ArticleSocial science & medicine (1982)2022
Evaluating the relationship between moral values and vaccine hesitancy in Great Britain during the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional survey.
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 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- "Not Only a Matter of Personal Interest"-Vaccination Narratives and the Model of Moral Motives in China and Germany.Qualitative health research · 2025Article
- Behind political affiliation: How moral values, identity politics, and party loyalty have affected COVID-19 vaccination.PloS one · 2025Article
- Integrating sociocultural theories to inform public health response: unique relationships between moral foundations, cultural cognition worldviews, and COVID-19 attitudes and behaviors.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Article
- Navigating vaccination choices: The intersecting dynamics of institutional trust, belonging and message perception among Congolese migrants in London, UK (a reflexive thematic analysis).PLOS global public health · 2024Article
- Moral foundations messaging to improve vaccine attitudes: An online randomized experiment from Argentina.PLOS global public health · 2024Article
- Identifying beliefs driving COVID-19 vaccination: Lessons for effective messaging.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2023Article
- Sociocultural and moral narratives influencing the decision to vaccinate among rheumatic disease patients: a qualitative study.Clinical rheumatology · 2023Article
- Characteristics of Users and Nonusers of Symptom Checkers in Germany: Cross-Sectional Survey Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- Why we should care about moral foundations when preparing for the next pandemic: Insights from Canada, the UK and the US.PloS one · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
RATIONAL/
objectiveMandating vaccinations can harm public trust, and informational interventions can backfire. An alternative approach could align pro-vaccination messages with the automatic moral values and intuitions that vaccine-hesitant people endorse. The current study evaluates the relationships between six automatic moral intuitions and vaccine hesitancy.
methodsA cross-sectional survey was designed using Qualtrics (2020) software and conducted online from April 6th to April 13, 2021. A representative sample of 1201 people living in Great Britain took part, of which 954 (514 female) passed the attention check items. Participants responded to items about their automatic moral intuitions, vaccination behaviours or intentions related to COVID-19 vaccines, and general vaccine hesitancy. Regressions (with and without adjustments for age, gender, and ethnicity) were performed assessing the association between endorsement of each automatic intuition and self-reported uptake of COVID-19 vaccines, and between each automatic intuition and general vaccine hesitancy.
resultsPeople who endorsed the authority foundation and those who more strongly endorsed the liberty foundation tended to be more vaccine hesitant. This pattern generalises across people's self-reported uptake of COVID-19 vaccines and people's hesitancy towards vaccines in general. To a lesser extent people who expressed less need for care and a greater need for sanctity also displayed greater hesitancy towards vaccines in general. The results were consistent across the adjusted and non-adjusted analyses. Age and ethnicity significantly contributed to some models but gender did not.
conclusionFour automatic moral intuitions (authority, liberty, care, and sanctity) were significantly associated with vaccine hesitancy. Foundation-aligned messages could be developed to motivate those people who may otherwise refuse vaccines, e.g., messages that strongly promote liberty or that de-emphasize authority voices. This suggestion moves away from mandates and promotes the inclusion of a more diverse range of voices in pro-vaccination campaigns.
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.