Rather than inducing psychological reactance, requiring vaccination strengthens intentions to vaccinate in US populations

Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic: Promoting Vaccination and Public Health Resilience, a Narrative Review

The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the critical importance of adaptable and resilient public health systems capable of rapid response to emerging health crises. This paper synthesizes the lessons learned from the COVID-19 vaccination campaign and explores strategies to enhance vaccine uptake in the post-pandemic era. Key challenges identified include logistical, economic, sociocultural, and policy dimensions that impact vaccination efforts, particularly in low-resource settings. The analysis highlights the need for resilient supply chains, effective communication, community engagement, and equitable access to healthcare resources. The rapid development and deployment of mRNA vaccines exemplify the potential of innovative vaccine technologies, though public trust and acceptance remain crucial. Strategies such as partnerships with local leaders, tailored messaging, and integration of digital tools are essential for combating vaccine hesitancy. By applying these insights, future vaccination campaigns can be more efficient, equitable, and resilient, ultimately improving public health outcomes globally. This paper aims to inform policy and practice, ensuring that public health strategies are evidence based and context specific, thus better preparing for future health challenges.

An Experimental Study on how Messaging from CDC Affects Attitudes toward Mandatory MMR Vaccination for Schoolchildren

BACKGROUND

During the COVID-19 pandemic, public health institutions, particularly the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), were frequently attacked by politicians. Popular trust in these institutions declined, particularly among self-identified Republicans. Therefore, the effectiveness of public health institutions as vaccination messengers might have been weakened in the post-COVID-19 period. We conducted a survey experiment examining the effectiveness of messaging from the CDC in shaping people's attitudes toward mandatory MMR (measles-mumps-rubella) vaccination for schoolchildren.

METHODS

The experiment was embedded in a survey fielded in South Dakota, a "red state" with a population predisposed to distrust the CDC. Using registration-sampling, we received 747 responses. We used difference-in-means tests and multivariate regression to analyze the data.

RESULTS

We found that participants who received a message from the CDC were more likely to support MMR vaccine mandate for schoolchildren than participants who received the same prompt from a state agency. Further analyses showed that messaging from the CDC was particularly effective among Republicans.

DISCUSSION

Overall, our study showed that although the CDC was caught up in the political skirmishes during the COVID-19 pandemic, it remains an authoritative source of public health information.

CONCLUSIONS

Public health officials at the local and state levels should not shy away from referring to the CDC in their vaccination messaging.

Health Communication and Behavioral Change During the COVID-19 Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic challenged the public health system to respond to an emerging, difficult-to-understand pathogen through demanding behaviors, including staying at home, masking for long periods, and vaccinating multiple times. We discuss key challenges of the pandemic health communication efforts deployed in the United States from 2020 to 2022 and identify research priorities. One priority is communicating about uncertainty in ways that prepare the public for disagreement and likely changes in recommendations as scientific understanding advances: How can changes in understanding and recommendations foster a sense that "science works as intended" rather than "the experts are clueless" and prevent creating a void to be filled by misinformation? A second priority concerns creating a culturally fluent framework for asking people to engage in difficult and novel actions: How can health messages foster the perception that difficulties of behavior change signal that the change is important rather than that the change "is not for people like me?" A third priority entails a shift from communication strategies that focus on knowledge and attitudes to interventions that focus on norms, policy, communication about policy, and channel factors that impair behavior change: How can we move beyond educating and correcting misinformation to achieving desired actions?

Do COVID-19 Vaccination Policies Backfire? The Effects of Mandates, Vaccination Passports, and Financial Incentives on COVID-19 Vaccination

Faced with the challenges of motivating people to vaccinate, many countries have introduced policy-level interventions to encourage vaccination against COVID-19. For example, mandates were widely imposed requiring individuals to vaccinate to work and attend school, and vaccination passports required individuals to show proof of vaccination to travel and access public spaces and events. Furthermore, some countries also began offering financial incentives for getting vaccinated. One major criticism of these policies was the possibility that they would produce reactance and thus undermine voluntary vaccination. This article therefore reviews relevant empirical evidence to examine whether this is indeed the case. Specifically, we devote separate sections to reviewing and discussing the impacts of three major policies that were implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic: vaccination mandates, vaccination passports, and the provision of financial incentives. A careful analysis of the evidence provides little support that these policies backfire but instead can effectively promote vaccination at the population level. The policies are not without limitations, however, such as their inability to mobilize those that are strongly hesitant to vaccines. Finally, we discuss how policy-level interventions should be designed and implemented to address future epidemics and pandemics.

Trait reactance as psychological motivation to reject vaccination: Two longitudinal studies and one experimental study

Anti-science attitudes can be resilient to scientific evidence if they are rooted in psychological motives. One such motive is trait reactance, which refers to the need to react with opposition when one's freedom of choice has been threatened. In three studies, we investigated trait reactance as a psychological motivation to reject vaccination. In the longitudinal studies (n = 199; 293), we examined if trait reactance measured before the COVID-19 pandemic was related to people's willingness to get vaccinated against COVID-19 up to 2 years later during the pandemic. In the experimental study (n = 398), we tested whether trait reactance makes anti-vaccination attitudes more resistant to information and whether this resistance can be mitigated by framing the information to minimize the risk of triggering state reactance. The longitudinal studies showed that higher trait reactance before the COVID-19 pandemic was related to lower willingness to get vaccinated against COVID-19. Our experimental study indicated that highly reactant individuals' willingness to vaccinate was unaffected by the amount and framing of the information provided. Trait reactance has a strong and durable impact on vaccination willingness. This highlights the importance of considering the role of trait reactance in people's vaccination-related decision-making.

Estimated public health impact of concurrent mask mandate and vaccinate-or-test requirement in Illinois, October to December 2021

BACKGROUND

Facing a surge of COVID-19 cases in late August 2021, the U.S. state of Illinois re-enacted its COVID-19 mask mandate for the general public and issued a requirement for workers in certain professions to be vaccinated against COVID-19 or undergo weekly testing. The mask mandate required any individual, regardless of their vaccination status, to wear a well-fitting mask in an indoor setting.

METHODS

We used Illinois Department of Public Health's COVID-19 confirmed case and vaccination data and investigated scenarios where masking and vaccination would have been reduced to mimic what would have happened had the mask mandate or vaccine requirement not been put in place. The study examined a range of potential reductions in masking and vaccination mimicking potential scenarios had the mask mandate or vaccine requirement not been enacted. We estimated COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations averted by changes in masking and vaccination during the period covering October 20 to December 20, 2021.

RESULTS

We find that the announcement and implementation of a mask mandate are likely to correlate with a strong protective effect at reducing COVID-19 burden and the announcement of a vaccinate-or-test requirement among frontline professionals is likely to correlate with a more modest protective effect at reducing COVID-19 burden. In our most conservative scenario, we estimated that from the period of October 20 to December 20, 2021, the mask mandate likely prevented approximately 58,000 cases and 1,175 hospitalizations, while the vaccinate-or-test requirement may have prevented at most approximately 24,000 cases and 475 hospitalizations.

CONCLUSION

Our results indicate that mask mandates and vaccine-or-test requirements are vital in mitigating the burden of COVID-19 during surges of the virus.

US state vaccine mandates did not influence COVID-19 vaccination rates but reduced uptake of COVID-19 boosters and flu vaccines compared to bans on vaccine restrictions

During the COVID-19 pandemic, some US states mandated vaccination for certain citizens. We used state-level data from the CDC to test whether vaccine mandates predicted changes in COVID-19 vaccine uptake, as well as related voluntary behaviors involving COVID-19 boosters and seasonal influenza vaccines. Results showed that COVID-19 vaccine adoption did not significantly change in the weeks before and after states implemented vaccine mandates, suggesting that mandates did not directly impact COVID-19 vaccination. Compared to states that banned vaccine restrictions, however, states with mandates had lower levels of COVID-19 booster adoption as well as adult and child flu vaccination, especially when residents initially were less likely to vaccinate for COVID-19. This research supports the notion that governmental restrictions in the form of vaccination mandates can have unintended negative consequences, not necessarily by reducing uptake of the mandated vaccine, but by reducing adoption of other voluntary vaccines.

Psychological reactance, misinformation, and distrust: A mixed methods analysis of COVID-19 vaccine uptake

Background

Assessing perceptions of the COVID-19 vaccines is essential for understanding vaccine hesitancy and for improving uptake during public health emergencies. In the complicated landscape of COVID-19 vaccine mandates and rampant misinformation, many individuals faced challenges during vaccination decision-making. The purpose of our mixed methods study is to elucidate factors affecting vaccine decision-making and to highlight the discourse surrounding the COVID-19 vaccines in diverse and underserved communities.

Methods

This mixed methods study was conducted in Arizona, Florida, Minnesota, and Wisconsin between March and November 2021, combining a cross-sectional survey (n = 3593) and focus groups (n = 47).

Results

The groups least likely to report receiving a vaccination were non-Hispanic Whites, Indigenous people, males, and those with moderate socioeconomic status (SES). Those indicating high and low SES reported similar vaccination uptake. Focus group data highlighted resistance to mandates, distrust, misinformation, and concerns about the rapid development surrounding the COVID-19 vaccines. Psychological reactance theory posits that strongly persuasive messaging and social pressure can be perceived as a threat to freedom, encouraging an individual to take action to restore that freedom.

Conclusion

Our findings indicate that a subsection of participants felt pressured to get the vaccine, which led to weaker intentions to vaccinate. These results suggest that vaccine rollout strategies should be reevaluated to improve and facilitate informed decision-making.

Assessing the impact of COVID-19 passes and mandates on disease transmission, vaccination intention, and uptake: a scoping review

PURPOSE

Policymakers have struggled to maintain SARS-CoV-2 transmission at levels that are manageable to contain the COVID-19 disease burden while enabling a maximum of societal and economic activities. One of the tools that have been used to facilitate this is the so-called "COVID-19 pass". We aimed to document current evidence on the effectiveness of COVID-19 passes, distinguishing their indirect effects by improving vaccination intention and uptake from their direct effects on COVID-19 transmission measured by the incidence of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths.

METHODS

We performed a scoping review on the scientific literature of the proposed topic covering the period January 2021 to September 2022, in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR guidelines for scoping reviews.

RESULTS

Out of a yield of 4,693 publications, 45 studies from multiple countries were retained for full-text review. The results suggest that implementing COVID-19 passes tends to reduce the incidence of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths due to COVID-19. The use of COVID-19 passes was also shown to improve overall vaccination uptake and intention, but not in people who hold strong anti-COVID-19 vaccine beliefs.

CONCLUSION

The evidence from the literature we reviewed tends to indicate positive direct and indirect effects from the use of COVID-19 passes. A major limitation to establishing this firmly is the entanglement of individual effects of multiple measures being implemented simultaneously.

Intellectual Humility and Responsiveness to Public Health Recommendations

We examined the association between intellectual humility (IH)-a willingness to consider credible new information and alternative views and revise one's own views if warranted-and adherence to experts' health behavior recommendations in the U.S. during the COVID-19 pandemic. Study 1 (N = 541) results showed that people higher in IH are more likely to engage in recommended health behaviors (e.g., mask-wearing, social distancing)-even when controlling for political affiliation. Additional analyses focused specifically on mask-wearing produced initial evidence consistent with mediation of the IH-mask-wearing relationship by the beliefs that mask-wearing 1) is an effective way to slow the spread of COVID-19 and 2) protects others. Based on the pathway from IH to mask-wearing through a concern for others found in Study 1, Study 2 further examined the relationship between IH and prosocial tendencies. The results from Study 2 (Ns for correlation coefficients ranged from 265 to 702) showed an association between IH and several values and traits that reflect a concern for others (e.g., agreeableness, benevolence). These findings suggest that IH may influence behavior through both intra- and interpersonal mechanisms. Implications of these findings for the health-behavior domain are discussed.

Testing persuasive messages about booster doses of COVID-19 vaccines on intention to vaccinate in Australian adults: A randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Achieving high COVID-19 vaccine booster coverage is an ongoing global challenge. Health authorities need evidence about effective communication interventions to improve acceptance and uptake. This study aimed to test effects of persuasive messages about COVID-19 vaccine booster doses on intention to vaccinate amongst eligible adults in Australia.

METHODS

In this online randomised controlled trial, adult participants received one of four intervention messages or a control message. The control message provided information about booster dose eligibility. Intervention messages added to the control message, each using a different persuasive strategy, including: emphasising personal health benefits of booster doses, community health benefits, non-health benefits, and personal agency in choosing vaccination. After the intervention, participants answered items about COVID-19 booster vaccine intention and beliefs. Intervention groups were compared to the control using tests of two proportions; differences of ≥5 percentage points were deemed clinically significant. A sub-group analysis was conducted among hesitant participants.

RESULTS

Of the 487 consenting and randomised participants, 442 (90.8%) completed the experiment and were included in the analysis. Participants viewing messages emphasising non-health benefits had the highest intention compared to those who viewed the control message (percentage point diff: 9.0, 95% CI -0.8, 18.8, p = 0.071). Intention was even higher among hesitant individuals in this intervention group compared to the control group (percentage point diff: 15.6, 95% CI -6.0, 37.3, p = 0.150). Conversely, intention was lower among hesitant individuals who viewed messages emphasising personal agency compared to the control group (percentage point diff: -10.8, 95% CI -33.0, 11.4, p = 0.330), although evidence in support of these findings is weak.

CONCLUSION

Health authorities should highlight non-health benefits to encourage COVID-19 vaccine booster uptake but use messages emphasising personal agency with caution. These findings can inform communication message development and strategies to improve COVID-19 vaccine booster uptake. Clinical trial registration: Registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12622001404718); trial webpage: https://www.anzctr.org.au/ACTRN12622001404718.aspx.

How people use information about changes in infections and disease prevalence

OBJECTIVE

To determine the influence of two representative metrics of epidemiological risk, changes in new infections, and disease prevalence, on people's risk judgments and disease-prevention behaviors.

METHOD

Four experiments were conducted from August 2020 to May 2021. In Experiments 1 and 2, participants were exposed to information about different directions of change (upward and downward) and varying levels of prevalence of an infectious disease. In Experiments 3 and 4, participants were exposed to information about only one direction of change (upward or downward) and varying levels of prevalence. Participants reported risk judgments and intentions to engage in disease-prevention behaviors for each disease situation presented to them.

RESULTS

When both the direction of change and levels of prevalence varied, risk judgments and intentions were more influenced by change (vs. prevalence) information. Participants' reliance on prevalence information to guide risk judgments increased when they were presented with only an upward or downward change, particularly for situations with worsening infections. In all cases, the effects of epidemiological information on behavioral intentions were mediated by its effects on risk judgments.

CONCLUSIONS

Information about changes in infections consistently influences people's risk judgments and drive subsequent behavioral response. The impact of prevalence information, however, is limited to situations in which changes in infections are stable, such that it affects risk judgments and behavior decisions only when changes in infections demonstrate a constant upward or downward direction. The results point to the need for public health interventions to increase the impact of prevalence information. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

The Psychology of COVID-19 Booster Hesitancy, Acceptance and Resistance in Australia

COVID-19 booster vaccinations have been recommended as a primary line of defence against serious illness and hospitalisation. This study identifies and characterises distinct profiles of attitudes towards vaccination, particularly the willingness to get a booster dose. A sample of 582 adults from Australia completed an online survey capturing COVID-related behaviours, beliefs and attitudes and a range of sociodemographic, psychological, political, social and cultural variables. Latent Profile Analysis (LPA) identified three subgroups: Acceptant (61%), Hesitant (30%) and Resistant (9%). Compared to the Acceptant group, the Hesitant and Resistant groups were less worried about catching COVID-19, used fewer official COVID-19 information sources, checked the news less, were lower on the agreeableness personality dimension and reported more conservatism, persecutory thinking, amoral attitudes and need for chaos. The Hesitant group also reported checking the legitimacy of information sources less, scored lower on the openness to new experiences personality dimension and were more likely than the Resistant and Acceptant groups to report regaining freedoms (e.g., travel) and work requirements or external pressures as reasons to get a booster. The Resistant group were higher on reactance, held more conspiratorial beliefs and rated their culture as being less tolerant of deviance than the Hesitant and Acceptant groups. This research can inform tailored approaches to increasing booster uptake and optimal strategies for public health messaging.

Increases In COVID-19 Vaccination Among NYC Municipal Employees After Implementation Of Vaccination Requirements

In July 2021 New York City (NYC) instituted a requirement for all municipal employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19 or undergo weekly testing. The city eliminated the testing option November 1 of that year. We used general linear regression to compare changes in weekly primary vaccination series completion among NYC municipal employees ages 18-64 living in the city and a comparison group of all other NYC residents in this age group during May-December 2021. The rate of change in vaccination prevalence among NYC municipal employees was greater than that of the comparison group only after the testing option was eliminated (employee slope = 12.0; comparison slope = 5.3). Among racial and ethnic groups, the rate of change in vaccination prevalence among municipal employees was higher than the comparison group for Black and White people. The requirements were associated with narrowing the gap in vaccination prevalence between municipal employees and the comparison group overall and between Black municipal employees and employees from other racial and ethnic groups. Workplace requirements are a promising strategy for increasing vaccination among adults and reducing racial and ethnic disparities in vaccination uptake.

Direct Support Professionals and COVID-19 Vaccination: A Comparison of Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Direct Support Professionals

Direct support professionals (DSPs) may be at increased risk of contracting COVID-19 due to the proximal nature of their work. In response to the pandemic a three-wave study was launched to understand experiences of DSPs. An on-line national survey found that 70% of DSPs were vaccinated. Vaccinated DSPs were older and had higher education levels. Among the unvaccinated, 56% reported concerns about COVID-19 vaccination safety. Unvaccinated DSPs were more likely to report that the people they supported were also unvaccinated. Encouraging DSPs to get vaccinated to protect the people they support is essential. Paid time off, arranging for vaccinations, and setting an expectation for vaccination may encourage vaccination uptake among DSPs.

Explaining demographic differences in COVID-19 vaccination stage in the United States - April-May 2021

COVID-19 vaccine coverage in the US has marked demographic and geographical disparities, but few explanations exist for them. Our paper aimed to identify behavioral and social drivers that explain these vaccination disparities. Participants were a national probability sample of 3562 American adults, recruited from the Ipsos KnowledgePanel. Participants completed an online survey in spring 2021, when COVD-19 vaccination was available for higher-risk groups but not yet available to all US adults. The survey assessed COVID-19 vaccination stage (intentions and vaccine uptake), constructs from the Increasing Vaccination Model (IVM) domains (thinking and feeling, social processes, and direct behavior change), self-reported exposure to COVID-19 vaccine information, and demographic characteristics. Analyses used multiple imputation to address item nonresponse and linear regressions to conduct mediation analyses. Higher COVID-19 vaccination stage was strongly associated with older age, liberal political ideology, and higher income in adjusted analyses (all p < .001). Vaccination stage was more modestly associated with urbanicity, white race, and Hispanic ethnicity (all p < .05). Some key mediators that explained more than one-third of demographic differences in vaccination stage were perceived vaccine effectiveness, social norms, and recommendations from family and friends across most demographic characteristics (all p < .05). Other mediators included safety concerns, trust, altruism, provider recommendation, and information seeking. Access to vaccination, barriers to vaccination, and self-efficacy explained few demographic differences. One of the most reliable explanations for demographic differences in COVID-19 vaccination stage is social processes, including social norms, recommendations, and altruism. Interventions to promote COVID-19 vaccination should address social processes and other domains in the IVM.

Comparative effectiveness of mandates and financial policies targeting COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy: A randomized, controlled survey experiment

Experts debate whether COVID-19 vaccine mandates or financial incentives will reduce, rather than increase, interest in vaccination. Among 3,698 unvaccinated U.S. residents, we conducted a randomized, controlled survey-embedded experiment to estimate the absolute and relative psychological effects of vaccine policies specifying: mandates by employers or airlines, bars, and restaurants; lotteries for $1 million, $200,000, or $100,000; guaranteed cash for $1000, $200, or $100; and $1,000 as either a tax credit or penalty. Vaccine intention -the study outcome- predicts uptake and provides insight into the psychological mechanism that is most proximal to behavior (i.e., vaccination). Compared to controls, those who learned about the $1,000 cash reward policy were 17.1 (±5.3)% more likely to want vaccination. Employer mandates are more promising than other mandate policies (8.6 [+/- 7.4]% vs. 1.4 [+/- 6.0]%). The full results suggest that neither mandates nor financial incentives are likely to have counterproductive psychological effects. These policies are not mutually exclusive and, if implemented well, they may increase vaccine uptake.

Improving COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake among Black Populations: A Systematic Review of Strategies

Given the growing body of evidence on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among Black populations, the aim of this systematic review was to identify the interventions and strategies used to improve COVID-19 vaccine confidence and uptake among Black populations globally. To identify relevant studies, we conducted a systematic review of the literature based on a systematic search of 10 electronic databases: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Sociological Abstracts, Dissertations and Theses Global, and SocINDEX. We screened a total of 1728 records and included 14 peer-reviewed interventional studies that were conducted to address COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among Black populations. A critical appraisal of the included studies was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. The intervention strategies for increasing COVID-19 vaccine uptake were synthesized into three major categories: communication and information-based interventions, mandate-based interventions, and incentive-based interventions. Interventions that incorporated communication, community engagement, and culturally inclusive resources significantly improved vaccine uptake among Black populations, while incentive- and mandate-based interventions had less impact. Overall, this systematic review revealed that consideration of the sociocultural, historical, and political contexts of Black populations is important, but tailored interventions that integrate culture-affirming strategies are more likely to decrease COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and increase uptake among Black populations.

Psychological Reactance Theory and COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates: The Roles of Threat Magnitude and Direction of Threat

The current study examines psychological reactance theory (PRT), focusing on the role of threat directness and threat magnitude in the context of a COVID-19 vaccine mandate. Students on two college campuses in the United States (N = 374) were informed that their university or the other university (i.e., threat directness manipulation) was considering a vaccinate mandate for the following semester that would or would not include sanctions for noncompliance (i.e., threat magnitude manipulation). Participants experienced significantly greater freedom threat perceptions when the mandate included sanctions compared to when it did not, but freedom threat perception did not differ when the mandate was on their own campus as to the other campus. An interaction effect was also observed in which perceived freedom threat and reactance was greatest among participants receiving an indirect (as opposed to direct) threat with sanctions. Findings are discussed with an emphasis on the theoretical contribution to PRT along with the practical implications for vaccine mandates.

Does social influence affect COVID-19 vaccination intention among the unvaccinated?

Conformist social influence is a double-edged sword when it comes to vaccine promotion. On the one hand, social influence may increase vaccine uptake by reassuring the hesitant about the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine; on the other hand, people may forgo the cost of vaccination when the majority is already vaccinated - giving rise to a public goods dilemma. Here, we examine whether available information on the percentage of double-vaccinated people affects COVID-19 vaccination intention among unvaccinated people in Turkey. In an online experiment, we divided participants (n = 1013) into low, intermediate and high social influence conditions, reflecting the government's vaccine promotion messages. We found that social influence did not predict COVID-19 vaccination intention, but psychological reactance and collectivism did. People with higher reactance (intolerance of others telling one what to do and being sceptical of consensus views) had lower vaccination intention, whilst people with higher collectivism (how much a person considers group benefits over individual success) had higher vaccination intention. Our findings suggest that advertising the percentage of double-vaccinated people is not sufficient to trigger a cascade of others getting themselves vaccinated. Diverse promotion strategies reflecting the heterogeneity of individual attitudes could be more effective.

Public policy and conspiracies: The case of mandates

Although conspiracy theories are only endorsed by a minority, conspiracy theories can nonetheless compromise public health measures to control the COVID-19 pandemic. Individuals who endorse conspiracy theories were less likely to wear masks, comply with social distancing, or get vaccinated. This poses a challenge to public health policy, in particular because vaccine uptake lags behind targets because of resistance from a relatively small, but highly vocal, number of people. One policy tool is to enact vaccine mandates, which, while controversial, have successfully increased vaccination uptake. In this article, we review the evidence about whether mandates can be successful, and whether they trigger increased opposition and conspiracy beliefs. We discuss the implications for using mandates in public health policy and argue that decisions about mandates need to be weighed against the consequences of alternative measures—which may also increase conspiracy beliefs albeit for different reasons.

COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy: The Role of Information Sources and Beliefs in Dutch Adults

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy may be regarded as a new pandemic hindering the elimination of or coping with COVID-19. This study assessed reasons for COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy using the I-Change Model (ICM) by considering the role of informational and psychosocial factors. A cross-sectional online survey using a convenience sample was conducted among Dutch adults (n = 240). The questionnaire assessed information factors, predisposing factors, awareness factors, motivational factors, preparatory actions, and vaccination intention. Vaccine hesitant participants (n = 58, 24%) had lower levels of education, more often paid work, and tended to have a religion other than Catholicism. They used written media less often and tended to visit websites of public health organizations less often, but used messaging services like WhatsApp more frequently. All participants had neutral intentions towards checking information credibility. Vaccine hesitant respondents had less knowledge about vaccination, lower perceived severity of getting sick and dying of COVID-19, and reported fewer exposures to cues about the advantages of COVID-19 vaccination. They were less convinced of the emotional and rational advantages of COVID-19 vaccination and expressed more negative feelings about it. They also reported more negative social norms concerning COVID-19 vaccination, and lower self-efficacy to get vaccinated and to cope with potential side-effects. The regression model explained 58% of the variance in vaccination intention. The results suggest that strategies are needed to: 1. Reduce fake news and stimulate information checking to foster well-informed decision-making; 2. Target both rational and emotional consequences of COVID-19, in addition to strategies for optimizing levels of knowledge. Campaigns should acknowledge the perceptions of the emotional disadvantages and increase perceptions of emotional advantages of COVID-19 vaccinations, such as reducing feelings of regret, and increasing feelings of freedom and reassurance.