Explaining heterogeneity in utility functions by individual differences in preferred decision modes

The curvature of utility functions varies between people. We suggest that there exists a relationship between the mode in which a person usually makes a decision and the curvature of the individual utility function. In a deliberate decision mode, a decision-maker tends to have a nearly linear utility function. In an intuitive decision mode, the utility function is more curved. In our experiment the utility function is assessed with a lottery-based utility elicitation method and related to a measure that assesses the habitual preference for intuition and deliberation (Betsch, submitted). Results confirm that for people that habitually use the deliberate decision mode, the utility function is more linear than for people that habitually use the intuitive decision mode. The finding and its implications for the research on individual decision behavior in economics and psychology are discussed.

Explaining heterogeneity in utility functions by individual differences in preferred decision modes

The curvature of utility functions varies between people. We suggest that there exists a relationship between the mode in which a person usually makes a decision and the curvature of the individual utility function. In a deliberate decision mode, a decision-maker tends to have a nearly linear utility function. In an intuitive decision mode, the utility function is more curved. In our experiment the utility function is assessed with a lottery-based utility elicitation method and related to a measure that assesses the habitual preference for intuition and deliberation (Betsch, submitted). Results confirm that for people that habitually use the deliberate decision mode, the utility function is more linear than for people that habitually use the intuitive decision mode. The finding and its implications for the research on individual decision behavior in economics and psychology are discussed

Benefits and Pitfalls of Debunking Interventions to Counter mRNA Vaccination Misinformation During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Misinformation about mRNA vaccination is a barrier in the global fight against the COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, authorities often rely on text-based refutations as a countermeasure. In two experiments ( N = 2,444), text-based refutations effectively reduced the belief in misinformation and immunized participants against the impact of a misleading social media post. However, a follow-up ( N = 817) questions the longevity of these debunking and prebunking effects. Moreover, the studies reveal potential pitfalls by showing a row of unintended effects of the refutations (lacking effect on intentions, backfire-effects among religious groups, and biased judgments when omitting information about vaccine side effects)

Präferenz für Intuition und Deliberation (PID) : Inventar zur Erfassung von affekt- und kognitionsbasiertem Entscheiden

Personen unterscheiden sich darin, ob sie bevorzugt intuitiv oder reflektiv entscheiden (Epstein et al., 1996). Um diese individuellen Unterschiede zu erfassen, wurde ein neues Fragebogenmaß konstruiert, das auf zwei unabhängigen Skalen die Präferenz für Intuition bzw. die Präferenz für Deliberation misst. Intuition wird hier, anders als bei Epstein, nicht als heuristisch-affektiver Modus verstanden, sondern als ein rein affektiver Modus. Deliberation ist konzipiert als reflektiver, kognitionsbasierter Modus. In drei Studien wird die Konstruktion, Überprüfung der Zweidimensionalität und Validierung der Skala anhand von insgesamt über 2500 Versuchspersonen berichtet. In einer konfirmatorischen Faktorenanalyse werden Fitindizes von GF

Präferenz für Intuition und Deliberation – Messung und Konsequenzen von affekt- und kognitionsbasiertem Entscheiden

Personen unterscheiden sich darin, ob sie bevorzugt intuitiv oder reflektiv entscheiden (Epstein et al., 1996). Um diese individuellen Unterschiede zu erfassen, wurde ein neues Fragebogenmaß konstruiert, das die Präferenz für Intuition und Deliberation (PID, Betsch, 2004) auf zwei unabhängigen Skalen misst (Präferenz für Intuition und Präferenz für Deliberation). Intuition wird hier als ein rein affektiver Modus verstanden. Deliberation ist konzipiert als reflektiver, kognitionsbasierter Modus. In drei Studien wird die Konstruktion, Überprüfung der Zweidimensionalität und Validierung der Skala anhand von insgesamt über 2500 Versuchspersonen berichtet (Betsch, 2004). Präferenz für Intuition korreliert positiv mit schnellem Entscheiden, Extraversion und Verträglichkeit und ist unabhängig von der Fähigkeit zu logischem Denken. Präferenz für Deliberation korreliert mit Gewissenhaftigkeit, Perfektionismus, Bedürfnis nach Strukturiertheit und ist ebenfalls unabhängig von logischem Denken. Die Validität der Skala und die Implikationen für die Entscheidungsforschung werden in einer weiteren Studie überprüft, die die Krümmung der Nutzenfunktion mit der individuellen Präferenz für Intuition und Deliberation in Verbindung setzt (Schunk & Betsch, im Druck). Die Ergebnisse der Studie zeigen, dass die Entscheidungen intuitiver Menschen das Gefühl, das durch erlebtes Risiko evoziert wurde, integrieren, während dies bei deliberaten Personen nicht der Fall ist. Dies führt zu unterschiedlich gekrümmten Nutzenfunktionen. Neben den Haupteffekten der Strategiepräferenzen werden auch die Interaktion zwischen der individuell bevorzugten und der tatsächlich angewandten Strategie in fünf Studien untersucht (Betsch & Kunz, zur Veröffentlichung eingereicht). Die Ergebnisse der Studien zeigen, dass die Passung zwischen der bevorzugten und tatsächlich verwendeten Strategie (sogenannter decisional fit) den wahrgenommenen Wert des gewählten oder evaluierten Objektes erhöht und dass die Passung als Schutzschild dient gegenüber negativen Emotionen (z.B. Bedauern) nach Entscheidungen mit schlechtem Ausgang. Zusammenfassend umfasst diese Dissertation die Konstruktion und Validierung der Skala zur Erfassung der individuellen Präferenz für Intuition und Deliberation (PID; Betsch, 2004). Weiterhin untersucht sie die Konsequenzen von individuellen Unterschieden in affekt- vs. kognitionsbasiertem Entscheiden auf einen basalen Entscheidungsparameter (die Nutzenfunktion, Schunk & Betsch, im Druck). Außerdem zeigen weitere Studien die Konsequenzen einer Person x Situation Interaktion für zentrale Variablen der Entscheidungsliteratur auf (Wert, Bedauern; Betsch & Kunz, zur Veröffentlichung eingereicht)

Determinants of physician attitudes towards the new selective measles vaccine mandate in Germany

Background In Germany, a mandatory policy on measles vaccination came into effect in March 2020. Physicians, as the main vaccine providers, have a crucial role in implementing it. Mandatory vaccination changes the preconditions under which patient-provider communication on vaccines occurs. Physicians might or might not favor vaccine mandates depending on, among other factors, their attitudes towards vaccines and capabilities as vaccine providers. The aim of this study was to investigate in different subgroups of physicians the association between various factors and their attitudes towards a mandatory policy. Methods In total, 2229 physicians participated in a mixed-mode online/paper-pencil survey. Respondents were general practitioners, pediatricians, gynecologists, and internists. Primary determinants were the 5C psychological antecedents of vaccination, communication self-efficacy, patient clientele, projected consequences of the mandate and sociodemographic characteristics. Associations between outcomes and determinants were examined using linear regression analysis. Results Approximately 86% of physicians were in favor of the measles vaccine mandate for children. Regarding the 5C model, physicians were more in favor of vaccine mandates when they scored higher on confidence and collective responsibility, and lower on complacency and calculation. They were more in favor of vaccine mandates when they had higher communication self-efficacy and a more vaccine-positive patient clientele. Pediatricians were less in favor of mandates for children (80.0%) than other physician subgroups (87.1%). They were also less convinced that a mandate would result in more children getting vaccinated (59.3%) than other physician subgroups (78.3%). When controlled for these expected consequences, being a pediatrician no longer lowered the attitude towards the mandate. Conclusions Physicians in Germany are predominantly in favor of a measles vaccine mandate. Whether or not physicians believe the mandate to be effective in increasing vaccine coverage affects their attitude towards the mandate. In pediatricians, this belief explains their less positive attitude towards the mandate. In addition, physicians need adequate support to communicate well with patients, especially those who are hesitant, to booster their communication self-efficacy. To increase acceptance of vaccine mandates, the 5C model can be used, e.g., collective responsibility can be communicated, to avoid anger stemming from a negative attitude to mandates.Peer Reviewe

How a generally well-accepted measles vaccine mandate may lead to inequities and decreased vaccine uptake: a preregistered survey study in Germany

Additional file 1: Supplementary Figure 1. Directed acyclic graph (DAG) on hypothesis 2: Higher reactance to the measles mandate among parents decreases uptake of other vaccines and the intention to vaccinate children against other diseases. Supplementary  Table 1. ANCOVA results for socio-economic status (income) and for knowledge about the measles vaccine mandate and the measles vaccine. Supplementary Table 2. ANCOVA results for socio-economic status (education) and for knowledge about the measles vaccine mandate and the measles vaccine. Supplementary  Table 3. Parental vaccination decisions for vaccines that had just become due or were soon to come. Supplementary  Table 4. Relationship between reactance and vaccination behavior. Results from multiple logistic regression model with hexavalent and pneumococcal vaccination status as outcomes, reactance as predictor and the 5C model, age, gender, region and institutional trust included as covariates. Supplementary  Table 5. Relationship between reactance and vaccination intention. Results from multiple linear regression models with intention to get vaccinated against HPV, Tdap, Men C as outcomes, reactance as predictor and the 5C model, age, gender, region and institutional trust included as covariates. Supplementary  Table 6. Mediation analyses: Effect of institutional trust (X) on attitude towards the mandate (Y) via reactance (M)

Impfverhalten psychologisch erklären und verändern am Beispiel der HPV-Impfung

Impfmüdigkeit bezeichnet das Verzögern, Auslassen oder Ablehnen wichtiger Impfungen trotz ihrer Verfügbarkeit. Die Impfung gegen humane Papillomviren (HPV) schützt gegen verschiedene Varianten von Gebärmutterhalskrebs und wird für Mädchen und Jungen im Alter von 9–14 Jahren empfohlen. Allerdings sind die Impfquoten im Vergleich zu anderen Kinderimpfungen geringer, zudem zeigen sich deutliche Abbruchquoten zwischen Erst- und Zweitimpfung. Jährlich sterben rund 1500 Frauen in Deutschland und 311.000 Frauen weltweit an Gebärmutterhalskrebs. Eine Elimination des Gebärmutterhalskrebses bis zum Ende des Jahrhunderts wäre theoretisch möglich, und globale Strategien existieren, um dieses Ziel zu erreichen – dafür bräuchte es aber unter anderem deutlich höhere Impfquoten. Im Beitrag wird betrachtet, welche psychologischen Faktoren die HPV-Impfung begünstigen oder ihr im Weg stehen und was Ärztinnen und Ärzte tun können, um die Impfmotivation zu steigern.Peer Reviewe

Situational pathogen avoidance mediates the impact of social connectedness on preventive measures during the COVID-19 pandemic

During the COVID-19 pandemic, physical distancing was one of the more important behaviours for reducing the spread of the virus. The present study investigated the influence on pathogen avoidance of familiarity with other people at private gatherings. Based on the social identity model of risk taking and the theory of the behavioural immune system, we assumed that greater familiarity with others would make people feel more connected with one another and decrease situational pathogen avoidance. This could result in lower perceptions of the risk of contracting COVID-19 and fewer protective behaviours. Two experiments (n1 = 1022, n2 = 994) showed that the negative influence of greater familiarity on the perceived risk of infection and protective behaviour is explained by an increased feeling of connectedness and less feeling of situational pathogen avoidance. In an additional survey, the participants (n = 23,023) rated the quality of their past social contacts. The correlational analyses showed that the familiarity of the other person was more important in explaining variance in protective behaviours than attitudes toward those behaviours or the pandemic situation itself. Understanding the process that result in an explosive increase in infection after social gatherings can improve infection control in the future.Peer Reviewe

Measuring the 7Cs of Vaccination Readiness

Abstract. Although vaccines are among the most effective interventions used in fighting diseases, vaccination readiness varies substantially among individuals. Vaccination readiness is defined as a set of components that increase or decrease AN individual’s likelihood of getting vaccinated. Building on earlier work that distinguished five components of vaccination readiness (confidence, complacency, constraints, calculation, and collective responsibility), we revised the questionnaire used to measure these components to improve its psychometric properties, specifically criterion validity. In doing so, we also developed two new components of vaccination readiness: compliance and conspiracy. Compliance is the tendency to support monitoring to control adherence to regulations; conspiracy is the tendency to endorse conspiratorial beliefs about vaccination. The newly introduced 7C scale was initially piloted in a cascade of serial cross-sectional studies and then validated with N = 681 participants from the COVID-19 Snapshot Monitoring in Denmark. We report a bifactor measurement model, convergent validity with other questionnaires, and an explanation of 85% variance in the willingness to vaccinate against COVID-19. We also present a 7-item short version of the scale. The instrument is publicly available in several languages ( www.vaccination-readiness.com ), and we seek collaboration to provide translations of our instrument into other languages