19
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Parental Decision-Making on Childhood Vaccination

      methods-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          A growing number of parents delay vaccinations or are deciding not to vaccinate their children altogether. This increases the risk of contracting vaccine-preventable diseases and disrupting herd immunity, and also impairs the trust in the capacities of health care systems to protect people. Vaccine hesitancy is related to a range of both psychological and demographic determinants, such as attitudes toward vaccinations, social norms, and trust in science. Our aim is to understand those determinants in parents, because they are a special group in this issue—they act as proxy decision makers for their children, who are unable to decide for themselves. The fact that deciding to vaccinate is a socially forced choice that concerns a child's health makes vaccine-related decisions highly important and involving for parents. This high involvement might lead to parents overemphasizing the potential side effects that they know to be vaccine-related, and by amplifying those, parents are more focused on the potential outcomes of vaccine-related decisions, which can yield specific pattern of the outcome bias. We propose two related studies to investigate factors which promote vaccine hesitancy, protective factors that determine parental vaccination decisions, and outcome bias in parental vaccination intentions. We will explore demographic and psychological factors, and test parental involvement related to vaccine hesitancy using an online battery in a correlation panel design study. The second study is an experimental study, in which we will investigate the moderating role of parents' high involvement in the specific domain of vaccination decision making. We expect that higher involvement among parents, compared to non-parents, will shape the pattern of the proneness to outcome bias. The studies will be conducted across eight countries in Europe and Asia (Finland, Germany, Hong Kong, the Netherlands, Serbia, Slovenia, Spain, and the United Kingdom), rendering findings that will aid with understanding the underlying mechanisms of vaccine hesitancy and paving the way for developing interventions custom-made for parents.

          Related collections

          Most cited references100

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Inoculating the Public against Misinformation about Climate Change

          Effectively addressing climate change requires significant changes in individual and collective human behavior and decision‐making. Yet, in light of the increasing politicization of (climate) science, and the attempts of vested‐interest groups to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change through organized “disinformation campaigns,” identifying ways to effectively engage with the public about the issue across the political spectrum has proven difficult. A growing body of research suggests that one promising way to counteract the politicization of science is to convey the high level of normative agreement (“consensus”) among experts about the reality of human‐caused climate change. Yet, much prior research examining public opinion dynamics in the context of climate change has done so under conditions with limited external validity. Moreover, no research to date has examined how to protect the public from the spread of influential misinformation about climate change. The current research bridges this divide by exploring how people evaluate and process consensus cues in a polarized information environment. Furthermore, evidence is provided that it is possible to pre‐emptively protect (“inoculate”) public attitudes about climate change against real‐world misinformation.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Adaptive strategy selection in decision making.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              On the elicitation of preferences for alternative therapies.

              We investigated how variations in the way information is presented to patients influence their choices between alternative therapies. Data were presented summarizing the results of surgery and radiation therapy for lung cancer to 238 ambulatory patients with different chronic medical conditions and to 491 graduate students and 424 physicians. We asked the subjects to imagine that they had lung cancer and to choose between the two therapies on the basis of both cumulative probabilities and life-expectancy data. Different groups of respondents received input data that differed only in whether or not the treatments were identified and whether the outcomes were framed in terms of the probability of living or the probability of dying. In all three populations, the attractiveness of surgery, relative to radiation therapy, was substantially greater when the treatments were identified rather than unidentified, when the information consisted of life expectancy rather than cumulative probability, and when the problem was framed in terms of the probability of living rather than in terms of the probability of dying. We suggest that an awareness of these effects among physicians and patients could help reduce bias and improve the quality of medical decision making.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Psychol
                Front Psychol
                Front. Psychol.
                Frontiers in Psychology
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                1664-1078
                13 June 2018
                2018
                : 9
                : 735
                Affiliations
                [1] 1Laboratory for Experimental Psychology, Department of Psychology, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade , Belgrade, Serbia
                [2] 2Department of Psychology, Faculty of Philosophy, Christian-Albrechts-University Kiel , Kiel, Germany
                [3] 3Faculty of Social Sciences, School of Psychology, University of Kent , Canterbury, United Kingdom
                [4] 4Department of Psychology, Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana , Ljubljana, Slovenia
                [5] 5Faculty of Psychology, University of Basque Country , Bilbao, Spain
                [6] 6Department of Psychology and Logopedics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki , Helsinki, Finland
                [7] 7Department of Psychology, Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of Maastricht , Maastricht, Netherlands
                Author notes

                Edited by: Pietro Cipresso, Istituto Auxologico Italiano (IRCCS), Italy

                Reviewed by: Nicola Luigi Bragazzi, Università di Genova, Italy; Gabriel José Corrêa Mograbi, Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso, Brazil

                *Correspondence: Kaja Damnjanović kdamnjan@ 123456f.bg.ac.rs

                This article was submitted to Quantitative Psychology and Measurement, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology

                Article
                10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00735
                6008886
                29951010
                87edf369-10a0-4437-9f5a-4acf79cc9fe0
                Copyright © 2018 Damnjanović, Graeber, Ilić, Lam, Lep, Morales, Pulkkinen and Vingerhoets.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 31 October 2017
                : 26 April 2018
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 3, Equations: 0, References: 131, Pages: 14, Words: 12814
                Categories
                Psychology
                Protocols

                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                vaccine,involvement,vaccine hesitancy,immunization,health decisions,decision-making,parents,outcome bias

                Comments

                Comment on this article