ArticleSocial science & medicine (1982)2022
Cognitive underpinnings of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy.
Article in Social science & medicine (1982), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Role of Flexibility in the Formation and Maintenance of Extreme Beliefs: A Narrative Scoping Review.Scandinavian journal of psychology · 2026Article
- Exploring the Relationship Between Susceptibility to Health Misinformation and Vaccine Hesitancy in Poland.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Pandemic paradox: How the COVID-19 crisis transformed vaccine hesitancy into a two-edged sword.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2025Article
- Effect of retirement on COVID-19 vaccination in Europe: a quasi-experimental study.NPJ vaccines · 2025Article
- How urban versus rural population relates to COVID-19 booster vaccine hesitancy: A propensity score matching design study.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2024Article
- Conspiracy narratives and vaccine hesitancy: a scoping review of prevalence, impact, and interventions.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Cognitive flexibility predicts attitudes towards vaccination: evidence from a New Zealand sample.BMC psychology · 2024Article
- Trauma, adversity, and biological aging: behavioral mechanisms relevant to treatment and theory.Translational psychiatry · 2024Review
- Article
- What drives the vaccination intention against COVID-19? Application of EPPM, TAM, and theories of risk assessment.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2023Article
- Vaccination Attitudes Examination (VAX) Scale: a Bifactor-ESEM approach in a youth sample (15-24 years).BMC psychology · 2023Article
- Overconfidence at the time of COVID-19:Does it lead to laxer attitudes?Social science & medicine (1982) · 2023Article
- Impact of social media news on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and vaccination behavior.Telematics and informatics · 2023Article
- Self-esteem influences the willingness to engage in COVID-19 prevention behavior and persuasion efficacy.Social science & medicine (1982) · 2023Article
- Proposing a New Conceptual Syndemic Framework for COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy: A Narrative Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Review
- The 100 Most-Cited Articles in COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Based on Web of Science: A Bibliometric Analysis.Infection and drug resistance · 2023Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
rationaleVaccines save lives. Despite the undisputed value of vaccination, vaccine hesitancy continues to be a major global challenge, particularly throughout the COVID-19 global pandemic. Since vaccination decisions are counter-intuitive and cognitively demanding, we propose that vaccine hesitancy is associated with executive function-a group of high-level cognitive skills including attentional control, working memory, inhibition, self-regulation, cognitive flexibility, and strategic planning.
objectiveWe set out to test (i) whether vaccine hesitancy is driven by individual differences in executive function beyond established socio-demographic factors (e.g., education, political orientation, gender, ethnicity, age, religiosity) and depressed mood, and (ii) whether this relationship is exacerbated by situational stress.
methodsTwo studies were conducted with U.S. residents. Using a cross-sectional design, Study 1 examined the associations between executive function, socio-demographic factors, COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs, trust in health authorities, and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Using an experimental design, Study 2 focused solely on unvaccinated individuals and tested the interactive effect of executive function and stress on willingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. We used ordinal logistic regressions to analyze the data.
resultsIndividual differences in executive function predicted participants' COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs, trust in health authorities, and their willingness to vaccinate against COVID-19. Importantly, the unique contribution of executive function to vaccine hesitancy could not be explained by socio-demographic factors or depressed mood. Furthermore, Study 2 revealed that weaker executive function had detrimental effects on COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and trust in health authorities mainly under heightened stress.
conclusionsIndividual differences in executive function and situational stress jointly impact COVID-19 vaccination decisions and need to be considered together when designing health communications aimed at reducing COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Interventions that lower stress and promote trust have the potential to increase vaccine acceptance, especially for individuals with weaker executive function.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.