Moral characteristics predicting COVID‐19 vaccination

Abstract

ObjectiveThe current study aims to assess, for the first time, whether vaccination is predicted by different behavioral and cognitive aspects of moral decision‐making.BackgroundStudies linking moral factors to vaccination have largely examined whether vaccination decisions can be explained by individual differences in the endorsement of various principles and norms central to deontology‐based arguments in vaccination ethics. However, these studies have overlooked whether individuals prioritize norms over other considerations when making decisions, such as maximizing consequences (utilitarianism).MethodIn a sample of 1492 participants, the current study assessed whether vaccination is explained by individual differences in three aspects of moral decision‐making (consequence sensitivity, norm sensitivity, and action tendency), while also considering ethics position (idealism, relativism) and moral identity.ResultsSupportive vaccination (vaccine uptake accompanied by a positive attitude toward vaccines) was associated with utilitarianism (increased consequence sensitivity) and increased tolerance to risks and harm toward others. Meanwhile, although those in the non‐vaccinated group was associated with higher harm sensitivities, they neither supported nor received the COVID vaccines (when vaccines prevent harm from infection).ConclusionPro‐vaccination messages may be made more effective by addressing perceptions of harms associated with vaccines and infections, respectively.

Why moral psychology needs personality psychology

“…Thus, the various articles in this special issue highlight three general ways that personality traits may play a role in shaping morally relevant outcomes. First, there are main effects of personality traits on morally relevant outcomes (Hopwood et al, 2024;Pringle et al, 2024;Wilks et al, 2024;Zher-Wen et al, 2024) that do not necessarily interact with situational factors (Thielmann et al, 2024). Second, the effect of situational influences may depend on personality traits (Smillie et al, 2024).…”

“…Baumert and colleagues (2024) use the experience sampling method to capture real‐world instances of moral courage when people are confronted with others' norm violations. Finally, three articles shed light on the personality predictors of consequential real‐world outcomes: COVID vaccination uptake (Zher‐Wen et al., 2024), receptiveness to ethically‐framed vegetarian advertisements (Smillie et al., 2024), and pledging to donate a substantial portion of one's lifetime income (Wilks et al., 2024).…”

“…Wilks and colleagues (2024) showed that those who took the “Giving What We Can” pledge to donate a substantial portion of one's lifetime income to highly effective causes have higher scores on measures of morally expansiveness, cognitive complexity, and utilitarianism, compared to a country‐matched comparison group. Zher‐Wen and colleagues (2024) show that inclinations toward consequentialism were higher, and sensitivity to harm lower, among COVID vaccinated people who had a favorable attitude toward the vaccine (compared to those who neither supported nor received the vaccine). Finally, Pringle and colleagues (2024) show that those who are consensually viewed as being more moral (based on the shared variance of self‐ and informant reports) donated more during a public goods game and were perceived as being more influential and more respected by their informants.…”

“…Further illustrating the importance of disentangling judgment from behavior, Zher‐Wen and colleagues (2024) found that distinct moral characteristics predicted support for COVID‐19 vaccination versus actually getting vaccinated. For example, among those who had negative attitudes toward the vaccine, those who nevertheless chose to be vaccinated showed lower levels of deontological norm sensitivity (based on responses to 24 moral dilemmas).…”