An official website of the United States government
How people reason about disease transmission is central to their commonsense theories, scientific literacy, and adherence to public health guidelines. This study provided an in-depth assessment of U.S. children’s (ages 5-12, N=180) and their parents’ (N=125) understanding of viral transmission of COVID-19 and the common cold, during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. The primary aim was to discover children’s causal models of viral transmission, by asking them to predict and explain counter-intuitive outcomes (e.g., asymptomatic disease, symptom delay, viral replication) and processes that cannot be directly observed (e.g., viral replication, how vaccines work). A secondary aim was to explore parental factors that might contribute to children’s understanding. Although even the youngest children understood germs as disease-causing and were highly knowledgeable about certain behaviors that transmit or block viral disease (e.g., sneezing, mask-wearing), they generally failed to appreciate the processes that play out over time within the body. Overall, children appeared to rely on two competing mental models of viruses: one in which viruses operate strictly via mechanical processes (movement through space), and one in which viruses are small living creatures, able to grow in size and to move by themselves. These results suggest that distinct causal frameworks co-exist in children's understanding. A challenge for the future is how to teach children about illness as a biological process without also fostering inappropriate animism or anthropomorphism of viruses.
more »
« less
Scientific and Folk Theories of Viral Transmission: A Comparison of COVID-19 and the Common Cold
Disease transmission is a fruitful domain in which to examine how scientific and folk theories interrelate, given laypeople’s access to multiple sources of information to explain events of personal significance. The current paper reports an in-depth survey of U.S. adults’ ( N = 238) causal reasoning about two viral illnesses: a novel, deadly disease that has massively disrupted everyone’s lives (COVID-19), and a familiar, innocuous disease that has essentially no serious consequences (the common cold). Participants received a series of closed-ended and open-ended questions probing their reasoning about disease transmission, with a focus on causal mechanisms underlying disease contraction, transmission, treatment, and prevention; non-visible (internal) biological processes; and ontological frameworks regarding what kinds of entities viruses are. We also assessed participants’ attitudes, such as their trust in scientific experts and willingness to be vaccinated. Results indicated complexity in people’s reasoning, consistent with the co-existence of multiple explanatory frameworks. An understanding of viral transmission and viral replication existed alongside folk theories, placeholder beliefs, and lack of differentiation between viral and non-viral disease. For example, roughly 40% of participants who explained illness in terms of the transmission of viruses also endorsed a non-viral folk theory, such as exposure to cold weather or special foods as curative. Additionally, participants made use of competing modes of construal (biological, mechanical, and psychological) when explaining how viruses operate, such as framing the immune system response (biological) as cells trying to fight off the virus (psychological). Indeed, participants who displayed greater knowledge about viral transmission were significantly more likely to anthropomorphize bodily processes. Although comparisons of COVID-19 and the common cold revealed relatively few differences, the latter, more familiar disease elicited consistently lower levels of accuracy and greater reliance on folk theories. Moreover, for COVID-19 in particular, accuracy positively correlated with attitudes (trusting medical scientists and taking the disease more seriously), self-protective behaviors (such as social distancing and mask-wearing), and willingness to be vaccinated. For both diseases, self-assessed knowledge about the disease negatively predicted accuracy. The results are discussed in relation to challenges for formal models of explanatory reasoning.
more »
« less
- PAR ID:
- 10344655
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Frontiers in Psychology
- Volume:
- 13
- ISSN:
- 1664-1078
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Causal information, from health guidance on diets that prevent disease to financial advice for growing savings, is everywhere. Psychological research has shown that people can readily use causal information to make decisions and choose interventions. However, this work has mainly focused on novel systems rather than everyday domains, such as health and finance. Recent research suggests that in familiar scenarios, causal information can lead to worse decisions than having no information at all, but the mechanism behind this effect is not yet known. We aimed to address this by studying whether people reason differently when they receive causal information and whether the type of reasoning affects decision quality. For a set of decisions about health and personal finance, we used quantitative (e.g., decision accuracy) and qualitative (e.g., free-text descriptions of decision processes) methods to capture decision quality and how people used the provided information. We found that participants given causal information focused on different aspects than did those who did not receive causal information and that reasoning linked to better decisions with no information was associated with worse decisions with causal information. Furthermore, people brought in many aspects of their existing knowledge and preferences, going beyond the conclusions licensed by the provided information. Our findings provide new insights into why decision quality differs systematically between familiar and novel scenarios and suggest directions for future work guiding everyday choices.more » « less
-
Beginning in early 2020, the novel coronavirus was the subject of frequent and sustained news coverage. Building on prior literature on the stress-inducing effects of consuming news during a large-scale crisis, we used network analysis to investigate the association between coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) news consumption, COVID-19-related psychological stress, worries about oneself and one’s loved ones getting COVID-19, and sleep quality. Data were collected in March 2020 from 586 adults (45.2% female; 72.9% White) recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk in the U.S. Participants completed online surveys assessing attitudes and behaviors related to COVID-19 and a questionnaire assessing seven domains of sleep quality. Networks were constructed using partial regularized correlation matrices. As hypothesized, COVID-19 news consumption was positively associated with COVID-19-related psychological stress and concerns about one’s loved ones getting COVID-19. However, there were very few associations between COVID-19 news consumption and sleep quality indices, and gender did not moderate any of the observed relationships. This study replicates and extends previous findings that COVID-19-news consumption is linked with psychological stress related to the pandemic, but even under such conditions, sleep quality can be spared due to the pandemic allowing for flexibility in morning work/school schedules.more » « less
-
Abstract COVID-19 creates an opportunity for science classrooms to relate content about viruses to students’ personal experiences with the pandemic. Previous researchers have shown that students are interested in crisis situations like disease outbreaks; however, they primarily acquire information about these events through internet sources which are often biased. We argue that it is important to understand student interest, concerns, and information-seeking behaviors related to COVID-19 to support science classroom learning and engagement about the virus and other potential outbreaks. We surveyed 224 high school students and analyzed their responses to six open-ended questions. We found that students expressed the most interest in topics related to the origin of COVID-19 and vaccines. Their greatest concerns included contracting the virus or someone they know contracting the virus and vaccine distribution. Of our sample, only 6.7% reported using their teachers as their source of COVID-19 information. Science classrooms have the potential to pique students’ situational interest by discussing COVID-19 topics that are important to students, which can increase their academic performance, content knowledge, attention, and engagement in learning about viruses. Moreover, classroom instruction about COVID-19 by teachers has shown to alleviate students’ stress and anxiety. We provide key areas of student interest about COVID-19 to help educators address students’ questions and improve curricular resources on viral pandemics.more » « less
-
Substantial research indicates that local explanatory models of disease shape heath behaviors. However, less is known regarding how cultural models of disease influence interpretations of vaccines. Vaccination decisions are based around a plethora of social and cultural factors, including beliefs about disease, cultural-historical experiences with healthcare, and recent vaccination experiences. To understand how local interpretations of vaccination influence vaccination-decision making, we explore cultural models of health, vaccine norms, and COVID-19 beliefs and experiences in Himba and Herero pastoralists of the Kunene region of northern Namibia. Mixed sex focus groups were conducted in July and August of 2024 in communities across a rural and peri-urban gradient. Discussion prompts were designed to elicit dialogue on vaccination beliefs, norms, and experiences, as well as their recent experience with COVID-19. Results from these focus groups indicate that there was substantial confusion differentiating vaccinations from other types of injections. For childhood vaccines, immunization is normative and expected. Women were the primary decision-makers for childhood immunization, reflecting the matrilineal bias of Himba and Herero kinship. For adults, while local leaders had some influence interfacing with public health outreach, the decision to get vaccinated was largely a personal one. Beliefs about COVID-19 were interpreted through pre-existing cultural models of illness, and beliefs about the origins of COVID-19 reflected mistrust in international actors. Fears about COVID-19 vaccines were common, particularly concerns about vaccine safety. However, fears of the illness typically overrode fears of the vaccine, and most report receiving the vaccine despite these worries. These results highlight the importance of extending research beyond a knowledge, attitude, practice framework to incorporate local explanatory models and cultural-historical experiences in understanding vaccine-decision making. These features are particularly important in more traditional, rural, and marginalized populations where medical mistrust is common and local explanatory models of disease drive healthcare decision-making.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.929120
