Doctoral Dissertation Research in DRMS: Understanding the American Publics COVID-19 Vaccination Uptake
- Funded by National Science Foundation (NSF)
- Total publications:0 publications
Grant number: 2117257
Grant search
Key facts
Disease
COVID-19Start & end year
20212023Known Financial Commitments (USD)
$26,156Funder
National Science Foundation (NSF)Principal Investigator
Janet YangResearch Location
United States of AmericaLead Research Institution
SUNY at BuffaloResearch Priority Alignment
N/A
Research Category
Policies for public health, disease control & community resilience
Research Subcategory
Approaches to public health interventions
Special Interest Tags
N/A
Study Type
Non-Clinical
Clinical Trial Details
N/A
Broad Policy Alignment
Pending
Age Group
Adults (18 and older)
Vulnerable Population
Unspecified
Occupations of Interest
Unspecified
Abstract
This award is funded in whole or in part under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law 117-2)
Despite public health effort to persuade Americans to get the COVID-19 vaccine, vaccine hesitancy is a threat to achieve herd immunity in the U.S. Americans who are reluctant to get vaccinated cite worries about the development of the vaccines and their potential side effects. Vaccine views are also connected to political partisanship, with polls showing that at least half of Republicans do not plan to get the vaccine. How citizens comprehend and evaluate the risks associated with the COVID-19 vaccines and the COVID-19 pandemic is key to the success of this mass public health intervention. Through two national surveys, this dissertation research attempts to uncover the factors underlying vaccine hesitancy. It addresses, first, how citizens compare the risks from the COVID-19 vaccines with the risks from the COVID-19 pandemic and whether this risk comparison influences their vaccination intention. Second, how three individual characteristics - exposure to COVID-19 misinformation, political ideology, and socio-demographics - influence vaccine uptake. In doing so, this research benefits both social science research and society. The COVID-19 pandemic and the COVID-19 vaccine offer a timely context to study how risk perception and risk comparison influence risk mitigation behaviors (e.g., vaccination, social distancing, hand washing, mask wearing). At the societal level, this research offers evidence-based recommendations to improve risk communication messaging about COVID-19 vaccine uptake. In particular, this research informs on how to craft empathetic and clear risk communication messaging that resonate with citizens from all walks of life to encourage vaccine uptake and continued adherence to preventive behaviors against COVID-19.
Two surveys of American adults (N = 1000 each) test hypotheses and research questions. Guided by the psychometric paradigm), the research compares two interrelated risk objects and evaluates how a mental risk comparison influences risk mitigation behavior. This research contribute to a more refined understanding of risk perception in a world where multiple risks often simultaneously command our attention and people often have to balance each in order to make informed decisions. Findings from the research may also be extrapolated to future risk events. In addition, the inclusion of exposure to COVID-19 misinformation and political ideology will contribute to the rapidly developing literature on misinformation and political polarization in public opinion related to important social issues. In essence, this research can unearth invaluable insights to improve risk communication about the COVID-19 vaccines to improve uptake. Specifically, this research provides evidence-based recommendations to improve communication specifically targeting minorities and other high-risk groups. Educating the public to stay vigilant until we reach broad vaccine coverage as a nation is crucial to overcoming this pandemic; that is, the longer the public continues to practice preventive behaviors, the sooner it will be for this pandemic to end.
This award reflects NSF's statutory mission and has been deemed worthy of support through evaluation using the Foundation's intellectual merit and broader impacts review criteria.
Despite public health effort to persuade Americans to get the COVID-19 vaccine, vaccine hesitancy is a threat to achieve herd immunity in the U.S. Americans who are reluctant to get vaccinated cite worries about the development of the vaccines and their potential side effects. Vaccine views are also connected to political partisanship, with polls showing that at least half of Republicans do not plan to get the vaccine. How citizens comprehend and evaluate the risks associated with the COVID-19 vaccines and the COVID-19 pandemic is key to the success of this mass public health intervention. Through two national surveys, this dissertation research attempts to uncover the factors underlying vaccine hesitancy. It addresses, first, how citizens compare the risks from the COVID-19 vaccines with the risks from the COVID-19 pandemic and whether this risk comparison influences their vaccination intention. Second, how three individual characteristics - exposure to COVID-19 misinformation, political ideology, and socio-demographics - influence vaccine uptake. In doing so, this research benefits both social science research and society. The COVID-19 pandemic and the COVID-19 vaccine offer a timely context to study how risk perception and risk comparison influence risk mitigation behaviors (e.g., vaccination, social distancing, hand washing, mask wearing). At the societal level, this research offers evidence-based recommendations to improve risk communication messaging about COVID-19 vaccine uptake. In particular, this research informs on how to craft empathetic and clear risk communication messaging that resonate with citizens from all walks of life to encourage vaccine uptake and continued adherence to preventive behaviors against COVID-19.
Two surveys of American adults (N = 1000 each) test hypotheses and research questions. Guided by the psychometric paradigm), the research compares two interrelated risk objects and evaluates how a mental risk comparison influences risk mitigation behavior. This research contribute to a more refined understanding of risk perception in a world where multiple risks often simultaneously command our attention and people often have to balance each in order to make informed decisions. Findings from the research may also be extrapolated to future risk events. In addition, the inclusion of exposure to COVID-19 misinformation and political ideology will contribute to the rapidly developing literature on misinformation and political polarization in public opinion related to important social issues. In essence, this research can unearth invaluable insights to improve risk communication about the COVID-19 vaccines to improve uptake. Specifically, this research provides evidence-based recommendations to improve communication specifically targeting minorities and other high-risk groups. Educating the public to stay vigilant until we reach broad vaccine coverage as a nation is crucial to overcoming this pandemic; that is, the longer the public continues to practice preventive behaviors, the sooner it will be for this pandemic to end.
This award reflects NSF's statutory mission and has been deemed worthy of support through evaluation using the Foundation's intellectual merit and broader impacts review criteria.