Afraid but misinformed: Conspiracist beliefs cancel the positive influence of fear of COVID-19 on vaccination intentions - Findings from a Romanian sample

Understanding the factors that make people more likely to refuse vaccination against COVID-19 is crucial in order to design public health messages efficient in increasing vaccination rates. As COVID-19 creates risks of seriously damaging health effects, fear of this disease is as a significant determinant of vaccination intentions, as indicated by past research. Nevertheless, this positive influence may be limited in people who do not consider vaccines as a solution to protect against COVID-19, especially those who hold conspiracist beliefs about the new coronavirus and, implicitly, about the newly developed vaccines. The present study examined in a cross-sectional design on a convenience sample (N = 564) the joint effect of fear of COVID-19 and conspiracist beliefs on vaccination intentions, advancing past research on their independent influences. Furthermore, we investigated and controlled the effects of perceived risk of catching COVID-19, trust in medical experts, attitude towards vaccination and socio-demographical characteristics (i.e., gender, age, and education), previously found to be associated to COVID-19 vaccination intentions. We also tested the effect of ambivalence towards vaccination, i.e., the degree to which people simultaneously hold positive and negative evaluations of this intervention, as the widespread misinformation on the new coronavirus and its vaccines may induce ambivalence on this latter issue in many people. The results showed that the positive effect of fear of COVID-19 on vaccination intentions emerged only in participants who tend not to endorse conspiracist ideas on the new coronavirus. Moreover, higher vaccine hesitancy was found in participants with higher ambivalence towards vaccination, in those who perceive the risk of being contaminated by the new coronavirus as low, and in those with more negative attitudes towards vaccines in general. Vaccine ambivalence also emerged as a mediator of the negative effects of conspiracist beliefs about COVID-19 on vaccination intentions. This pattern of findings suggests the public messages emphasizing the risks of COVID-19 should also combat misinformation in order to maximize vaccine uptake.

A Person-Centered Approach to Moralization-The Case of Vaping

Using e-cigarettes for smoking cessation is a controversial topic among health experts. Evidence suggests that vaping might have been moralized among the general public. Despite the detrimental consequences of moralizing health behaviors on social cohesion and health, some argue for using moralization strategically to prevent and combat vaping. We aim to add to the body of literature showing the dangers of moralization in health by proposing a person-centered approach to the moralization of anti-vaping attitudes. Our cross-sectional survey explores the moralization of anti-vaping attitudes and its predictors on a convenience sample of 348 Romanian never-vapers, before the final vote to severely restrict vaping. By fitting a hierarchical regression model on our data, we found support for a unique contribution of negative prototypes (β = 0.13) and opinions of vapers (β = 0.08) in predicting moralization, with significant contributions of piggybacking on moralized self-control, on moralized attitudes toward smoking and on sanctity/degradation, disgust, anger, harm to children, and gender. Together, these variables explained 56% of the variance of the moralization of anti-vaping attitudes. Our findings add to our knowledge of motivated moralization and advise against using moralization in health, suggesting that people may weaponize it to legitimize group dislike.

Ethical Predispositions to Violate or Obey Traffic Rules and the Mediating Role of Driving Styles

Traffic law violations are the most important determinants of traffic accidents. This study examined the influence of drivers' ethical perspective on their traffic violations and the mediating role of driving styles in these relationships. A sample of 313 drivers participated in the study. Contrary to expectations, high ethical relativism was found to be associated with fewer aggressive traffic violations. This suggests that the informal normative system that parallels the official traffic regulations is the more salient reference against which drivers usually assess the adequacy of their behaviors, highly relativistic drivers being more willing to also take into consideration the official traffic code in these appraisals. We also found significant interactions between idealism and relativism on both ordinary and aggressive violations. Idealism emerged as a predictor of these violations only in drivers low in relativism. In this group, one's concern about the harm that he/she might cause to other traffic participants induces higher traffic law abidingness. These influences of idealism were mediated by certain driving styles. Drivers' general ethical perspective fosters a specific pattern of driving styles and, consequently, the tendency to commit or to refrain from traffic violations.