COVID vaccination intentions vary among the US population. We report the results of a nationally representative survey undertaken in July 2020 (N=889) that examined the association of six vaccine-specific beliefs with intentions to vaccinate. We find that four of the six beliefs have substantial associations with intention (Gammas between .60 and .77), that the associations mostly do not vary with gender, age, race/ethnicity, or misinformation (even though intentions do vary with each of those variables). Also, once adjusted for the vaccine-specific beliefs, level of misinformation is not related to intentions. We consider the implications of these results and argue both that persuasive campaigns can be informed by these specific results, and given rapid changes in vaccine availability, that there is a substantial need for elaborated and repeated follow-up studies.
This article provides a map of the UBI debate, structured into the main themes that guide and group the arguments on both sides. It finds that UBI’s supporters and opponents both draw on core principles of justice and freedom, focusing on need and poverty, discrimination and inequality, growth, social opportunity, individuality, and self-development. From an economic perspective, they both appeal to business concerns about efficiency, risk, flexibility, and consumption, as well as labour interests on work fulfilment, working conditions, remuneration, and bargaining. Likewise, they focus on political questions around welfare state reforms, redistribution, taxation and funding sources, democratic citizenship, and the prospects for cross-party policy coalitions. By providing an overview of the thematic pillars of the UBI debate, this article helps researchers and activists locate and orient themselves within the wider spectrum of opinion on UBI.
The development of a COVID-19 vaccine is a critical strategy for combatting the pandemic. However, in order for vaccination efforts to succeed, there must be widespread willingness to vaccinate. Prior research has found that Black Americans, who have already been disproportionately impacted by the pandemic, report lower intentions to get a vaccine than do other populations. In this study, we investigate potential causes of this disparity, focusing on vaccine-related behavioral beliefs and trust in four COVID-19 information sources (mainstream media, social media, President Trump, and public health officials and agencies). Using a nationally-representative survey (n=889), we demonstrate that differences in vaccine beliefs explain the lower vaccine intentions reported by Black participants compared to non-Black participants. However, while we find associations between trust in information sources and vaccine beliefs, we do not find evidence that differences in trust accounted for the observed differences in vaccine beliefs by race. Furthermore, we found evidence of moderation; the association of trust in two sources, Trump and public health officials and agencies, with beliefs were smaller among Black participants. Overall, our results suggest that trust in information sources alone does not explain the observed relationship between race and vaccine beliefs. This relationship warrants further investigation.
In this article, we conduct a case study of EU-level debates on universal basic income (UBI) trials, as part of which we examine core contributions in the Conference on the Future of Europe, the election manifestos produced by European party groups, as well as European Parliament debates since 2009. The results indicate that parties and politicians are far more hesitant than citizens to demand UBI, while also relying proportionally more on proposing trials rather than policies. Interpreting the results, we develop a conceptual framework designed to better understand how political decisionmakers at the EU level can deal with the uncertainties involved in European social policymaking. We argue that these actors face legal, political, and suitability risks when proposing policies that would integrate the EU’s social dimension. Unlike in national settings, the potential to pursue various strategies of risk reduction is limited at the EU level. However, we argue that empirical trials of social policies are particularly well-suited to insuring politicians at the EU level against risks. This insurance function is based not only on the scope of empirical trials to reduce uncertainties about policy outcomes, but also on the fact that they are inherently non-binding. By simply proposing empirical trials, actors can influence agendas, benefit from public demands, or reduce public pressure without having to take on the risks associated with implementing a fully-fledged policy proposal. We conclude that empirical trials can be understood as buffers against risks that might be used strategically by politicians, and which have the potential to break stalemates in the future development of a “Social Europe”.
People with disabilities face various forms of barriers in society. Even daily activities are diffi cult to handle. Multiple varieties of assistive tools are being created to overcome these daily barriers. We count among these wheelchairs or exoskeletons, but there are other forms of assistive technology (designed for a particular type of disability) that help people with their disabilities. Th e aim of the thesis is to analyze the progress of the assistive technology that helps with disabilities and its role in modern society. Our primary source will be a book Disability, Society and Assistive Technology (2017) by Bodil Ravneberg and Sylvia Söderström. In their work, they show a close connection between assistive technologies and the quality of life of a person with a disability.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.