Reckless spreader or blameless victim? How vaccination status affects responses to COVID-19 patients.
Attribution theory
COVID-19 vaccination
Perceived responsibility
Journal
Social science & medicine (1982)
ISSN: 1873-5347
Titre abrégé: Soc Sci Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8303205
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 2022
07 2022
Historique:
received:
19
01
2022
revised:
18
05
2022
accepted:
25
05
2022
pubmed:
7
6
2022
medline:
22
6
2022
entrez:
6
6
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Vaccination against Covid-19 has become an increasingly polarizing issue in western democracies. While much research has focused on social-psychological determinants of vaccine hesitancy, less is known about the attitudes and behaviors of the vaccinated populations towards those who are unvaccinated. Building on Weiner's attribution theory (2005, 1985, 1980), we predict that vaccination status determines the attribution of personal responsibility and blame in Covid-19 social dilemmas. This in turn explains people's affective and behavioral responses towards those who have fallen ill or infected others with COVID-19. Through two preregistered experiments (total N = 1200) we show that people attribute greater personal responsibility when unvaccinated (vs. vaccinated) people fall ill from, or infect others with COVID-19. This attribution of responsibility manifested in less sympathy towards unvaccinated COVID-19 patients, which was associated with a lower willingness to help patients and their families (Study 1). Likewise, higher perceived responsibility results in greater anger towards unvaccinated people who had (involuntarily) infected others with the virus, which was associated with a greater desire for punitive actions (Study 2). These findings suggest that unvaccinated people experience blame as well as negative attitudes and behaviors from the vaccinated population. This could in turn strengthen people's refusal to get vaccinated and increase polarization between vaccine supporters and vaccine critics.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Vaccination against Covid-19 has become an increasingly polarizing issue in western democracies. While much research has focused on social-psychological determinants of vaccine hesitancy, less is known about the attitudes and behaviors of the vaccinated populations towards those who are unvaccinated. Building on Weiner's attribution theory (2005, 1985, 1980), we predict that vaccination status determines the attribution of personal responsibility and blame in Covid-19 social dilemmas. This in turn explains people's affective and behavioral responses towards those who have fallen ill or infected others with COVID-19.
APPROACH
Through two preregistered experiments (total N = 1200) we show that people attribute greater personal responsibility when unvaccinated (vs. vaccinated) people fall ill from, or infect others with COVID-19. This attribution of responsibility manifested in less sympathy towards unvaccinated COVID-19 patients, which was associated with a lower willingness to help patients and their families (Study 1). Likewise, higher perceived responsibility results in greater anger towards unvaccinated people who had (involuntarily) infected others with the virus, which was associated with a greater desire for punitive actions (Study 2).
CONCLUSION
These findings suggest that unvaccinated people experience blame as well as negative attitudes and behaviors from the vaccinated population. This could in turn strengthen people's refusal to get vaccinated and increase polarization between vaccine supporters and vaccine critics.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35660696
pii: S0277-9536(22)00395-1
doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115089
pmc: PMC9142174
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
115089Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.
Références
Soc Sci Med. 2021 Dec;291:114480
pubmed: 34662759
Psychol Rev. 1985 Oct;92(4):548-73
pubmed: 3903815
Vaccines (Basel). 2021 Mar 22;9(3):
pubmed: 33810131
Lancet. 2021 Nov 20;398(10314):1871
pubmed: 34801101
Soc Sci Med. 2020 Nov;265:113414
pubmed: 33038683
Soc Sci Med. 2020 Oct;263:113356
pubmed: 32967786
Soc Sci Med. 2016 Jun;159:48-57
pubmed: 27173740
Lancet Infect Dis. 2022 Mar;22(3):357-366
pubmed: 34562375
J Psychol. 1993 Jan;127(1):37-50
pubmed: 8510051
J Med Ethics. 2021 Feb;47(2):78-85
pubmed: 33154088
Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2008 Mar;21(2):201-5
pubmed: 18332671
Behav Res Methods. 2009 May;41(2):486-98
pubmed: 19363189
J Exp Psychol Appl. 2011 Dec;17(4):354-70
pubmed: 21988326
Nat Med. 2021 Aug;27(8):1338-1339
pubmed: 34272500
Nat Hum Behav. 2021 Jul;5(7):947-953
pubmed: 33972767
Soc Sci Med. 2014 Jul;112:1-11
pubmed: 24788111
Soc Sci Med. 2022 Feb;294:114699
pubmed: 35030400
J Health Commun. 2012;17(6):713-32
pubmed: 22424157
Soc Sci Med. 2022 Jan;292:114195
pubmed: 34602309
Soc Sci Med. 2019 Mar;224:23-27
pubmed: 30735925
Multivariate Behav Res. 2015;50(1):1-22
pubmed: 26609740
Front Psychol. 2013 Nov 26;4:863
pubmed: 24324449
N Engl J Med. 2020 Dec 31;383(27):2603-2615
pubmed: 33301246
Psychol Methods. 2011 Jun;16(2):93-115
pubmed: 21500915