Protect ya Grandma! The Effects of Students' Epistemic Beliefs and Prosocial Values on COVID-19 Vaccination Intentions

"These results highlight the crucial role of science and public health communication in fostering vaccination intentions regarding COVID-19."

During the COVID-19 pandemic, scientists and their insights have moved into the centre of media attention and thus the public realm. In these times, laypeople are challenged to engage with scientific knowledge - hopefully, in a nuanced and meaningful way. This study investigates epistemic beliefs (beliefs about the nature of knowledge and knowing) and prosocial values as predictors of COVID-19 vaccination intentions. Although young adults may be at a lower risk regarding the viral disease, their sociability and mobility render their becoming vaccinated important to curb the spread of infections. Therefore, the study focuses on investigating young adults' vaccination intentions.

The paper begins by exploring the relationship between epistemic beliefs and vaccination intentions. Reliable scientific information on COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccinations is mostly given by medical experts (e.g., virologists, epidemiologists, or public health officials), who represent an epistemic authority to laypeople in this area of expertise. Hence, if individuals believe that expertise and authority are important aspects of the knowledge generation process, they will more likely form their opinions regarding COVID-19 vaccinations based on reliable scientific information, which (to date [March 2021] as well as by the time the study was conducted [January–February 2021]), strongly suggest that the COVID-19 vaccinations are safe and effective. Turning to such information may therefore increase vaccination intentions. Hence, the study hypothesises that: There is a positive correlation between justification by authority and COVID-19 vaccination intentions [H1].

The second hypothesis [H2] is that there is a positive relationship between prosocial values (e.g., benevolence) and vaccination intentions. In short, values are the social representation of deeply rooted basic motivations, and therefore affect individual opinions, attitudes, and behaviour. Sharing each other's values elicits a sense of connectedness between people, which should lead to more prosocial behaviour. Becoming vaccinated is a prosocial act, since it not only protects oneself but also one's social environment. This is especially true for younger people, who have less risk of developing severe disease.

Third, the researchers hypothesise [H3] that beliefs in justification by authority moderate the relationship between prosocial values and vaccination intentions, so that the positive correlation between prosocial values and vaccination intentions becomes stronger with increasing beliefs in justification by authority.

These hypotheses were tested in an online study (January 22 2021 - February 1 2021) with 314 German university students, using correlational and multiple regression analyses. Students who were pregnant, had already been vaccinated against COVID-19, or had already had COVID-19 were not eligible for participation, as these factors may bias results due to their influence on vaccination intentions.

Results revealed a highly significant positive relationship between justification by authority and vaccination intentions [H1], whereas both hypotheses that included prosocial values did not yield significant results. The researchers explore numerous reasons for the fact that H2 and H3 were not confirmed. For example, the lack of a scientific consensus (by the time of data collection) on the protection of others through vaccination may have led to even those individuals who value expertise and authority to not recognise the "prosocial" benefits of COVID-19 vaccination.

Additional exploratory analyses revealed that the relationship between justification by authority and vaccination intentions was mediated by beliefs in the safety and effectiveness of the vaccines. ("Individuals with strong beliefs in personal justification value a knowledge generation process based on their personal views and opinions..., which implies a rejection of the scientific method as a whole. Hence, they might have succumbed to a rather abstract feeling of doubt regarding the safety and effectiveness of the 'new' vaccines, not acknowledging the rather favorable scientific evidence.") Furthermore, significant negative relationships were found between personal justification and vaccination intentions as well as between justification by multiple sources and vaccination intentions (e.g., "high beliefs in justification by multiple sources might have led to individuals rejecting the (almost unanimously positive) 'mainstream' information on COVID-19 vaccinations by referring, for example, to anti-vaccination sites or dubious social media channels.")

The researchers derive two main implications from these findings:

1. "[P]ublic perceptions of expertise and authority are extremely important with regard to the vaccination campaign. If individuals acknowledge the crucial role of scientists and public health experts in justifying COVID-19 related knowledge claims, they will, through increased safety and effectiveness beliefs, be more willing to become vaccinated against the disease. For this reason, science and public health communication should be a key element of each and every country's COVID-19 response strategy....Openness and transparency have long been suggested as a central factor in building trust..."
2. Authorities should exercise caution in communicating potential side effects of COVID-19 vaccines. "If authorities question the safety of a vaccine (either by direct communication or indirectly through limiting its use), this has considerable potential to reduce the vaccination willingness of the population - particularly in those who value expertise and authority."

In conclusion: "If the public no longer believes in expertise as a justification for the response to the pandemic, controlling COVID-19 becomes impossible - be it through vaccinations, testing, masks, or non-pharmaceutical interventions. Therefore, effective crisis communication is now more important than ever."

Full list of authors, with institutional affiliations: Tom Rosman, Leibniz Institute for Psychology (ZPID), Research Literacy Unit; and the following authors contributed equally and are affiliated with the University of Trier: Kathrin Adler, Luisa Barbian, Vanessa Blume, Benno Burczeck, Vivien Cordes, Dilara Derman, Susanne Dertli, Hannah Glas, Virginia Heinen, Stefan Kenst, Marie Khosroschahli, Laura Kittel, Corinna Kraus, Alica Linden, Anastasia Mironova, Lena Olinger, Fatbardh Rastelica, Theresia Sauter, Vera Schnurr, Elisabeth Schwab, Yves Vieyra, Andreas Zidak, and Ivana Zidarova.