The COVID-19 crisis has exposed the public to considerable scientific uncertainty, which may promote vaccine hesitancy among individuals with lower tolerance of uncertainty. In a national sample of US adults in May–June 2020, we examined how both perceptions of uncertainty about COVID-19 and trait-level differences in tolerance of uncertainty arising from various sources (risk, ambiguity, and complexity) are related to vaccine hesitancy-related outcomes, including trust in COVID-19 information, COVID-19 vaccine intentions, and beliefs that COVID-19 vaccines should undergo a longer testing period before being released to the public. Overall, perceptions of COVID-19 uncertainty were not associated with trust in information, vaccine intentions, or beliefs about vaccine testing. However, higher tolerance of risk was associated with lower intentions to get vaccinated, and lower tolerance of ambiguity was associated with lower intentions to get vaccinated and preferring a longer period of vaccine testing. Critically, perceptions of COVID-19 uncertainty and trait-level tolerance for uncertainty also interacted as predicted, such that greater perceived COVID-19 uncertainty was more negatively associated with trust in COVID-19 information among individuals with lower tolerance for risk and ambiguity. Thus, although perceptions of uncertainty regarding COVID-19 may not reduce trust and vaccine hesitancy for all individuals, trait-level tolerance of uncertainty arising from various sources may have both direct and moderating effects on these outcomes. These findings can inform public health communication or other interventions to increase COVID-19 vaccination uptake. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10865-022-00302-9.

Literature devoted to understanding the experiences of individuals who do not fit the cultural mold—those who belong to minority, stigmatized, or underrepresented groups—demonstrates that nonnormative status goes hand in hand with a range of negative outcomes. The current research considers a heretofore unstudied correlate of nonnormative status: existential isolation (the feeling of being alone in one’s subjective experience), which differs from feelings of interpersonal isolation (feeling alone with regard to the quantity or quality of one’s relationships). Normative, or mainstream, society may not acknowledge the experiences of those holding a nonnormative status, rendering such individuals at risk of developing heightened feelings of existential isolation. Across Studies 1a and 1b, we found consistently higher trait levels of existential isolation (but not interpersonal isolation) among people with a nonnormative group status than among their normative counterparts. This effect appeared whether we looked at nonnormativeness with regard to race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, citizenship, native language, body weight, religious affiliation, or socioeconomic status. Study 2 highlights one correlate of the existential isolation that accompanies nonnormativeness: decreased certainty with respect to judgments of racism. Implications and suggestions for future research are discussed, including addressing the correlational nature of this research and testing potential mechanisms to explain the link between nonnormative status and existential isolation.

Men's tendency to exhibit withdrawal behaviors during affective communication has been shown to be a point of contention in romantic discord. The current study was designed to examine whether men's desire to facilitate a discussion regarding affective communication would be affected by media portrayals of subtle versus blatant withdrawal; the latter epitomized by a hypermasculine man who opts to leave an emotionally tense situation, while it is evident that his distressed female partner desires communication. To this end, male and female college students participated in an alleged memory experiment for media clips taken from Hollywood films. Viewing a blatant (but not a subtle) withdrawal clip caused men to shy away from facilitating affective communication as compared to controls. This finding was not obvious, given people's documented tendency to attempt to disconfirm group stereotypes when a prime is blatant. We situate findings at the intersection of social psychological and media theorizing.

No abstract

Minnehan, KS, Dexter, WW, Holt, CT, Scharnetzki, L, Alex, JP, Chin, KE, and Kokmeyer, DJ. Validation of panoramic ultrasound measurement of the cross-sectional area of the vastus medialis. J Strength Cond Res 37(1): 41–45, 2023—The cross-sectional area (CSA) of the vastus medialis (VM) is an independent predictor of important clinical outcomes in musculoskeletal conditions of the knee, such as pain and long-term function. Previous studies validated ultrasound (US) to measure larger muscles of the thigh, but this approach has limited accuracy in measuring smaller muscles, such as the VM. In this study, we aimed to validate panoramic US measurements of the CSA of the VM and compare the results with those from the gold standard of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (significance set p ≤ 0.05). In this retrospective, single-center study, we compared pairs of US and MRIs taken of 25 adults who participated in a 10-week study of non–weight-bearing activity at a National Aeronautics and Space Administration facility. Images were acquired from various locations on the right thigh at multiple time points. Two researchers independently analyzed the US and MRI pairs by outlining the intermuscular border of the VM in the most distal image. We found excellent agreement between the US and MRI measurements of the CSA of the VM analyzed by researcher 1 (interclass correlation coefficient [ICC]: 0.997) and researcher 2 (ICC: 0.980). We also found excellent agreement for interrater reliability for MRI (ICC: 0.988) and US (ICC: 0.982) and intrarater reliability for US for researcher 1 (ICC: 0.999) and researcher 2 (ICC: 0.996). Our findings demonstrate that US is a valid and reliable tool for measuring the CSA of the VM compared with MRI.

No abstract

Purpose Many people, especially in rural areas of the United States, choose not to receive novel COVID‐19 vaccinations despite public health recommendations. Understanding how people describe decisions to get vaccinated or not may help to address hesitancy. Methods We conducted semistructured interviews with 17 rural inhabitants of Maine, a sparsely populated state in the northeastern US, about COVID‐19 vaccine decisions during the early rollout (March–May 2021). We used the framework method to compare responses, including between vaccine Adopters and Non‐adopters. Findings Adopters framed COVID‐19 as unequivocally dangerous, if not personally, then to other people. Describing their COVID concerns, Adopters emphasized disease morbidities. By contrast, Non‐adopters never mentioned morbidities, referencing instead mortality risk, which they perceived as minimal. Instead of risks associated with the disease, Non‐adopters emphasized risks associated with vaccination. Uncertainty about the vaccine development process, augmented by social media, bolstered concerns about the long‐term unknown risks of vaccines. Vaccine Adopters ultimately described trusting the process, while Non‐adopters expressed distrust. Conclusion Many respondents framed their COVID vaccination decision by comparing the risks between the disease and the vaccine. Associating morbidity risks with COVID‐19 diminishes the relevance of vaccine risks, whereas focusing on low perceived mortality risks heightens their relevance. Results could inform efforts to address COVID‐19 vaccine hesitancy in the rural US and elsewhere. Patient or Public Contribution Members of Maine rural communities were involved throughout the study. Leaders of community health groups provided feedback on the study design, were actively involved in recruitment, and reviewed findings after analysis. All data produced and used in this study were co‐constructed through the participation of community members with lived experience.

No abstract