Due to the skewed risk of covid, people need info on *how* vaccines protect others (herd-immunity) & *why* it is key (empathy).
🧵(1/5)
In our pre-registered Study 1, we measured (a) knowledge about herd-immunity, (b) affective empathy with the most vulnerable and (c) intention to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. Vaccine intentions are clearly associated with (a) & (b), even controlling for personality. (2/5)
In our pre-registered Study 2, we experimentally manipulated knowledge and empathy. We find independent effects of these manipulations such that each increase vaccine acceptance. (3/5)
Overall, our findings highlight a key barrier to vaccine uptake: Vaccination is a pro-social act for those not at a significant risk themselves. Importantly, we show that this barrier can be reduced by interventions that combine info on herd-immunity and induce empathy. (4/5)
The paper was spearheaded by the twitterless (but amazing!) Stefan Pfattheicher together with @robert_bohm. A publicly available preprint is here: psyarxiv.com/wzu6k. (5/5)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I samarbejde med SST har vi udvalgt 8 påstande om vaccinerne: 4 sande og 4 myter. Undersøgelsen viser, at troen på myter er relativt udbredt. 30-40 % af borgerne er fx usikre på, om vaccinerne påvirker fertiliteten og er testet lige så grundigt som anden medicin. (2/5)
Troen på myter gør en forskel. Der er således en sammenhæng mellem, hvorvidt man er vaccineret, og hvorvidt man kan skelne mellem sande påstande og myter. Vaccinetvivl hænger dermed sammen med oplevede bekymringer. (3/5)
Today, Denmark lifted all restrictions & COVID-19 is no longer deemed a "societal threat".
I led the country's largest behavioral covid-project (@HopeProject_dk) & advised the Danish gov.
Here are my thoughts on how DK got here, what can be learned & what lies ahead.
🧵 (1/14)
In the HOPE-project ("How Democracies Cope With COVID-19", hope-project.dk), we have conducted over 400,000 interviews on covid-related behaviors and attitudes since March '20 in Denmark and 7 other countries. These data form the evidence-base for this thread. (2/13)
The basis for an open society is vaccinations. 86 % of all invited (from 12 years and up) have received 1+ dose. 96 % of everyone above 50 are fully vaccinated. Throughout the pandemic DK has had higher acceptance than many comparable countries. No mandates needed. (3/14)
With the delta suge, masks mandates are reintroduced.
Yet, a concern has been if masks mandates make people relax other meaures?
In a new article, we show that mask mandates have neglible adverse effects and often lead to *more* compliance: doi.org/10.1093/eurpub….
🧵(1/6)
Prior studies suggests that masks serve as a pandemic reminder to others and make others keep distance. But it was unclear how masks influence the distancing behavior of mask-wearers *themselves*. (2/6)
The problem is not trivial: Masks are used in crowded areas, creating a correlation between mask use & number of close contacts. But do masks make people seek out crowded areas bc of a sense of false security? I.e., what is the causal direction between masks and contacts? (3/6)
En teori er, at "pæne" folk ikke kan styre følelserne, når de er online. I en ny forskningsartikel viser vi, at den teori er forkert: psyarxiv.com/hwb83/.
Grafen viser, at den almindelige dansker klart oplever, at online politiske debatter (mørke-grå fordeling) er mere negative og ubehagelige end offline debatter (lyse-grå fordeling). (2/8)
Men hadet skyldes et lille fåtal. Langt de fleste er ikke hadefulde, dvs. er placeret omkring (0,0) i grafen. Og dem der er hadefulde er lige hadefulde online og offline. (3/8)
Status-seekers are hostile online & offline, but their online attacks are more visible. Nice people do not go crazy online.
🧵(1/10)
We use representative surveys from the US and Denmark to document that people perceive online environments as more hostile than offline. In figure, higher values equals more perceived hostility and dark gray plots show distribution for "online debates". (2/10)
A common narrative, the mismatch hypothesis, says this reflects a mismatch between (a) a psychology adapted for face-to-face interaction and (b) the impersonal online environment. We test 3 versions of this hypothesis: Mismatched-induced change, selection and perception (3/10)
🚨 How should authorities communicate about #covid19 vaccines? A concern is that transparency about side-effects will induce hesistancy. In our new paper in @PNASNews, we show that even if transparency induces hesistancy, it is key for sustaining a core resource: Trust. 🧵 [1/7]
In 2 pre-registered tests with 13,000+ Americans & Danes, we show how transparency & content of vaccine info shapes acceptance, trust & conspiracy beliefs. We compare transparency with an often used form of communication in patient-doctor relationships: Vague reassurance. [2/7]
We show that transparency regarding negative features of a COVID-vaccine decreases acceptance. Importantly, so does vague reassuring communication ("Don't worry - it is fine!"). Vagueness is, in essence, seen as a cover-up. [3/7]