Vaccination conspiracy beliefs among social science & humanities and STEM educated people-An analysis of the mediation paths

Vaccine Conspiracy Beliefs Scale: Validation and Measurement Invariance in a Youth Sample

The Vaccine Conspiracy Beliefs Scale (VCBS) is a widely used measure of conspiracy beliefs about vaccines, but evidence of its validity and measurement invariance, especially in youth samples, is still largely missing. The present study examined VCBS scores' factor structure, measurement invariance, convergent and discriminant validity, and incremental predictive validity. A sample of 803 Serbian youths (age range 15-24; 59.2% females) was recruited for the study. A modified single-factor model of the VCBS was supported, and showed evidence of full scalar invariance across gender, age, vaccination status, and personal history of COVID-19. Evidence of the VCBS scores' convergent and discriminant validity was obtained by examining associations with general conspiracy beliefs, vaccination attitudes, vaccination knowledge, intentions to get vaccinated against COVID-19, paranoia worries, fear of injections and blood draws, importance of God, self-rated health, and self-rated family's financial situation. The VCBS scores predicted a unique variance in the intention to get vaccinated against COVID-19, over and above vaccination attitudes and vaccination knowledge. The results suggest that the VCBS is a valid measure of vaccine conspiracy beliefs in youth.

Narcissistic susceptibility to conspiracy beliefs exaggerated by education, reduced by cognitive reflection

Conspiracy theories are alternate viewpoints of provided explanations; sensational stories revolving around small groups exerting control for nefarious reasons. Recent events and research have outlined myriad negative social and personal outcomes for those who endorse them. Prior research suggests several predictors of susceptibility to conspiracy theories, including narcissistic personality traits (grandiosity, need for uniqueness), cognitive processes (critical thinking, confirmation bias) and lack of education. The aim of the current paper was to explore how facets of narcissism predict susceptibility to conspiracy theories. It was expected that narcissism would be a positive predictor, but education and cognitive reflection would act as protective factors, reducing this effect. Study one utilized an international survey (N = 323) to investigate the role of education as a protective tool in the relationship between narcissistic traits and conspiratorial beliefs. Support was found for the hypotheses that individuals with higher levels of grandiosity, vulnerable narcissism, a strive for uniqueness, and a strive for supremacy predicted higher levels of conspiracy endorsement. Higher education and STEM education were associated with lower levels of conspiracy endorsement, however all significant moderations indicated that for narcissistic individuals, education increased their likelihood of adopting conspiracy beliefs, contrary to expectation. To investigate this further, study two analyzed a large-scale publicly available dataset (N = 51,404) to assess the relationship between narcissism, critical thinking skills (specifically cognitive reflection) and conspiracy beliefs pertaining to the COVID-19 pandemic. As expected, analysis found narcissism and poor cognitive reflection (intuitive thinking) as predictors of conspiracy beliefs. Higher levels of cognitive reflection were found to be protective, moderating and reducing the impact of narcissism on endorsement of conspiracy theories. The findings suggest that cognitive reflection, but not education protect against narcissistic conspiracy belief. Moreover, that cognitive reflection may have a lessened effect against conspiracy theories adopted for social or ideological reasons. These findings improve understanding of both the role and limitations of education/critical thinking skills as protective factors against conspiracy theory endorsement.

Contributions of Trustworthiness, Health Literacy, and Self-Efficacy in Communicating With COVID-19 Vaccine–Hesitant Audiences: Web-Based Survey Study

Background

Large-scale health communication challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic, such as widespread misinformation and distrust in health care professionals, have influenced reluctance to take the COVID-19 vaccine, also known as vaccine hesitancy. Trust in health professionals, adequate health literacy, and high self-efficacy are key components of actively pursuing preventative and protective health care measures. These factors may be associated with intentions to seek and complete a COVID-19 vaccine dosing.

Objective

The objective of this analysis was to identify factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy.

Methods

In February 2021, US adults (N=5872) responded to a web-based survey on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and components of health communication (trust in sources of health information, health literacy, and self-efficacy). Multivariable logistic regression models were used to explore associations between these factors and vaccine hesitancy while adjusting for key demographics. We hypothesized that low levels of trust, health literacy, and self-efficacy would be associated with increased vaccine hesitancy.

Results

The adjusted odds of vaccine hesitancy was greater among those who placed little to no trust in health professionals compared to those who held a lot of trust (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 8.54, 95% CI 6.52-11.19). The odds of vaccine hesitancy was also greater among those who felt frustrated about finding health information compared to those who did not (AOR 2.10, 95% CI 1.62-2.70). Participants who had little to no confidence in receiving health advice or information had greater odds of vaccine hesitancy compared to those who had a lot of confidence (AOR 3.05, 95% CI 2.34-3.97).

Conclusions

This study underscores the importance of trust between health professionals and their patients, and a need for improving health literacy regarding vaccines. Perceptions of mistrust and low levels of health literacy were associated with high levels of vaccine hesitancy, providing empirical support of framing these factors as perceived barriers to vaccine uptake.

Expert-Led Module Improves Non-STEM Undergraduate Perception of and Willingness to Receive COVID-19 Vaccines

As evidence mounted that existing prevention methods would be insufficient to end the COVID-19 pandemic, it became clear that vaccines would be critical to achieve and maintain reduced rates of infection. However, vaccine-hesitant sentiments have become widespread, particularly in populations with lower scientific literacy. The non-STEM major (called non-major) college students represent one such population who rely on one or more science classes to develop their scientific literacy and thus, become candidates of interest for the success of the COVID-19 vaccine campaign. As these students have fewer opportunities to learn how to identify reputable scientific sources or judge the validity of novel scientific findings, it is particularly important that these skills are included in the science courses offered to non-majors. Two concurrent non-major biology courses (N = 98) at the University of Alabama at Birmingham in Spring 2021 completed Likert questionnaires with open-ended questions prior to and after an expert-led Vaccine Awareness educational intervention addressing vaccine-related concerns. In the module, experts gave presentations about COVID-19 related to microbiology, epidemiological factors, and professional experiences relating to COVID-19. Ten students agreed to participate in post-semester one-on-one interviews. Student interviews revealed that students perceived guest lecturers as providing more information and assurance. Questionnaire data showed an increase in student willingness to accept a COVID-19 vaccine as well as increased student perception of the COVID-19 vaccines as both safe and effective (Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test, p < 0.05). However, the questionnaire data revealed 10 of 98 students remained vaccine-resistant, and these students expressed insufficient research and side effects as leading vaccination concerns. Overall, we show expert-led modules can be effective in increasing non-majors willingness to accept COVID-19 vaccines. Future research should explore the experiences of non-majors and guest lectures, particularly as they relate to vaccination and vaccine concerns.