Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: The current study aims to assess, for the first time, whether vaccination is predicted by different behavioral and cognitive aspects of moral decision-making.
BACKGROUND: Studies linking moral factors to vaccination have largely examined whether vaccination decisions can be explained by individual differences in the endorsement of various principles and norms central to deontology-based arguments in vaccination ethics. However, these studies have overlooked whether individuals prioritize norms over other considerations when making decisions, such as maximizing consequences (utilitarianism).
METHODS: In a sample of 1492 participants, the current study assessed whether vaccination is explained by individual differences in three aspects of moral decision-making (consequence sensitivity, norm sensitivity, and action tendency), while also considering ethics position (idealism, relativism) and moral identity.
RESULTS: Supportive vaccination (vaccine uptake accompanied by a positive attitude toward vaccines) was associated with utilitarianism (increased consequence sensitivity) and increased tolerance to risks and harm toward others. Meanwhile, although those in the non-vaccinated group was associated with higher harm sensitivities, they neither supported nor received the COVID vaccines (when vaccines prevent harm from infection).
CONCLUSIONS: Pro-vaccination messages may be made more effective by addressing perceptions of harms associated with vaccines and infections, respectively.
BACKGROUND: Studies linking moral factors to vaccination have largely examined whether vaccination decisions can be explained by individual differences in the endorsement of various principles and norms central to deontology-based arguments in vaccination ethics. However, these studies have overlooked whether individuals prioritize norms over other considerations when making decisions, such as maximizing consequences (utilitarianism).
METHODS: In a sample of 1492 participants, the current study assessed whether vaccination is explained by individual differences in three aspects of moral decision-making (consequence sensitivity, norm sensitivity, and action tendency), while also considering ethics position (idealism, relativism) and moral identity.
RESULTS: Supportive vaccination (vaccine uptake accompanied by a positive attitude toward vaccines) was associated with utilitarianism (increased consequence sensitivity) and increased tolerance to risks and harm toward others. Meanwhile, although those in the non-vaccinated group was associated with higher harm sensitivities, they neither supported nor received the COVID vaccines (when vaccines prevent harm from infection).
CONCLUSIONS: Pro-vaccination messages may be made more effective by addressing perceptions of harms associated with vaccines and infections, respectively.
摘要：
目的：本研究旨在评估，第一次,疫苗接种是否通过道德决策的不同行为和认知方面来预测。
背景：将道德因素与疫苗接种联系起来的研究在很大程度上考察了疫苗接种决定是否可以通过对疫苗接种伦理中基于道义论的争论的各种原则和规范的认可的个体差异来解释。然而,这些研究忽视了个人在做决定时是否优先考虑规范而不是其他考虑因素，例如最大化后果(功利主义)。
方法：在1492名参与者的样本中，当前的研究评估了疫苗接种是否由道德决策的三个方面的个体差异来解释(后果敏感性，规范敏感度，和行动倾向)，同时也考虑到伦理立场(唯心主义，相对主义)和道德认同。
结果：支持性疫苗接种（疫苗摄取伴随着对疫苗的积极态度）与功利主义（结果敏感性增加）和对风险和对他人伤害的耐受性增加有关。同时,尽管未接种疫苗的人群具有较高的伤害敏感性，他们既不支持也不接受COVID疫苗(当疫苗防止感染危害时)。
结论：通过解决与疫苗和感染有关的危害的观念，可以使疫苗接种前的信息更加有效。分别。
背景：将道德因素与疫苗接种联系起来的研究在很大程度上考察了疫苗接种决定是否可以通过对疫苗接种伦理中基于道义论的争论的各种原则和规范的认可的个体差异来解释。然而,这些研究忽视了个人在做决定时是否优先考虑规范而不是其他考虑因素，例如最大化后果(功利主义)。
方法：在1492名参与者的样本中，当前的研究评估了疫苗接种是否由道德决策的三个方面的个体差异来解释(后果敏感性，规范敏感度，和行动倾向)，同时也考虑到伦理立场(唯心主义，相对主义)和道德认同。
结果：支持性疫苗接种（疫苗摄取伴随着对疫苗的积极态度）与功利主义（结果敏感性增加）和对风险和对他人伤害的耐受性增加有关。同时,尽管未接种疫苗的人群具有较高的伤害敏感性，他们既不支持也不接受COVID疫苗(当疫苗防止感染危害时)。
结论：通过解决与疫苗和感染有关的危害的观念，可以使疫苗接种前的信息更加有效。分别。
