Intention to Vaccinate against COVID-19 among Young Adults: The Role of Conspiratorial Thinking.

Ivana Hromatko, Una Mikac, Meri Tadinac
Author Information
  1. Ivana Hromatko: Department of Psychology, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Zagreb, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia. ORCID
  2. Una Mikac: Department of Psychology, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Zagreb, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia. ORCID
  3. Meri Tadinac: Department of Psychology, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Zagreb, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia. ORCID

Abstract

The anti-scientific and anti-vaccine movements gained momentum amidst the health and socio-economic crisis brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic. These widespread pseudoscientific beliefs and the endorsement of conspiracy theories likely contributed to the COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. The aim of this study was to explore which variables best differentiated between groups of vaccinated (n = 289), vaccine-hesitant (n = 106), and vaccine-refusing (n = 146) young adults. The study was conducted online at the beginning of the mass vaccination campaign in Croatia when the vaccine just became available for younger and non-vulnerable members of the general population. The demographic variables, COVID-19 anxiety, and conspiratorial thinking regarding COVID-19 were entered into the discriminant analysis. The function explaining 89.2% of the group differences, mostly between the vaccinated and vaccine-refusing, was largely defined by conspiratorial thinking regarding COVID-19 (0.852), followed by variables with substantially less discriminative power, including COVID-19 anxiety (0.423; lower in the vaccine-refusing group), political orientation (0.486; vaccine-refusing leaning less to the left), financial and educational status (0.435 and 0.304, respectively; both lower in the vaccine-refusing group), and religiosity (0.301; higher in the vaccine-refusing group). These results confirm that among young adults, the decision to vaccinate against COVID-19 might be heavily influenced by one's proclivity to engage in conspiratorial thinking.

Keywords

References

  1. Vaccines (Basel). 2021 Aug 13;9(8): [PMID: 34452026]
  2. Nat Hum Behav. 2020 May;4(5):460-471 [PMID: 32355299]
  3. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2021 Dec 2;17(12):4816-4822 [PMID: 34613887]
  4. Cureus. 2018 Jul 3;10(7):e2919 [PMID: 30186724]
  5. Pers Individ Dif. 2022 Jan;184:111188 [PMID: 34393312]
  6. Vaccine. 2020 Jan 16;38(3):470-481 [PMID: 31767469]
  7. Front Psychol. 2021 Apr 30;12:664554 [PMID: 33995222]
  8. JAMA. 2015 Feb 10;313(6):567-8 [PMID: 25532102]
  9. BMC Public Health. 2021 Sep 16;21(1):1686 [PMID: 34530804]
  10. Soc Sci Med. 2022 May;301:114912 [PMID: 35354105]
  11. BMC Public Health. 2022 Sep 2;22(1):1667 [PMID: 36056325]
  12. Lancet Reg Health Eur. 2021 Feb;1:100012 [PMID: 33954296]
  13. Eur J Epidemiol. 2020 Aug;35(8):775-779 [PMID: 32785815]
  14. EClinicalMedicine. 2022 Jun;48:101454 [PMID: 35611343]
  15. Front Psychol. 2022 May 19;13:805586 [PMID: 35664191]
  16. Br J Health Psychol. 2020 May 16;: [PMID: 32779816]
  17. Eur J Epidemiol. 2011 Mar;26(3):203-10 [PMID: 21476079]
  18. Prev Med. 2021 Sep;150:106694 [PMID: 34171345]
  19. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2020 Jul 2;16(7):1508-1510 [PMID: 31743073]
  20. PLoS Med. 2020 Oct 15;17(10):e1003354 [PMID: 33057373]
  21. PLoS Curr. 2015 Feb 25;7: [PMID: 25789201]
  22. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2017 Dec;26(6):538-542 [PMID: 29276345]
  23. R Soc Open Sci. 2020 Oct 14;7(10):201199 [PMID: 33204475]
  24. Glob Transit. 2020;2:76-82 [PMID: 32835202]
  25. Vaccines (Basel). 2021 Feb 16;9(2): [PMID: 33669441]
  26. PLoS Biol. 2020 Mar 27;18(3):e3000683 [PMID: 32218568]
  27. J Community Health. 2021 Apr;46(2):270-277 [PMID: 33389421]
  28. PLoS One. 2020 Dec 17;15(12):e0243704 [PMID: 33332400]
  29. Lancet. 2021 Nov 6;398(10312):1700-1712 [PMID: 34634250]
  30. Psychol Med. 2022 Jan;52(2):251-263 [PMID: 32436485]
  31. Nat Commun. 2022 Jul 1;13(1):3801 [PMID: 35778396]
  32. Isr J Health Policy Res. 2022 Mar 22;11(1):16 [PMID: 35317859]
  33. Front Psychol. 2020 Oct 23;11:566790 [PMID: 33192844]
  34. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2020 Nov 1;16(11):2586-2593 [PMID: 32693678]
  35. Eur Econ Rev. 2022 Nov;150:104293 [PMID: 36188054]
  36. Front Psychol. 2021 Jun 18;12:643568 [PMID: 34220613]
  37. Brain Behav Immun Health. 2021 Dec;18:100375 [PMID: 34693366]
  38. Public Health. 2021 May;194:245-251 [PMID: 33965796]
  39. Vaccine. 2020 May 27;38(26):4170-4182 [PMID: 32376108]
  40. BMC Psychol. 2022 Mar 15;10(1):66 [PMID: 35292110]
  41. Am J Prev Med. 2022 May;62(5):679-687 [PMID: 35012830]
  42. PLoS One. 2017 Feb 23;12(2):e0172617 [PMID: 28231266]
  43. Vaccines (Basel). 2021 Jun 17;9(6): [PMID: 34204379]
  44. J Cogn. 2020 Jan 10;3(1):2 [PMID: 31934684]
  45. Soc Psychol Personal Sci. 2020 Nov;11(8):1110-1118 [PMID: 38602949]
  46. Br J Health Psychol. 2020 Nov;25(4):957-980 [PMID: 32583540]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0COVID-19vaccine-refusing0vaccineconspiratorialthinkinggroupvariablesn=youngadultshesitancystudyvaccinatedanxietyregardinglessloweramonganti-scientificanti-vaccinemovementsgainedmomentumamidsthealthsocio-economiccrisisbroughtpandemicwidespreadpseudoscientificbeliefsendorsementconspiracytheorieslikelycontributedaimexplorebestdifferentiatedgroups289vaccine-hesitant106146conductedonlinebeginningmassvaccinationcampaignCroatiajustbecameavailableyoungernon-vulnerablemembersgeneralpopulationdemographicentereddiscriminantanalysisfunctionexplaining892%differencesmostlylargelydefined852followedsubstantiallydiscriminativepowerincluding423politicalorientation486leaningleftfinancialeducationalstatus435304respectivelyreligiosity301higherresultsconfirmdecisionvaccinatemightheavilyinfluencedone'sproclivityengageIntentionVaccinateYoungAdults:RoleConspiratorialThinking

Similar Articles

Cited By

No available data.