Concerns for others increase the likelihood of vaccination against influenza and COVID-19 more in sparsely rather than densely populated areas

Abstract

Vaccination yields the direct individual benefit of protecting recipients from infectious diseases and also the indirect social benefit of reducing the transmission of infections to others, often referred to asherd immunity. This research examines how prosocial concern for vaccination, defined as people’s preoccupation with infecting others if they do not vaccinate themselves, motivates vaccination in more and less populated regions of the United States. A nationally representative, longitudinal survey of 2,490 Americans showed that prosocial concern had a larger positive influence on vaccination against influenza in sparser regions, as judged by a region’s nonmetropolitan status, lesser population density, and lower proportion of urban land area. Two experiments (totaln= 800), one preregistered, provide causal evidence that drawing attention to prosocial (vs. individual) concerns interacted with social density to affect vaccination intentions. Specifically, prosocial concern led to stronger intentions to vaccinate against influenza and COVID-19 but only when social density was low (vs. high). Moderated mediation analyses show that, in low-density conditions, the benefits of inducing prosocial concern were due to greater perceived impact of one’s vaccination on others. In this light, public health communications may reap more benefits from emphasizing the prosocial aspects of vaccination in sparser environments.

Factors Influencing Public Attitudes towards COVID-19 Vaccination: A Scoping Review Informed by the Socio-Ecological Model

“…The studies were divided by design into one experimental study [ 23 ], 39 cross-sectional studies [ 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 ], five literature reviews [ 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 ], one systematic review [ 68 ], one randomized controlled trial [ 69 ], one longitudinal survey with two experiments [ 70 ], one Gallup panel [ 71 ], one media analysis study through a proposed novel behavioral dynamics model SRS/I (susceptible–reading–susceptible/immune) for the microblogging platform Weibo on social media […”

“…Several individual factors influencing public attitudes were reported in thirty-six studies ( Table 4 ). Personal beliefs with regard to vaccines and COVID-19 [ 30 , 32 , 34 , 35 , 49 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 62 , 66 , 68 , 70 ], health literacy [ 33 , 65 ], knowledge [ 34 , 37 , 57 , 68 ], lack of trust in governments and companies producing the vaccines [ 25 , 35 , 37 , 39 , 59 ], perceived susceptibility and risk perception towards COVID-19 and side effects of the vaccines [ 24 , 28 , 36 , 38 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 56 ], social [ 61 , 70 ], religious [ 37 ], and political views [ 29 , 32 , 54 , 61 , 71 ], level of anxiety of getting infected [ 30 ], fear [ 24 , 30 , 37 , 38 ] and worries [ 39 , 59 ], confidence in academic institutions and producing companies […”

“…The studies were divided by design into one experimental study [23], 39 cross-sectional studies , five literature reviews [63][64][65][66][67], one systematic review [68], one randomized controlled trial [69], one longitudinal survey with two experiments [70], one Gallup panel [71], one media analysis study through a proposed novel behavioral dynamics model SRS/I (susceptible-reading-susceptible/immune) for the microblogging platform Weibo on social media [72], and one conference paper [73]. The majority of these crosssectional studies reported their findings from one country, one study reported data from 19 countries [25], another study conducted legal analysis for several countries [40], and others reported findings from two or three countries from Europe, America, Canada, and the Middle East [29,49,59].…”

Age, frequency of volunteering, and Present-Hedonistic time perspective predict donating items to people in need, but not money to combat COVID-19 during lock-down

“…The pandemic and the requirement to remain socially distanced changed the way how prosociality can express itself (Albarracín & Jung, 2021 ). The readiness to adhere to COVID-19-related preventive measures are linked to prosocial concerns (Pfattheicher et al, 2020 ), similarly – the readiness to vaccinate (Chew et al, 2021 ; Jung & Albarracín, 2021 ). Given that the topic is highly relevant for global safety and health, it is worth further investigating to find out what factors can contribute to acting for the long-term collective interest instead of focusing on narrow self-interest (Johnson et al, 2020 ).…”

Communicating Scientific Uncertainty About the COVID-19 Pandemic: Online Experimental Study of an Uncertainty-Normalizing Strategy (Preprint)

“…In the current study, we addressed this limitation by evaluating the effects of an uncertainty-normalizing strategy in a real public health crisis. Its specific objective was to test whether normalizing uncertainty reduces ambiguity-averse responses, compared to commonly used strategies aimed at promoting either (1) hope or (2) prosocial values [26][27][28]. These alternative strategies have been broadly implemented in public information campaigns about COVID-19, and focus on mitigating hopelessness, helplessness, and stigmatization-important adverse responses to public health crises [3,5,6].…”