‘God will protect us’: Belief in God/Higher Power's ability to intervene and COVID-19 vaccine uptake

Abstract

Background Vaccines represent one of the best ways to counter the COVID-19 pandemic. However, vaccine hesitancy among the population limits the effectiveness of vaccines. Recent research has explored the role of religion in vaccine hesitancy, but in doing so has encountered a "black box" problem. There is a relationship between religion and vaccine hesitancy, but the explanation for why remains unclear. Purpose The purpose of this study is to explore the relationship between religion and vaccine hesitancy. We propose that how an individual conceptualizes God/a higher power is associated with getting vaccinated for COVID-19. Methods We use data from a nationally representative survey of U.S. adults, collected using the Amerispeak® probability-based panel via the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago. We examine the association between individuals' views of God/a higher power as both a supervisory and an intervening figure on vaccine uptake and likelihood of getting vaccinated through logistic regressions.Results We find that belief in God's/a higher power's supervision is not significantly associated with the odds of COVID-19 vaccine uptake or vaccination intent. However, belief in God's/a higher power's ability to intervene in the world is significantly and negatively associated with the odds of COVID-19 vaccine uptake and the odds of having received or planning to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. In addition, in models where belief in the ability of God/a higher power to intervene are included, Christian nationalism ceases to have a statistically significant association with intent to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. Conclusions and implications: These findings suggest that how individuals conceptualize God/a higher power is associated with their willingness to get the COVID-19 vaccine. Given this, those who see God/a higher power as more involved in the world may contribute to delays in achieving herd immunity. This information benefits those working on vaccination campaigns in understanding the beliefs of some of those who are most hesitant to get vaccinated. In addition, this intervention mechanism

Perceived Neighborhood Disorder, Self-Esteem, and the Moderating Role of Religion

“…Although this issue cannot be explored directly with NSAHS data, a good example of how this sense of divine control might work can be drawn from recent literature on religious beliefs and COVID-19 vaccine uptake. Studies in this vein have shown that persons who believe in an active, beneficent God may eschew vaccines as unnecessary, since God’s willingness to intervene suffices to protect the faithful (e.g., DiGregorio, Corcoran, and Scheitle 2022). Using a similar logic, believers in divine control who reside in disordered neighborhoods may feel protected against discrimination, slights and insults based on place of residence, criminal victimization, and other hazards of daily life in such settings.…”

The Politics of Covid-19 Vaccination Hesitancy in Southeastern Europe

“…The explanation for this is that Christian nationalists see faith as their ultimate source of moral authority, overruling other sources such as science ( Baker et al 2020 ). Their faith is perceived to lend them a certain divine protection, making them, in a way, privileged and even superior to others ( DiGregorio et al 2022 ). In other words, as long as they uphold their identity as devout Christians, no vaccine is needed.…”

Pathways to Immunity: Patterns of Excess Death Across the United States and Within Closed Religious Communities

“…Opposition to vaccines generally flows through religious, political, and cultural conduits. Political and religious conservatives and Christian nationalists are more likely to be under-vaccinated (Corcoran et al, 2021a , b ; DiGregorio et al, 2022 ; Stein et al, 2022 ; Whitehead & Perry, 2020 ). Closed religious communities, in particular, have received attention for their non-compliance with vaccine initiatives (Arciuolo et al, 2013 ; Gastañaduy et al, 2016 ; Rodgers et al, 1993 ; Scott et al, 2021 ; Stein et al, 2022 ; Thomas et al, 2021 ; Thompson & Kisjes, 2016 ).…”