Search

Background: The study aims to compare the decision-making processes of individuals with and without the Covid-19 vaccine under uncertainty. Material/ Methods: The study included 70 participants vaccinated against Covid-19 and 70 not-vaccinated against Covid-19, matched by age, gender, and education level. Sociodemographic Data Form, Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI), Barratt Impulsivity Scale Short Form (BIS-11-SF), The Scale of Vaccine Hesitancy (SVH), and Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) were administered to the participants. Results: A statistically significant difference was found between the vaccinated and non-vaccinated groups regarding SVH sub-dimensions and the total score (p<0.001). A statistically significant difference was observed between the groups in the IGT-5 subdimension (p <0.05). Although there was no statistically significant difference in IGT-total and other sub-dimensions, it was recognized that not-vaccinated participants made more choices for risky decks. A statistically significant negative correlation was found between IGT-5 and the benefit and protective value of the vaccine, solutions for non-vaccination, and SVH-total score. Besides, there was a statistically significant negative correlation between the IGT-Total score and the sub-dimension of solutions for non-vaccination. Conclusions: The non-vaccinated group made more choices from the disadvantageous and risky decks in the long run during the decision-making task under uncertainty; they were prone to take more risks. That is why the impact of implicit and emotional processes should be considered in the risk assessment against vaccine hesitancy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Since it is assumed that individuals make their decisions about vaccination by comparing risks, risk perception is among the important factors affecting vaccination. Numerous studies show that the interpretation of risk is often not based on a rational approach but on the "uncertainties" approach, where doubts arise despite scientific evidence. The decision to vaccinate can be influenced by cost-benefit analysis and emotional processes. The aim of the study is to compare the decisionmaking processes of vaccinated (V+) and unvaccinated (V-) individuals under uncertainty. Methods: The study included 70 V- and 70 V+ participants matched for age, sex, and education. Sociodemographic Data Form, Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI), Barratt Impulsivity Scale Short Form (BIS- 11-SF), Vaccine Hesitancy Scale (VHS), and Iowa Gambling Test (IGT) were administered to the participants. Results: A statistically significant difference was found between V- and V+ in terms of VHS sub-dimensions and total scores (p<0.001). A statistically significant difference was observed between the groups in the IGT-5 sub-dimension (p<0.05). Although there was no statistically significant difference in IGT-total and other sub-dimensions, V-participants were more likely to choose from a risky deck. A statistically significant negative correlation was found between IGT-5 and the benefit of vaccination, solutions for not getting vaccinated, and VHS-total score (r =-.21, p<.05, r = -.23, p<.01, r = -.19, p<.05, respectively). Similarly, there was a statistically significant negative correlation between the IGT-Total score and the subdimension of solutions not to be vaccinated (r = -.20, p<.05). Conclusion: In the task of making decisions under uncertainty, the V- group made more choices from disadvantageous and risky decks in the long term and was prone to take risks under uncertainty. The impact of emotional processes should be taken into account in the risk assessment against vaccination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]