During a deadly pandemic, millions of Canadians and Americans declined to wear face masks and get vaccinated, despite scientific knowledge that both procedures were safe and effective. The present human behavior models ultimately failed to predict this reaction. Dubé et al. (2021) acknowledge that anti-vaccination movements are frequently blamed for creating vaccine resistance among the general populace. While the scientific and medical agreement on vaccination’s advantages is evident and unmistakable, a rising number of people see vaccinations as harmful and unneeded. Thus, the study analyzes the reasons for the adverse reaction to vaccination, the style of reasoning involved in vaccine decision-making, and the model of human behavior.
The Shackled Mentality: Tethered Reason
One of the most astonishing breakthroughs of biomedical research has been the rapid creation of reliable and highly productive Covid-19 vaccines. Brailovskaia et al. (2021) state that vaccination programs’ performance depends on the availability of vaccinations and their distribution, which is positively related to a country’s economy. Above all, it depends on the population’s readiness and willingness to be vaccinated. The commitment can help achieve herd immunity without infecting many people.
Nonetheless, most people cannot conduct their study about Covid-19 vaccinations. Goel (2022a) claims that individuals lack the skills and years of postdoctoral training specialized in viruses and vaccines to examine primary material and conduct original research critically. A more rational expectation of the human psyche is one in which people are thinking beings. Still, their reasoning system is linked to other biological systems developed earlier and worked without conscious involvement or knowledge (Goel, 2022a). Autonomic, intuitive, and associative systems are a few illustrations, and these processes influence human behavior, not the only reason, as is commonly supposed.
The autonomic mind is commonly thought to be beyond the control of the individual. For instance, Goel (2022b) illustrates when blood glucose levels fall below a certain threshold, the pancreas secretes glucagon into the circulation, alerting the liver to begin transforming stored glycogen into glucose and discharging it into the bloodstream. This procedure is not related to any conscious knowledge or feelings. Nonetheless, at some time, the accumulated energy reserves will be inadequate to meet the energy demands, necessitating intervention; a meal will have to be consumed (Goel, 2022b). Without this assistance, the system will eventually fail. The intervention will necessitate the involvement of one or more of the developed systems to engage with the surrounding environment.
Consequently, these are the intuitive and associative systems of nonhuman animals, and it will be these plus the reasoning system for humans. Goel (2022b) emphasizes that the answer revolved around the use of sentiments of reward, desire and liking, and aversion or disgust as intervening factors between stimuli and reaction. In energy management, a homeostatic system generates hunger sensations to communicate that it is time to eat. Goel (2022b) states that this is an anxious and agitating sensation that the organism wishes to eliminate. Its purpose is to get individuals to care about starting or stopping action. The organism accomplishes the goal by directly linking to particular activities regulated by instinctual, associative, or cognitive processes (Goel, 2022b). These feelings operate as drivers, motivation factors, and inhibitors, activating particular action inclinations that finally lead to the organism performing the action.
All levels of behavior, including autonomic, instinctual, associative, and rational, are influenced by feelings. Goel (2022b) acknowledges that they are not only necessary for the operation of each form of mind, but they also serve as a common currency for the communication of the many levels. Adopting such an approach portrays a considerably different picture of human choices and decisions than traditional theories do. Tethered rationality considers behavioral reactions to be a synthesis of the responses produced by the many systems accessible to animals (Goel, 2022b). It necessitates the creation of a single currency that can be utilized for global integration. As a result, feelings serve as a common currency, allowing for the worldwide integration of reactions from each behavioral system.
In-Groups and Out-Groups
Significantly, in-group/out-group formation is a common human characteristic. According to Goel (2022b), in-group favoritism is a natural tendency; in human newborns, signs of in-group preference appear pretty early. Goel (2022b) notes that even for insignificant traits, one-year-old newborns show in-group favoritism. Humans not only appreciate in-group members, but they also aim to hurt out-group individuals. When groups develop, individuals do not merely favor the in-group and are uninterested in the other group; they actively want to upset the out-group. Neuroimaging studies on in-group/out-group judgments in humans provide evidence for the engagement of subcortical regions such as the amygdala and striatum (Goel, 2022b). Cortical areas are also activated, and there is evidence of in-group versus out-group cortical conceptions (Goel, 2022b). Education can modify but not eliminate in-group/out-group prejudice.
Instinctive systems use conceptual and neurological methods substantially distinct from reasoning systems. Goel (2022a) states that automatic behaviors associated with older brain systems are naturally activated and are not readily changed, especially not by altering beliefs and wants. Thus, the central concern is who to trust about vaccine efficacy when people are subject to in-group/out-group instincts. Maciuszek et al. (2021) emphasize that opinion-based groups frequently arise around contentious subjects, although opposingly defined opinion groups typically support opposing positions on these problems. The shared in-group beliefs determine the social identities of both opposing groups.
Therefore, vaccine opponents and proponents may be regarded as social groupings. Maciuszek et al. (2021) inform that these two groups centered on a shared perspective rather than more concrete features such as gender, ethnicity, or affiliations from a socio-psychological standpoint. Suppose individuals genuinely believe scientists are in the in-group. In that case, this automatic response will push them in the same direction as reason and increase the enjoyment or satisfaction associated with a choice based solely on rationale (Goel, 2022a). If, on the other hand, scientists belong to the out-group, their instincts tell that they are evil and seek to mislead and destroy society. In this situation, if people’s pleasure from expressing their in-group instinct outweighs the enjoyment they receive from other influencing causes, they will be vaccination reluctant.
The problem is exacerbated when the reasoning is used to purposefully cast doubt on the motivations of experts to highlight out-group disparities. Goel (2022a) argues that reason sometimes makes overcoming innate prejudice much more challenging. Any data to the contrary, no matter how explicit or accurate, will be less potent since it goes against the inclination. The same processes and methods work in both the vaccinated and the vaccine-averse because the sole distinction is group membership (Goel, 2022a). Thus, the reaction to the vaccine is not a problem with the system; instead, it is how the tethered mind operates.
In-group bias significantly impacts whether people get vaccinated or wear masks. Powdthavee et al. (2021) demonstrate considerable evidence of in-group favoritism among mask and non-mask users when the other partner’s mask usage is disclosed. When confronted with a mask-wearing partner non-mask wearers were twenty-three percentage points less likely to collaborate than mask wearers and twenty-six percentage points more likely to cooperate than mask wearers (Powdthavee et al., 2021). Face masks were commonly perceived as a symbol of one’s social identity by study participants, which might have resulted in ‘us versus them’ attitudes between in-group and out-group individuals.
Failure to Believe in the Vaccine Effectiveness
Modern society’s successes are based on scientific breakthroughs and their uses. Nevertheless, there has been a worrying decline in popular trust in research in recent years, and a powerful anti-scientific counterculture has formed (Maciuszek et al., 2021). People keep them safe by living in “bubbles” or “echo chambers” (Goel, 2022b, p. 310). Within the framework of the rational mind, there are several hypotheses for this occurrence, most of which involve motivated reasoning or sloppy reasoning.
Still, these theories are insufficient to explain the failure of belief modification in the cases of interest. Goel (2022b) states that tethered reason, along with the development of the in-group/out-group instinct, provides a more convincing explanation. According to the motivated reasoning theory for erroneous beliefs, people think like attorneys rather than judges (Goel, 2022b). They have particular ideas and wants and analyze, distort, and choose data to support them. In the courtroom, the legal system imposes specific limits on the amount of filtration and quality of material authorized to be provided by the attorneys, which the judge enforces. In the context of these limits and an objective, disinterested judge, evidence-based conclusions are typically possible (Goel, 2022b). Hence, making evidence-based judgments can be more difficult without these restrictions. In any case, because motivated reasoning is reasonable, it should be evident that it is not defective reasoning. The reasoning mind is being used to accomplish a specific aim.
The sloppy reasoning approach downplays the importance of goal orientation and previous beliefs. Instead, it concentrates on impaired analytical thinking capacity triggered by several causes (Goel, 2022b). For instance, research on participants’ tendency to trust false news headlines discovered that people with more vital analytic reasoning ability were less prone to believe fake news headlines, even when the political stance was included (Pennycook & Rand, 2019). Goel (2022b) asserts that sloppy reasoners are less capable of motivated reasoning. While impaired reasoning abilities may increase the chance of embracing false ideas, motivated reasoning needs a high cognitive capacity to pick material and make a logical argument for sustaining existing views (Goel, 2022b). Accordingly, if motivated reasoning is the accurate explanation for incorrect beliefs, then the reasoner’s cognitive capacity is higher, not lower.
Identities connect with theoretical foundations, and individuals, like attorneys, fight misrepresentation by examining and justifying the facts. Goel (2022b) argues that there is always some evidence to support the existence of a statement and proof in opposition. Nevertheless, science’s redeeming feature is that it does not concern what individual researchers theorize because data always wins in the end. There will be many diverse opinions and aims among any community of scientists (Goel, 2022b). Moreover, there will always be some people who are not swayed by strong preconceived opinions and financial interests in any specific theory and will be persuaded by facts or dedication to an alternate hypothesis. When the proof becomes overwhelming, scientists must embrace it and adjust their opinions or risk being ignored.
The motivated reasoning model explains that some people have previously different views on vaccination policy. Goel (2022b) acknowledges that they have no intention of changing their minds in light of new data. These individuals actively employ past ideas and goal-directedness to filter through facts to support their predetermined conclusion systematically: not vaccinating (Goel, 2022b). If they do this and provide some convincing proof, this is a type of motivated reasoning, and motivated reasoning is reasoning. The issue is that the incorrect belief persists despite the lack of a clear explanation.
People should rely on scientists when selecting what theory to trust. Most people lack the knowledge and skills in biology, medicine, biochemistry, pharmacology, field experiment, and statistical analysis to assess the results (Goel, 2022b). The vaccination issue is that there is very little concrete evidence against the scientific consensus but an unending amount of more questionable material. According to Goel (2022b), certain incorrect beliefs are resistant to logical evidence because the driving desire is not rational. It is a motive supported by intuitive and other low-level subcortical processes.
Staying in the Eco Chamber: Reaction to Covid-19
While self-selected echo chambers are deceptively enjoyable and may house individuals for short durations, the world always wins when false ideas confront reality. The 2020 Covid-19 pandemic serves as a stark reminder. In an echo chamber where individuals think the coronavirus, COVID-19, is a common cold used by Democrats to destabilize President Trump (Chiu, 2020). Suppose the COVID-19 virus is a new, extremely infectious, incompletely known pathogen with a fatality rate estimated to be ten to thirty times that of influenza. In that case, it is probably a better idea to take the recommendations of communicable diseases specialists (Goel, 2022b). Thus, people should take suggested countermeasures such as massive testing, wearing face masks, social distancing, and, eventually, vaccination. Goel (2022b) claims that many Americans denied the realities, resulting in the world’s wealthiest and most technologically sophisticated country with the most significant number of illnesses and fatalities, more than 650,000. Because it is an equal murderer, the virus has no group allegiance.
Possibilities to Change Behavior
The terms ‘anti-vaccine’ and ‘vaccine hesitancy’ are frequently used interchangeably; however, they are not synonymous. Dubé et al. (2021) inform that vaccine hesitation marks a change away from the binary anti- versus pro-vaccine viewpoint and toward an approach that characterizes behavior along a continuum of probable attitudes and actions, ranging from a fierce desire for vaccinations to complete refusal of all immunizations. Vaccine-hesitant people are a diverse population along this spectrum. Dubé et al. (2021) argue that a vaccine-hesitant individual may postpone, be cautious, but accept or refuse any or all immunizations. This attitude against vaccination should not be interpreted as unreasonable or anti-science; instead, it frequently reflects valid reservations and worries about vaccinations.
Additionally, vaccine hesitation is so distinct from campaigning against any vaccination by powerful and devoted individuals who compose the ‘anti-vaccine’ movement. Most individuals, even the most skeptical, do not identify as ‘anti-vaccine.’ Despite the negative connotations associated with this word, designating people as such is counterproductive in driving them toward vaccination acceptance (Dubé et al., 2021). Health care practitioners are recognized to impact on vaccination uptake in newborns, children, teenagers, and adults. Dubé et al. (2021) state that parents are more secure in their decision when health care practitioners explain well the vaccine benefits and dangers. People should understand the importance and necessity of immunizations and vaccine safety.
Furthermore, health care practitioners should be convinced of vaccination’s safety, performance, and significance. Although few health care practitioners are publicly vaccination-hesitant, vaccine hesitancy among them likely varies from those who are blatantly anti-vaccination to those who have concerns and worries about the efficacy of some vaccinations to those who favor vaccination (Dubé et al., 2021). As vaccination reluctance and refusal rates rise, some experts advocate stricter regulations to enforce obligatory laws (Dubé et al., 2021). Compulsory vaccination programs can significantly improve vaccine uptake, and they fail to identify the reasons for vaccine reluctance and rejection.
The critical challenge in the tethered mind paradigm is managing vaccination reluctance. Considering that vaccine skeptics have no cause or need more knowledge on vaccines and viruses is neither accurate nor constructive (Goel, 2022a). Hornsey (2021) asserts that for people who have more detailed anti-vaccine concerns, the plain reality is that most of them have already encountered the mainstream story of vaccinations, so just rehashing evidence is unlikely to suffice. The advice is to go beyond what individuals say, the ‘surface attitudes,’ and concentrate on what lies behind what they suggest, the ‘attitude roots’ (Hornsey, 2021). Persuasive communications can be more potent for scientific skeptics when individuals recognize and identify with these underlying reasons. Suppose a person’s vaccination hesitation is motivated by phobias of needles and medical intervention. In that case, it may be beneficial to concentrate on the role of immunizations in decreasing the necessity of injections and medical procedures if they get ill (Hornsey, 2021). Thus, it should not be the only job of health practitioners to embrace scientific communication skills; the entire community can educate one another.
People should focus on non-processed that influence their behavior and judgments. According to tethered rationality, Goel (2022a) proposes three additional successful solutions. The first step is to persuade vaccination skeptics to broaden their in-group to include vaccine scientists. This task is challenging, though, because human in-group development can be random and disconnected (Goel, 2022a). For instance, if scientists are grouped in with the state, Big Pharma, or other out-groups, many will find it complicated to integrate into the in-group.
The second tactic is to allow vaccination skeptics to experience the seriousness of COVID-19 on a more deeply personal level. This strategy is comparable to how anti-smoking programs in the 1970s and 1980s featured images of damaged lungs and emotive movies of suffering people living with cancer (Goel, 2022a). These ads were more successful than the previous technique of publishing the surgeon general’s warning label on cigarette boxes in influencing behavior. The final strategy is to provide a substantial incentive or punishment to shift the balance away from the joy of in-group belonging. Goel (2022a) claims that none of these solutions address reasoning since logic is not a huge obstacle. The barrier is that reason is connected to evolutionarily older processes that also influence behavior. As a result, establishing an accurate behavior model is the vital step toward successfully changing it.
Most individuals cannot research COVID-19 vaccinations or masks’ efficacy and reliability because they lack the expertise and years of postdoctoral training in viruses and vaccines to study primary material thoroughly. A more reasonable human psyche assumption is that individuals are thinking creatures, but their reasoning process is related to older biological mechanisms that act without conscious engagement or understanding. Autonomic, intuitive, and associative systems are a few examples, and all of these processes, not just reason, impact human behavior. Tethered rationality regards behavioral responses as a synthesis of actions created by the many systems. Essentially, in-group preference is a natural propensity, and if people genuinely believe experts who advocate vaccination are part of the in-group, this reflexive response will drive them in the same way.
People’s decision to be vaccinated or wear masks is influenced by in-group prejudice. The problem with vaccination is that there is very little factual proof contradicting the scientific consensus, but there is an infinite supply of more dubious information. Because the motivating desire is not rational, certain false beliefs are impervious to logical proof. It is an instinctual and other low-level subcortical process-driven desire. Nonetheless, a vaccine-averse person may delay, be careful, but accept or refuse any or all vaccines. This anti-vaccination stance should not be misconstrued as illogical or anti-science; rather, it typically expresses real misgivings and concerns regarding immunizations. Thus, one answer to the dilemma is modifying behavior by expanding the vaccine-hesitant in-group to include vaccine scientists. The second tactic is to allow individuals to feel the gravity of COVID-19 on a more personal level. Finally, the remedy is to create a significant incentive or penalty to tilt the dynamic away from the delight of membership to an in-group.
Brailovskaia, J., Schneider, S., & Margraf., J. (2021). To vaccinate or not to vaccinate!? Predictors of willingness to receive Covid-19 vaccination in Europe, the U.S., and China. PLoS ONE 16(12). Web.
Chiu, A. (2020). Rush Limbaugh on coronavirus: “The common cold” that’s being “weaponized” against Trump. The Washington Post. Web.
Dubé, È., Ward, J. K., Verger, P., & MacDonald, N. E. (2021). Vaccine hesitancy, acceptance, and anti-vaccination: trends and future prospects for public health. Annu Rev Public Health, 42(1), 175-91. Web.
Goel, V. (2022a). Vaccine hesitancy: Why ‘doing your own research’ doesn’t work, but reason alone won’t change minds. The Conversation. Web.
Goel, V. (2022b). Reason and less: Pursuing food, sex, and politics. MIT Press.
Hornsey, M. (2021). The psychology of the anti-vaccine movement. The Biochemist, 43(4), 52-54. Web.
Maciuszek, J., Polak, M., Stasiuk, K., & Doliński, D. (2021). Active pro-vaccine and anti-vaccine groups: Their group identities and attitudes toward science. PloS One, 16(12). Web.
Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2019). Lazy, not biased: Susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning. Cognition, 188, 39–50. Web.
Powdthavee, N., Riyanto, Y. E., Wong, E. C., Yeo, J. X., & Chan, Q. Y. (2021). When face masks signal social identity: Explaining the deep face-mask divide during the COVID-19 pandemic. PloS One, 16(6). Web.