Although young adults are not at great risk of becoming severely ill with COVID-19, their willingness to get vaccinated affects the whole community. Vaccine hesitancy has increased during recent years, and more research is needed on its situational determinants. This paper reports a preregistered experiment (N = 654) that examined whether communicating descriptive social norms -information about what most people do -is an effective way of influencing young people's intentions and reducing their hesitancy to take the COVID-19 vaccine. We found weak support for our main hypothesis that conveying strong (compared to weak) norms leads to reduced hesitancy and stronger intentions. Furthermore, norms did not produce significantly different effects compared to standard vaccine information from the authorities. Moreover, no support was found for the hypothesis that young people are more strongly influenced by norms when the norm reference group consists of other young individuals rather than people in general. These findings suggest that the practical usefulness of signaling descriptive norms is rather limited, and may not be more effective than standard appeals in the quest of encouraging young adults to trust and accept a new vaccine.
The present study examined the impact of gender identity threat on adolescents' occupational preferences. Two hundred and ninety‐seven adolescents (45% girls, M age = 14.4, SD = .54) participated in the experiment. There were substantial differences between boys' and girls' occupational preferences. Importantly, adolescents who received a threat to their gender identity became more stereotypical in job preferences, suggesting a causal link between threatened gender identity and stereotypical preferences. A comparison threat to one's capability did not have this effect, indicating a unique effect of gender identity threat. Further, individual differences in gender identity concerns predicted gender stereotypical preferences, and this finding was replicated with an independent sample (N = 242). In conclusion, the results suggest that threats to adolescents' gender identity may contribute to the large gender segregation on the labor market.
The present study investigated the relative importance of two explanations behind perceptions of gender discrimination in hiring: prototypes and same-gender bias. According to the prototype explanation, people perceive an event as discrimination to the extent that it fits their preconceptions of typical discrimination. In contrast, the same-gender bias explanation asserts that people more readily detect discrimination toward members of their own gender. In four experiments (n = 797), women and men made considerably stronger discrimination attributions, and were moderately more discouraged from seeking work, when the victim was female rather than male. Further, a series of regressions analyses showed beliefs in discrimination of women to be moderately correlated with discrimination attributions of female victims, but little added explanatory value of participant gender, stigma consciousness, or feminist identification. The results offer strong support for the prototype explanation.
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.