An official website of the United States government
Abstract This study examined how children’s moral reasoning in response to intergroup exclusion scenarios relates to inclusive attitudes and behaviors. A sample of 528 students (Mage= 9.19,SD = 0.90; 264 girls) in third through fifth grade participated in theDeveloping Inclusive Youth(DIY) program, which provided structured opportunities for moral reasoning through varied intergroup scenarios and peer discussions. Results showed that more frequent use of moral reasoning predicted greater inclusivity across multiple measures. Children who engaged in higher levels of moral reasoning demonstrated more negative evaluations of exclusion, greater empathy toward peers from multiple racial groups, and a stronger desire to play with those peers. However, moral reasoning was not significantly associated with expectations for inclusion or with attitudes toward boys or girls. No significant interactions emerged between moral reasoning and participant demographics (race, gender, grade), suggesting broadly applicable effects. These findings highlight moral reasoning as a key mechanism for promoting inclusive orientations in childhood, particularly in contexts involving racial diversity. Future research should explore how moral reasoning interacts with other factors, such as empathy, perspective-taking, and group norms, to support inclusivity across social contexts.
more »
« less
Religious affiliation and philosophical and moral beliefs about vaccines: A longitudinal study
How do religious affiliation and beliefs shape vaccine attitudes and behaviors? This study examined the associations of attitudes and behaviors relevant to the flu, measles-mumps-rubella (MMR), and human-papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines with religious affiliations, as well as philosophical, spiritual, and moral beliefs. Respondents were 3005 adults from a probability-based, four-wave panel survey in the United States. Longitudinal structural equation modeling examined how religious affiliations and philosophical/moral beliefs shaped attitudes toward vaccines and actual vaccination. Stronger philosophical beliefs predicted more negative attitudes toward each vaccine and stronger moral beliefs more negative attitudes toward the HPV vaccine. Negative vaccine attitudes then predicted weaker intentions to encourage others to vaccinate and lower probability of receiving a vaccine. Theoretical and public health messaging implications are discussed.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2204924
- PAR ID:
- 10381367
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Journal of Health Psychology
- Volume:
- 27
- Issue:
- 13
- ISSN:
- 1359-1053
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 3059 to 3081
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
null (Ed.)This study examined whether future COVID-19 vaccine acceptance differed based on an experimental manipulation of the vaccine safety and effectiveness profile. Data come from the Detroit Metro Area Community Study, a population-based study conducted July 15–20, 2020. Participants were asked whether they would get a new COVID-19 vaccine after being randomly assigned information about the vaccine’s effectiveness (50% or 95%) and chance of fever (5% or 20%). Among 1,117 Detroiters, 51.3% would accept a COVID-19 vaccine that is 50% effective and 77.1% would accept a vaccine that is 95% effective. Women and adults ≥65 were more accepting of a vaccine; Black Detroiters were less accepting. Believing vaccines to be important, effective, and safe was associated with higher acceptance. Uptake of a COVID-19 may be limited, depending on perceived vaccine effectiveness and general attitudes toward vaccines. Public health approaches to modifying these attitudes will be especially important in the Black community.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
-
We investigated how tightness-looseness, reflecting strictness of social norms, of state of residence in the USA predicts behaviors and attitudes related to COVID-19. Because individual-level tightness may better capture current attitudes during the pandemic, whereas state-level archival measures reflect historical factors, we assessed the extent to which tightness-looseness at both levels predicted adherence to public health guidelines and biases toward outgroups related to COVID-19. In Spring 2020, 544 mTurk participants, primarily from the 13 tightest and 13 loosest states, completed survey questions about health behaviors in response to COVID-19, endorsement of future policy changes, feeling of responsibility for lives, and attitudes toward groups marginalized during the pandemic (i.e., Asians, older adults). State-level results indicated some associations with attitudes toward Asians and older adults, but effects were not robust. Results based on individuals’ ratings of the tightness of their state indicated that higher levels of perceived tightness were associated with higher levels of protective self-reported public health behaviors (e.g., mask wearing, handwashing) during COVID-19, more endorsement of future policy changes to contain the pandemic, higher reported feelings of responsibility for one’s life, and stronger negative attitudes toward Asians. The relations between tightness and health outcomes persisted after controlling for political attitudes and demographics. Thus, individual, more than state, tightness-looseness accounted for some degree of public health behaviors (unique contribution of individual tightness: R 2 = .034) and attitudes toward marginalized groups ( R 2 = .020) early during the COVID-19 pandemic. The implications of these findings for interventions to support behavior change or combat anti-Asian bias are discussed.more » « less
-
Background Human papillomavirus (HPV) is the most common sexually transmitted infection in the United States. HPV can cause genital warts and multiple types of cancers in females. HPV vaccination is recommended to youth age 11 or 12 years before sexual initiation to prevent onset of HPV-related diseases. For females who have not been vaccinated previously, catch-up vaccines are recommended through age 26. The extent to which catch-up vaccines are beneficial in terms of disease prevention and cost-effectiveness is questionable given that some women may have been exposed to HPV before receiving the catch-up vaccination. This study aims to examine whether the cutoff age of catch-up vaccination should be determined based on an individual woman’s risk characteristic instead of a one-size-fits-all age 26. Methods We developed a microsimulation model to evaluate multiple clinical outcomes of HPV vaccination for different women based on a number of personal attributes. We modeled the impact of HPV vaccination at different ages on every woman and tracked her course of life to estimate the clinical outcomes that resulted from receiving vaccines. As the simulation model is risk stratified, we used extreme gradient boosting to build an HPV risk model estimating every woman’s dynamic HPV risk over time for the lifetime simulation model. Results Our study shows that catch-up vaccines still benefit all women after age 26 from the perspective of clinical outcomes. Women facing high risk of HPV infection are expected to gain more health benefits compared with women with low HPV risk. Conclusions From a cancer prevention perspective, this study suggests that the catch-up vaccine after age 26 should be deliberately considered.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.1177/13591053221082770
