Spirituality and religiosity contribute to ongoing COVID-19 vaccination rates: Comparing 195 regions around the world

Vaccine hesitancy has taken global prominence with the rapid spread of COVID-19, but what factors are related to this considerable variation in vaccination rates globally? Three studies that encompass 195 unique regions from around the world found that the relative spirituality and religiosity of a region predict ongoing COVID-19 vaccination rates, such that those regions higher in spirituality and/or religiosity are regions with lower COVID-19 vaccination rates. In Study 1, data from 23 regions globally were obtained, and both spirituality and religiosity were negatively associated with vaccination rates. These effects held when applying two methods to account for vaccine supply issues. In Study 2, data from 144 regions globally were obtained, and once again religiosity negatively predicted COVID-19 vaccination rates. It remained a significant predictor of vaccination rates when controlling for GDP, population age, collectivism, general skepticism towards vaccinations, and previous inoculation history. In Study 3, data from all USA states and the District of Columbia were obtained, and religiosity and spirituality once again were negatively associated with COVID-19 vaccination rates. Effects held controlling for other factors. Across studies, spirituality and religiosity account for a large amount of the variance in vaccination rates. These results suggest that real-world behavior can be predicted by the relative spirituality and religiosity of a region

The (im-)moral scientist? Measurement and framing effects shape the association between scientists and immorality

Recent years have not only seen growing public distrust in science, but also in the people conducting science. Yet, attitudes toward scientists remain largely unexplored, and the limited body of literature that exists points to an interesting ambivalence. While survey data suggest scientists to be positively evaluated (e.g., respected and trusted), research has found scientists to be perceived as capable of immoral behavior. We report two experiments aimed at identifying what contributes to this ambivalence through systematic investigations of stereotypical perceptions of scientists. In these studies, we particularly focus on two potential sources of inconsistencies in previous work: divergent operationalizations of morality (measurement effects), and different specifications of the broad group of scientists (framing effects). Results show that scientists are generally perceived as more likely to violate binding as opposed to individualizing moral foundations, and that they deviate from control groups more strongly on the latter. The extent to which different morality measures reflect the differentiation between binding and individualizing moral foundations at least partially accounts for previous contradictory findings. Moreover, the results indicate large variation in perceptions of different types of scientists: people hold more positive attitudes toward university-affiliated scientists as compared to industry-affiliated scientists, with perceptions of the 'typical scientist' more closely resembling the latter. Taken together, the findings have important academic ramifications for science skepticism, morality, and stereotyping research as well as valuable practical implications for successful science communication

Social evaluations of scientific occupations

Science and scientists are among the key drivers of societal progress and technological developments. While research has demonstrated that science is perceived as heterogeneous, work on perceptions of scientists usually considers “scientists” as members of a homogeneous group. In the present research, we went beyond this general categorization by investigating differences in social evaluations of different types of scientists. Across four studies conducted in the UK and the US (total N = 1441), we discovered that members of the most frequently mentioned scientific occupations (35 and 36 respectively in each country) are seen as highly competent, relatively moral, but only moderately sociable. We also found that individuals perceive differences between scientific occupations across social dimensions, which were captured in clusters of scientific occupations. Chemists, biologists, and physicists represented the most mentioned and highly prototypical scientific occupations. Perceived prototypicality was primarily associated with competence ratings, meaning that, in the public’s view, to be a scientist means to be competent. Perceptions of morality and sociability varied notably across clusters. Overall, we demonstrate that focusing only on “scientists” leads to overgeneralization, and that distinguishing between different types of scientists provides a much-needed nuanced picture of social evaluations of scientists across occupations