Predicting H1N1 Vaccine Uptake and H1N1-Related Health Beliefs: The Role of Individual Difference in Consideration of Future Consequences

Abstract

This research examines the influence of individual difference in consideration of future consequences on H1N1 vaccine uptake and H1N1-related health beliefs (i.e., perceived susceptibility to and severity of the H1N1 flu, perceived efficacy and safety of the H1N1 vaccine, and perceived self-efficacy in obtaining the H1N1 vaccine). A survey of 411 college students showed that consideration of future consequences had no direct effect on vaccine uptake, but higher consideration of future consequences was associated with greater perceived severity of the flu, higher perceived effectiveness of the vaccine, and greater perceived self-efficacy. Additional analysis suggested that consideration of future consequences had a significant indirect effect on vaccine uptake through perceived vaccine efficacy. Results of the study also revealed gender and racial differences in some of the H1N1-related health beliefs. Implications of the findings for vaccine risk communication are discussed.

Temporal Framing Effects Differ for Narrative Versus Non-Narrative Messages: The Case of Promoting HPV Vaccination

“…Given the consistent patterns of interaction, we speculated that the joint effects of temporal framing and message format on attitudes and intentions occurred at least partially through perceived vaccine efficacy. This speculation is supported by previous research showing that perceived vaccine efficacy mediates a personality trait’s influence on vaccination behaviors (Kim & Nan, 2015; Morison, Cozzolino, & Orbell, 2010; Nan & Kim, 2014).…”

Individual Differences in the Consideration of Future and (More) Immediate Consequences: A Review and Directions for Future Research

“…Studies focusing on consumption show that, relative to those low in CFC, those high in CFC are more likely to eat healthy (Dassen et al, ; Joireman et al, ; Mullan et al, ; Piko & Brassai, ; van Beek, Antonides, & Handgraaf, ) and less likely to smoke and consume alcohol (Adams & Nettle, ; Beenstock, Adams, & White, ; Daugherty & Brase, ; Rappange, Brouwer, & Van Exel, ; Strathman et al, ). Preventative health behavior studies, in turn, reveal that those high in CFC are more likely to exercise (Adams & Nettle, ; Joireman et al, ; Ouellette, Hessling, Gibbons, Reis‐Bergan, & Gerrard, ), eat healthy (as already noted), get better sleep (Peters, Joireman, & Ridgway, ), get vaccinated against the H1N1 (swine flu) virus (Nan & Kim, ), vaccinate their daughters against cervical cancer (Morison, Cozzolino, & Orbell, 2010), take actions to prevent past illnesses from reoccurring (Sirois, ), and take insulin to manage blood sugar (Louch, Dalkin, Bodansky, & Conner, ). Relatedly, high CFCs show a stronger connection between their intentions to quit smoking and smoking cessation (Kovač & Rise, ).…”

Can a COVID-19 vaccine live up to Americans’ expectations? A conjoint analysis of how vaccine characteristics influence vaccination intentions

“…Although we cannot know candidates' potential effectiveness until clinical trials conclude and are replicated by the FDA, we do know that the US has set a 50% minimum effectiveness threshold in order for vaccines to be disseminated (FDA 2020), and that (encoruagingly) early late-stage clinical trial data suggest effectiveness of greater than 90% for leading vaccine candidates (e.g., Grady 2020). Previous research suggests Americans will be more likely to intend to vaccinate if they perceive greater health benefits from doing so (e.g., Nan & Kim 2014). Consequently, I hypothesize that Americans will prefer more-effective vaccine candidates to those that are less effective (H2).…”