A growing number of parents delay vaccinations or are deciding not to vaccinate their children altogether. This increases the risk of contracting vaccine-preventable diseases and disrupting herd immunity, and also impairs the trust in the capacities of health care systems to protect people. Vaccine hesitancy is related to a range of both psychological and demographic determinants, such as attitudes toward vaccinations, social norms, and trust in science. Our aim is to understand those determinants in parents, because they are a special group in this issue—they act as proxy decision makers for their children, who are unable to decide for themselves. The fact that deciding to vaccinate is a socially forced choice that concerns a child's health makes vaccine-related decisions highly important and involving for parents. This high involvement might lead to parents overemphasizing the potential side effects that they know to be vaccine-related, and by amplifying those, parents are more focused on the potential outcomes of vaccine-related decisions, which can yield specific pattern of the outcome bias. We propose two related studies to investigate factors which promote vaccine hesitancy, protective factors that determine parental vaccination decisions, and outcome bias in parental vaccination intentions. We will explore demographic and psychological factors, and test parental involvement related to vaccine hesitancy using an online battery in a correlation panel design study. The second study is an experimental study, in which we will investigate the moderating role of parents' high involvement in the specific domain of vaccination decision making. We expect that higher involvement among parents, compared to non-parents, will shape the pattern of the proneness to outcome bias. The studies will be conducted across eight countries in Europe and Asia (Finland, Germany, Hong Kong, the Netherlands, Serbia, Slovenia, Spain, and the United Kingdom), rendering findings that will aid with understanding the underlying mechanisms of vaccine hesitancy and paving the way for developing interventions custom-made for parents.
A commonly used research design in applied behavior analysis involves comparing two or more independent variables. Typically, the relative effectiveness of two different interventions is measured on a single dependent variable. In the current review, 54 comparison studies from seven different peerreviewed, behavior analytic journals were evaluated between the years 2002 and 2011. Each study was evaluated across seven dimensions: (1) experimental design, (2) setting, (3) participants, (4) type of comparison, (5) number of comparisons, (6) treatment integrity, and (7) outcome. There were some consistencies across studies, with half resulting in equivalent outcomes across comparisons. In addition, most studies employed the use of an alternating treatments or multi-element single-subject design and compared a teaching methodology. On the basis of these results, the value of comparison study as well as directions for future comparison research is discussed. Overall, comparison study is a worthy and important enterprise that requires a high degree of experimental control and a careful analyses of the results, regardless of whether the outcome clearly favored one independent variable or not.
The present study was conducted to determine whether elevated response rates that occurred in an experimental functional analysis were correlated with higher post-session response rates in the natural environment. Functional analyses indicated that the problem behavior of four children with developmental disabilities was maintained by common sources of reinforcement. Observational assessment in the natural environment showed no differences in post-session rates compared with pre-session rates for three participants, and the data for the fourth participant were equivocal. Overall, no convincing evidence was found to suggest that functional analyses might worsen post-session problem behavior in the natural environment.
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.