vaccinations to assess the potential need for a vaccine-specific wording of items. Study 3 compared the novel scale's performance with six existing measures of vaccine hesitancy (N = 350, US convenience-sample). As an outcome, a long (15-item) and short (5-item) 5C scale were developed as reliable and valid indicators of confidence, complacency, constraints, calculation, and collective responsibility. The 5C sub-scales correlated with relevant psychological concepts, such as attitude (confidence), perceived personal health status and invulnerability (complacency), self-control (constraints), preference for deliberation (calculation), and communal orientation (collective responsibility), among others. The new scale provided similar results when formulated in a general vs. vaccine-specific way (Study 2). In a comparison of seven measures the 5C scale was constantly among the scales that explained the highest amounts of variance in analyses predicting single vaccinations (between 20% and 40%; Study 3). The present studies are limited to the concurrent validity of the scales. The 5C scale provides a novel tool to monitor psychological antecedents of vaccination and facilitates diagnosis, intervention design and evaluation. Its short version is suitable for field settings and regular global monitoring of relevant antecedents of vaccination.

Most vaccines protect both the vaccinated individual and the society by reducing the transmission of infectious diseases. In order to eliminate infectious diseases, individuals need to consider social welfare beyond mere self-interest—regardless of ethnic, religious, or national group borders. It has therefore been proposed that vaccination poses a social contract in which individuals are morally obliged to get vaccinated. However, little is known about whether individuals indeed act upon this social contract. If so, vaccinated individuals should reciprocate by being more generous to a vaccinated other. On the contrary, if the other doesn’t vaccinate and violates the social contract, generosity should decline. Three preregistered experiments investigated how a person’s own vaccination behavior, others’ vaccination behavior, and others’ group membership influenced a person’s generosity toward respective others. The experiments consistently showed that especially compliant (i.e., vaccinated) individuals showed less generosity toward nonvaccinated individuals. This effect was independent of the others’ group membership, suggesting an unconditional moral principle. An internal metaanalysis (n = 1,032) confirmed the overall social contract effect. In a fourth experiment (n = 1,212), this pattern was especially pronounced among vaccinated individuals who perceived vaccination as a moral obligation. It is concluded that vaccination is a social contract in which cooperation is the morally right choice. Individuals act upon the social contract, and more so the stronger they perceive it as a moral obligation. Emphasizing the social contract could be a promising intervention to increase vaccine uptake, prevent free riding, and, eventually, support the elimination of infectious diseases.

Influenza vaccine hesitancy is a significant threat to global efforts to reduce the burden of seasonal and pandemic influenza. Potential barriers of influenza vaccination need to be identified to inform interventions to raise awareness, influenza vaccine acceptance and uptake. This review aims to (1) identify relevant studies and extract individual barriers of seasonal and pandemic influenza vaccination for risk groups and the general public; and (2) map knowledge gaps in understanding influenza vaccine hesitancy to derive directions for further research and inform interventions in this area. Thirteen databases covering the areas of Medicine, Bioscience, Psychology, Sociology and Public Health were searched for peer-reviewed articles published between the years 2005 and 2016. Following the PRISMA approach, 470 articles were selected and analyzed for significant barriers to influenza vaccine uptake or intention. The barriers for different risk groups and flu types were clustered according to a conceptual framework based on the Theory of Planned Behavior and discussed using the 4C model of reasons for non-vaccination. Most studies were conducted in the American and European region. Health care personnel (HCP) and the general public were the most studied populations, while parental decisions for children at high risk were under-represented. This study also identifies understudied concepts. A lack of confidence, inconvenience, calculation and complacency were identified to different extents as barriers to influenza vaccine uptake in risk groups. Many different psychological, contextual, sociodemographic and physical barriers that are specific to certain risk groups were identified. While most sociodemographic and physical variables may be significantly related to influenza vaccine hesitancy, they cannot be used to explain its emergence or intensity. Psychological determinants were meaningfully related to uptake and should therefore be measured in a valid and comparable way. A compendium of measurements for future use is suggested as supporting information.

Vaccine hesitancy has been recognized as a major global health threat. Having access to any type of information in social media has been suggested as a potential influence on the growth of anti-vaccination groups. Recent studies w.r.t. other topics than vaccination show that access to a wide amount of content through the Internet without intermediaries resolved into major segregation of the users in polarized groups. Users select information adhering to theirs system of beliefs and tend to ignore dissenting information. The goal was to assess whether users’ attitudes are polarized on the topic of vaccination on Facebook and how this polarization develops over time. We perform a thorough quantitative analysis by studying the interaction of 2.6 M users with 298,018 Facebook posts over a time span of seven years and 5 months. We applied community detection algorithms to automatically detect the emergence of communities accounting for the users’ activity on the pages. Also, we quantified the cohesiveness of these communities over time. Our findings show that the consumption of content about vaccines is dominated by the echo chamber effect and that polarization increased over the years. Well-segregated communities emerge from the users’ consumption habits i.e., the majority of users consume information in favor or against vaccines, not both. The existence of echo chambers may explain why social-media campaigns that provide accurate information have limited reach and be effective only in sub-groups, even fomenting further opinion polarization. The introduction of dissenting information into a sub-group is disregarded and can produce a backfire effect, thus reinforcing the pre-existing opinions within the sub-group. Public health professionals should try to understand the contents of these echo chambers, for example by getting passively involved in such groups. Only then it will be possible to find effective ways of countering anti-vaccination thinking.

Mandatory and voluntary mask policies may have yet unknown social and behavioral consequences related to the effectiveness of the measure, stigmatization, and perceived fairness. Serial cross-sectional data (April 14 to May 26, 2020) from nearly 7,000 German participants demonstrate that implementing a mandatory policy increased actual compliance despite moderate acceptance; mask wearing correlated positively with other protective behaviors. A preregistered experiment (n = 925) further indicates that a voluntary policy would likely lead to insufficient compliance, would be perceived as less fair, and could intensify stigmatization. A mandatory policy appears to be an effective, fair, and socially responsible solution to curb transmissions of airborne viruses.

The existence and nature of pandemic fatigue–defined as a gradually emerging subjective state of weariness and exhaustion from, and a general demotivation towards, following recommended health-protective behaviors, including keeping oneself informed during a pandemic–has been debated. Herein, we introduce the Pandemic Fatigue Scale and show how pandemic fatigue evolved during the COVID-19 pandemic, using data from one panel survey and two repeated cross-sectional surveys in Denmark and Germany (overall N  = 34,582). We map the correlates of pandemic fatigue and show that pandemic fatigue is negatively related to people’s self-reported adherence to recommended health-protective behaviors. Manipulating the (de)motivational aspect of pandemic fatigue in a preregistered online experiment ( N  = 1584), we further show that pandemic fatigue negatively affects people’s intention to adhere to recommended health-protective behaviors. Combined, these findings provide evidence not only for the existence of pandemic fatigue, but also its psychological and behavioral associations. In this study the authors introduce a measure of pandemic fatigue and report the existence of, and changes in, pandemic fatigue during the COVID-19 pandemic. They also identify correlates of pandemic fatigue and show that those who experienced more pandemic fatigue were less likely to adhere to various health-protective behaviors.

Fabiana Zollo and colleagues call for comprehensive, robust research on the influence of social media on health behaviour in order to improve public health responses

Monetary and legal incentives have been proposed to promote COVID-19 vaccination uptake. To evaluate the suitability of incentives, an experiment with German participants examined the effects of payments (varied within subjects: 0 to 10,000 EUR) and freedoms (varied between subjects: vaccination leading vs. not leading to the same benefits as a negative test result) on the vaccination intentions of previously unvaccinated individuals ( n = 782) in April 2021. While no effect could be found for freedoms, the share of participants willing to be vaccinated increased with the payment amount. However, a significant change required large rewards of 3,250 EUR or more. While monetary incentives could increase vaccination uptake by a few percentage points, the high costs of implementation challenge the efficiency of the measure and call for alternatives. As the data suggest that considering vaccination as safe, necessary, and prosocial increases an individual’s likelihood of wanting to get vaccinated without payment, interventions should focus on these features when promoting vaccination against COVID-19.