A substantial number of people refused to get vaccinated against COVID-19, which prompts the question as to why. We focus on the role of individual worldviews about the nature and generation of knowledge (epistemic beliefs). We propose a model that includes epistemic beliefs, their relationship to the Dark Factor of Personality (D), and their mutual effect on the probability of having been vaccinated against COVID-19. Based on a US nationally representative sample (N = 1268), we show that stronger endorsement of post-truth epistemic beliefs was associated with a lower probability of having been vaccinated against COVID-19. D was also linked to a lower probability of having been vaccinated against COVID-19, which can be explained by post-truth epistemic beliefs. Our results indicate that the more individuals deliberately refrain from adhering to the better argument, the less likely they are vaccinated. More generally, post-truth epistemic beliefs pose a challenge for rational communication.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
|---|---|
| http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10013296 | PMC |
| http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-31079-9 | DOI Listing |
Publication Analysis
Top Keywords
Similar Publications
(Epistemic) Injustice and Resistance in Canadian Research Ethics Governance.
Ethics Hum Res
January 2025
Assistant professor in the Department of Equity, Ethics, and Policy, and in the Department of Social Studies of Medicine, at McGill University.
This article brings a philosophical perspective to bear on issues of research ethics governance as it is practiced and organized in Canada. Insofar as the processes and procedures that constitute research oversight are meant to ensure the ethical conduct of research, they are based on ideas or beliefs about what ethical research entails and about which processes will ensure the ethical conduct of research. These ideas and beliefs make up an epistemic infrastructure underlying Canada's system of research ethics governance, but, we argue, extensive efforts by community members to fill gaps in that system suggest that these ideas may be deficient.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFCultivating the conditions for care: it's all about trust.
Front Health Serv
December 2024
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
This perspective article shares the viewpoints of two long-standing patient safety advocates who have participated first-hand in the evolution of patient engagement in healthcare quality and safety. Their involvement is motivated by a rejection of the common cruelty of institutional betrayal that compounds harm when patient safety fails. The advocates have sought to understand how it can be that fractured trust spreads so predictably after harm, just when it most needs strengthening.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFConfronting the "Weaponization" of Genetics by Racists Online and Elsewhere.
Hastings Cent Rep
December 2024
Genomics research is regularly appropriated in social and political contexts to publicly legitimize unjust and malicious political views, policies, and actions. In recent years, there have been high-profile cases of mass shooters, public intellectuals, and political insiders using genomics findings to convince audiences that deadly force and coercive policies against racial minorities are warranted. To create a just genomics, geneticists must consider what makes their research so attractive and adaptable for the legitimization of unjust ends and what they can do to counter such appropriations.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFDifferences in epistemic justification profiles during conflicting socio-scientific information processing: A study of visual and memory-based behavior via eye-tracking.
Acta Psychol (Amst)
December 2024
University of Oslo, Norway. Electronic address:
How individuals process and understand controversial scientific issues with social implications has been linked to their beliefs about epistemic justification, which concern how knowledge claims can be justified. In this study, we used cluster analysis to classify undergraduate and graduate students (n = 46) based on their beliefs about epistemic justification and eye tracking to investigate how profiles of epistemic justification differed when processing and representing information about a particular socio-scientific issue. It was found that one cluster predominantly relied on justification by multiple sources, whereas two other clusters combined reliance on justification by multiple sources with either reliance on personal justification or justification by authority.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFCollaborative ethnography and a call for pluralism and dialogic knowledge in health equity debates and global cancer research culture.
Anthropol Med
December 2024
Gino Germani Research Institute (IIGG), Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Buenos Aires (UBA) and National Council of Scientific and Technological Research (CONICET), Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Scholars in medical anthropology note that, despite more than 25 years of anthropological studies on cancer, much of this scholarship remains marginal in mainstream public health approaches. This paper examines social practices, biases, and unnoticed assumptions in mainstream global health research culture that prevents anthropology from having a more influential role in cancer research and policy agendas. It focuses on the day-to-day, ordinary, micro academic practices in which differential power distribution exacerbates inequity within the field, ignoring the role played by approaches with disciplinarian, epistemological and geopolitical peripheries.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFWant AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!