Individual differences in moral judgment predict attitudes towards mandatory vaccinations

Area of Science:

• Social Psychology
• Political Science
• Public Health

Background:

• COVID-19 vaccine skepticism is a politicized issue.
• Policies like vaccine passports aim to increase vaccination rates.
• Public response to such policies is varied.

Purpose of the Study:

• To investigate the influence of conservatism and moral judgments on public agreement with COVID-19 vaccine mandates.
• To understand individual differences driving varied responses to vaccine policies.

Main Methods:

• Survey data collected from 266 participants between January and March 2021.
• Assessed levels of political conservatism.
• Examined moral judgments using traditional deontological (D-process) and utilitarian frameworks via switch and footbridge dilemmas.

Main Results:

• Higher conservatism and stronger deontological moral processing were associated with decreased agreement to a government-imposed vaccine mandate.
• Participants employing utilitarian moral judgments showed greater agreement with the vaccine mandate.
• Findings align with existing research on political polarization regarding COVID-19.

Conclusions:

• Individual differences in moral judgment significantly predict opinions on COVID-19 vaccine mandates.
• Moral psychology offers insights into public health policy acceptance.
• Understanding these factors is crucial for addressing vaccine hesitancy and policy debates.