As the literature highlights, many health behavior theories try to explain both social and psychological variables influencing an individual’s health behavior. This study integrates insights relative to the antecedents of getting vaccinated from health behavior theories, particularly including the health belief model (HBM), the theory of planned behavior (TPB), and the different socio-demographic factors. Furthermore, we considered the possible mechanism of impact of distrust in science on individuals’ hesitance and resistance to taking up SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in subjects living in Italy. A correlational study of 1095 subjects enrolled when the national vaccination campaign for the third dose was launched. A questionnaire was used to measure: Italian Risk Perception; subjective norm; trust in science, trust in the vaccine; fear of COVID-19; fear of the vaccine; perceived knowledge about SARS-CoV-2; booster vaccination intention. Principal results show that: (i) the positive relationship provided by HBM theory between perceptions of SARS-CoV-2 risk (vulnerability and severity) and intention to have the vaccine, through fear of COVID-19; (ii) the positive relationship between subjective norms and both trust in science and vaccination intention; (iii) that trust in science plays a crucial role in predicting vaccination intention. Finally, the results provided indications about a positive relationship between subjective norms and fear of COVID-19, and a full mediation role of trust in science in the relationships between determinants of both TPA and HBM, fear of COVID-19, and vaccination intention. In conclusion, an individual’s intention (not) to get vaccinated requires the consideration of a plethora of socio-psychological factors. However, overall, trust in science appears to be a key determinant of vaccination intention. Additional strategies promoting healthy behavior are needed.

Recent literature highlights that well-being, happiness, as well as personal stress, has become important for guiding public policy in areas that might involve suboptimal behaviour. Positive life outcomes can extend from one field of life (family, work, sport, children, hobbies, etc.) to another, multiplying success, performance, and health. In the present

Attitudes towards socially sensitive topics tend to be polarized and moralized. Literature showed that in the political arena people tend to consider their group different from the outgroup in moral terms, and how this perceived distance is capable of producing discrimination against the outgroup. In light of this evidence, the aim of this study (N = 234) was to examine the dynamics between Pro‐vaxers and No‐vaxers in relation to the SARS‐COV‐2 vaccine. Participants evaluated the strength of their attitude towards the COVID‐19 vaccine, and the extent to which this attitude was moralized. They reported the perceived moral distance between the ingroup and the outgroup and completed a scale of outgroup animalistic dehumanization. Results showed a positive association between the strength of the attitude towards the vaccine and its moralization. The tendency to moralize the attitude was positively associated with the perception of moral distance between ingroup and outgroup, and this positively associated with the outgroup dehumanization. A sequential mediation model showed an indirect effect that links attitude strength to dehumanization through attitude moralization and the perception of moral distance between groups. Results are discussed in the light of recent theories on the moralization of attitudes and its importance in institutional communication. Please refer to the Supplementary Material section to find this article's Community and Social Impact Statement.

Many countries are discussing LGBT rights, such as the right to wed and create a family. Despite research indicating that there is no reason to deny same-sex couples the right to be parents, negative attitudes persist concerning the quality of parenting by gay and lesbian individuals. The purpose of this study (N = 436) was to explore the relationship between the attribution of conflict in same-sex couples and the attribution of lower parenting competencies. We examined the attribution of conflict within heterosexual vs. same-sex couples in order to determine if the alleged conflict attributed to the latter can be used in a strategic manner to justify reduced same-sex parenting competence. Results showed a positive association between the attribution of conflict and lower parenting competence, especially in the same-sex couple evaluation. Furthermore, the attribution of conflict appears to be associated with a conservative political stance, gender essentialist beliefs, and homonegativity. A moderated mediation model confirmed our prediction, revealing that right-wing (vs. center and left-wing) participants considered same-sex couples to be less competent as parents due to the attribution of conflict within the couple. Results might be useful to foster the dissemination of reliable information about same-sex parent families.

Social media use occupies a prominent space in social sciences scholarship and beyond. However, the distinction between active and passive use of social media, although important in explaining a variety of users’ behaviors, has been overlooked in terms of its potential to predict key outcomes like beliefs in conspiracy theories. In three studies (N = 1388, in total), we provide evidence on (a) the role of passive social media use in believing in conspiracy theories via personal relative deprivation; (b) the interaction effect between social media use and personal relative deprivation on beliefs in conspiracy theories. Results showed that passive social media use is linked to, and has a positive effect on, beliefs in conspiracy theories and this relationship is explained via increased personal relative deprivation. Additionally, this main effect was qualified by an interaction with increased personal relative deprivation. Results are discussed in light of their social and media psychological contribution and implications in the digital era, an era of fighting, out of many, against misinformation.