Background and Research Goals. This study aims to see the association between worldviews and HPV vaccine risk perceptions in a sample of Canadian undergraduate students enrolled in Health Sciences and Business programs at the University of Ottawa. It is a follow-up to the Kahan et al. (2010) research in the U.S. that showed the association to be present in a nationally representative U.S. sample. In addition to searching for this association in the Canadian context, this study examines whether worldviews differ between (a) men and women; and (b) students with health sciences and with business degrees. Furthermore, this study tests a set of candidate questions for supplementing the worldview questionnaire of Kahan et al. (2010). Design and Analysis. The data for the study was collected using an Internet-based questionnaire and the study was conducted in two phases. During the first phase, a customized worldview questionnaire was administered. During the second phase, questions related to HPV and Canadian healthcare system were presented. In order to analyze the data, regression models, correlation matrices, and MANOVAs were employed. Results. The findings of this study are that worldviews are related to HPV vaccine risk perceptions. However, though hierarchism was a better predictor then individualism in the Kahan et al. (2010) study, our present research indicates that individualism is a better predictor. Also, our findings, contrary to those of Kahan et al. (2010), suggest that the more individualistic a person is, the more likely he or she is to perceive the vaccine as being safe. With respect to gender, men were more hierarchical. Also, when females in health sciences were compared to women in business, the latter were also more hierarchical. Finally, three healthcare items were identified as possibly benefiting from refinement and inclusion in a worldview instrument more suited for the Canadian context.

Human civilization is failing in the fight to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and limit the impact of anthropogenic climate change. Whilst there are likely numerous reasons for this inertia, societal risk perception plays a fundamental role in influencing the speed and effectiveness of political and social action to address climate change. This study presents the psychological, sociological and cultural reasons for variations in the perceptions of risk amongst a group of climate change sceptics in Sweden. Highlighting cognitive barriers and characteristics associated with different ideological biases and worldviews. The paper concludes that people become more or less sceptical to climate change based on a variety of potentially intersectional issues. Whilst gender, age and wisdom all play a role, the social groups with which people identify, as well as individuals’ values and ideas of what constitutes an ideal society ultimately shape ones perception of risk in relation to climate change. The implications for the communication of climate science are discussed, revealing that any inclusive communication strategy will fail unless it is presented in a way that affirms rather than challenges one’s cultural identity.

This study examined the perception of barriers to pro-environmental behaviour for different population segments in British Columbia. Cultural cognition scales were used to assign cultural values to participants (i.e., hierarchy-egalitarianism scale and individualism-communitarianism scale). Psychological and socio-cultural barriers were assessed using the list of dragons of inaction. Data on cultural values, perception of climate change risk, perception of barriers, frequency of pro-environmental behaviour, climate change knowledge and socio-demographic variables were collected using online surveys. Egalitarian values were correlated with greater climate change risk perception and with weaker perception of barriers to pro-environmental behaviour. Greater climate change risk perception was also associated with more pro-environmental behaviour. The effect of cultural values on barrier perception was partly mediated by climate change risk perception. These findings suggest that future research should focus on lessening the discrepancy between scientific climate change risk perception and public climate change risk perception, which can, in turn, increase the frequency of pro-environmental behaviour. / Graduate / 0768 / 0451 / lacroixk@uvic.ca

No description available.

No description available.

La plupart des Américains ne sont pas préoccupés par les vaccins. Cependant, minorité petite mais vocale l’est, et un nombre croissant de parents américains reçoivent des exemptions de vaccination pour leurs enfants sur la base de la religion ou de «convictions personnelles». Le refus vaccinal peut avoir des conséquences désastreuses: dans certaines communautés, la couverture vaccinale infantile a plongé bien en deçà du seuil requis pour «l'immunité collective», permettant à des maladies comme la rougeole d'opérer un retour en force. L'hésitation vaccinale et le refus vaccinal sont souvent attribués au manque de connaissances ou de compréhension des « faits » scientifiques des anti-vaccins. La plupart des interventions de santé publique qui visent à promouvoir la vaccination reposent sur la simple diffusion de connaissances scientifiques fiables; la communication scientifique est perçue comme un processus à sens unique de diffusion des connaissances scientifiques. La théorie est la suivante : si les anti-vaccins savaient à quel point les vaccins sont sécuritaires, efficaces et nécessaires, ils vaccineraient davantage. Malheureusement, la littérature dans plusieurs disciplines suggère que de telles interventions d'éducation passive à l'échelle de la communauté sont généralement inefficaces pour persuader les anti-vaccins d'adopter des attitudes et des comportements pro-vaccination. Pourquoi? En m'inspirant des principes de transdisciplinarité d'Edgar Morin, de la théorie des révolutions scientifiques de Thomas Kuhn et de la méthodologie de revue méta-narrative de Trisha Greenhalgh, j'examine les publications de différents auteurs phares de différentes disciplines qui fournissent directement ou indirectement une réponse à cette question. Je distingue trois approches principales, qui diffèrent quant à leur explication générale des raisons pour lesquelles les interventions basées sur la simple diffusion de preuves scientifiques échouent. La première explication est que les anti-vaccins n'ont pas les connaissances scientifiques nécessaires pour comprendre les preuves scientifiques qui leur sont présentées. La deuxième est que la résistance des anti-vaccins aux preuves scientifiques peut s’expliquer par de nombreux biais cognitifs qui anènent les individus à faire des erreurs systématiques de jugement et à s'écarter ainsi de l’idéal décisionnel de la théorie du choix rationnel. Le troisième narratif sur les anti-vaccins met l'accent sur les influences socioculturelles. Selon la théorie de la cognition culturelle, la culture influence les perceptions du risque à travers des biais cognitifs. Ces trois narratifs sur l'hésitation et le refus de la vaccination sont examinés en profondeur afin de fournir une synthèse interdisciplinaire des facteurs qui peuvent expliquer l'échec des interventions de santé publique basées sur l'éducation à persuader les anti-vaccins. / Most Americans are not concerned about vaccines. However, a small but vocal minority is, and a growing number of parents are receiving vaccine mandate exemptions for their children on the basis of religion or “personal belief.” Vaccine refusal can have disastrous consequences: in some communities, childhood vaccination coverage has dived well below the threshold required for “herd immunity,” allowing diseases like measles to stage a forceful comeback. Vaccine hesitancy and refusal are often attributed to a lack of knowledge or lack of understanding of scientific “facts” on the part of antivaxxers. Most public health interventions that aim to promote vaccination rely on disseminating trustworthy scientific knowledge and see science communication as a one-way process of diffusion of scientific evidence. If antivaxxers knew how safe, effective, and necessary vaccines are, the theory goes, they would vaccinate more. Unfortunately, literature across disciplines suggests that such passive, community-wide education interventions are mostly ineffective at persuading antivaxxers to adopt pro-vaccination attitudes and behaviours. Why? Inspired by Edgar Morin’s principles of transdisciplinarity, Thomas Kuhn’s theory of scientific revolutions, and Trisha Greenhalgh’s meta-narrative review methodology, I examine the publications of different seminal authors across disciplines that directly or indirectly provide an answer to this question. I distinguish three main approaches, which differ as to their general explanation of why interventions based on simple dissemination of scientific evidence fail. The first explanation is that antivaxxers lack the scientific literacy that is necessary to understand the scientific evidence that is presented to them. The second is that antivaxxers’ resistance to scientific evidence can be explained by the numerous cognitive biases and “rules of thumb” that lead individuals to make systematic errors in judgment and thus deviate from the rational choice theory decision-making ideal. The third narrative stresses sociocultural influences. According to cultural cognition theory, culture influences risk perceptions through the mechanisms of cognitive biases and heuristics. These three narratives about vaccine hesitancy and refusal are thoroughly examined in order to provide a cross-disciplinary synthesis of factors that may explain the failure of education-based public health interventions to persuade antivaxxers.