Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Limited knowledge exists regarding the factors influencing the perceptions of individuals who may have transmitted a contagious virus. This study examined the impact of vaccination status on evaluations of individuals suspected of being sources of infection. The vaccination status of three individuals—the study participant (observer), the potential source of infection (actor), and the infected person—was considered. A total of 395 participants were assigned to one of four conditions based on vaccination status. Results revealed that vaccinated observers attributed greater responsibility for the infection to the unvaccinated actor, perceiving them as less moral, trustworthy, and empathetic compared to unvaccinated observers. The vaccination status of the infected person did not significantly influence observers’ evaluations of the actor, nor did it affect unvaccinated observers’ assessments based on the actor’s vaccination status. These findings suggest that vaccinated individuals may negatively assess unvaccinated individuals suspected of being sources of infection.

Keywords

COVID-19 virus transmission vaccination status attribution of responsibility social perception

Introduction

During the COVID-19 pandemic, media reports of vaccinated individuals placing blame on unvaccinated individuals when infections occur within a specific community. For instance, in one case, a widow attributed her husband’s COVID-19 infection to unvaccinated family members they had met at a gathering, stating, “It’s that kind of attitude that killed my husband” (Leys, 2022). Blaming and discriminating against certain groups or individuals as the source of infection is a common occurrence during pandemics (Cogan & Herek, 1998). While vaccination effectively reduces the risk of transmission (Braeye et al., 2021; Hsu et al., 2021), pinpointing the specific source of infection is challenging (Wong et al., 2021). Negatively judging unvaccinated individuals when new infections emerge in their social environment may be unjust, unfair, and harmful. To date, no research has examined the determinants of attributing responsibility for virus transmission nor how vaccinated individuals perceive unvaccinated individuals (and vice versa) when suspected as sources of infection within a specific social environment. This study addresses these gaps and sheds light on the underlying tensions between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. Our findings may help understand whether unvaccinated individuals are unfairly blamed for infecting others and identify the factors contributing to these processes. Ultimately, this could help reduce prejudice against unvaccinated individuals and promote vaccine uptake.

Theoretical Background

Vaccines play a crucial role in preventing infections caused by highly contagious viruses, such as influenza (Arriola et al., 2017) and COVID-19 (Dagan et al., 2021), as well as reducing the severity of diseases. In general, vaccination hinders transmission of the virus by minimizing the number of infected individuals and the onward spread of the virus from vaccinated individuals (Harris et al., 2021; Levine-Tiefenbrun et al., 2021; Salo et al., 2021). However, in high-interaction social settings like households, vaccination may not provide complete protection against highly contagious viruses (Singanayagam et al., 2022).

Humans inherently seek causes of events in order to understand, control, and predict their environment (Weiner, 1986). Therefore, it is likely that when someone becomes infected, their social environment will search for sources of the infection. Given that most human gatherings, such as workplaces, consist of a mix of vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, and considering that many people publicly disclose their vaccination status, there is a risk that unvaccinated individuals may be perceived as the source of infections by vaccinated individuals. This tendency may be particularly prominent during pandemics, which create a constant state of threat (Van Mulukom et al., 2021), increasing the likelihood of discrimination against individuals or groups believed to be responsible for new infections (Cogan & Herek, 1998). The highly contagious and severe nature of COVID-19 further amplifies the risk of discrimination against those perceived as sources of infection (Demirtaş-Madran, 2020). Research has shown that people are more inclined to punish individuals who violate COVID-19 lockdown rules and view them as less human compared to those who adhere to the guidelines (Kasper et al., 2022). Studies analyzing editorial cartoons in Canadian newspapers have revealed that those who did not comply with recommended measures, travelers, urban dwellers, and foreigners (such as the Chinese) were held responsible for COVID-19 (Labbé et al., 2022). A similar sentiment echoed in the USA, where the media consistently portrayed the Chinese as a threat and targets of blame (Ma & Ma, 2022). Consequently, the Chinese population faced blame for the COVID-19 pandemic, leading to discrimination and violence against them (Hwang, 2022).

In this context, we can ask why people tend to seek out those responsible for infections caused by a contagious virus and blame certain groups and individuals. The occurrence of severe infections within a close social environment is a distressing event (Bridgland et al., 2021). In order to enhance psychological adjustment, individuals are likely to make assessments regarding the causes of these infections and attribute responsibility. Cognitive evaluations of the causes of stressful life events are often not based on factual information and are highly influenced by biases (Faller et al., 1995) aimed at promoting psychological adjustment following an event (Moskowitz et al., 2009; Roesch & Weiner, 2001). Attribution theories, such as the emergence of intrinsic and extrinsic attributions, the fundamental attribution error, Weiner’s attribution theory, and defensive attribution, provide insights into the mechanisms behind attributing responsibility for specific behaviors, which may help explain the assignment of blame for infection to a particular individual.

Attribution Theories

Attribution is the process of explaining the causes behind events or behaviors. From a social psychology perspective, the attribution theory suggests that individuals act as “intuitive scientists” who actively process information to explain behavior (Heider, 1958; Kelley, 1967; Tetlock & Levi, 1982). The theory distinguishes between actors who engage in behavior and observers who evaluate the causes of that behavior. Observers assess the causes based on whether they are internal (related to individual attributes) or external (resulting from external factors). Internal and external attributions are independent dimensions, meaning that a stronger internal attribution does not necessarily imply a weaker external attribution, and vice versa (Gilbert & Malone, 1995).

In the context of infections transmitted by a contagious virus, an internal attribution regarding the cause of infection could involve whether an individual has been vaccinated against the virus. If observers attribute the infection internally, they may consider the infection to be a result of the actor’s characteristics, such as being unvaccinated. On the other hand, observers can make an external attribution by suggesting that the infection is due to the situation in which the actor and the infected person were, such as overcrowding or lack of ventilation.

Fundamental Attribution Error

Furthermore, observers have a tendency to overestimate the influence of internal factors on the behavior of actors and underestimate external factors, even when there is clear evidence of an external cause present. This cognitive bias is known as the fundamental attribution error (Jones & Harris, 1967; O’Sullivan, 2003; Ross, 1977). Internal attribution involves attributing certain characteristics to the actor that are believed to be the cause of their behavior. For example, if an actor is late for an important meeting, an observer may judge them as being irresponsible. Some researchers argue that observers are “cognitive misers” who seek to minimize cognitive effort, leading them to automatically default to internal attributions (Gilbert et al., 1988; Uleman et al., 2008). As a result of limited processing capabilities, internal attribution tends to be a fast and unconscious process (Posner et al., 2004). Observers will only apply external attribution if they are both motivated and capable of doing so (Gilbert et al., 1988).

When observers perceive an actor suspected of infecting another person with a contagious virus, the fundamental attribution error is likely to be observed, leading to a tendency to attribute internal causes rather than external ones. Observers will primarily focus on the characteristics of the actor that may have contributed to their behavior (e.g., lack of vaccination) in infecting another person.

Weiner Attribution Model

In addition to considering internal and external perceptions of the causes of one’s own and others’ behavior, Weiner (1985, 2006) introduced attribution theories related to (1) the degree of volitional control over the behavior, referred to as controllability and (2) whether the behavior is intended and aligned with the actor’s goals, referred to as intentionality. When observers perceive that an actor’s volitional actions could have resulted in different outcomes, they attribute high controllability to the behavior (Weiner, 1985). The perceived degree of controllability and intentionality, along with perceived causality (internal/external), influence how individuals behave toward the actor, the emotions they feel toward the actor, and their overall evaluation of the actor. The perceived controllability of an actor’s behavior is crucial for attributing responsibility (Weiner, 2006; Weiner et al., 1988). Observers are less likely to offer help and feel less sympathy, but more disgust, toward actors who need assistance due to internal and controllable causes compared to those who need help due to external and controllable causes (Skitka & Tetlock, 1992; Weiner, 2006). When observers perceive the cause of an illness as controllable (such as HIV/AIDS, drug addiction, and obesity), they tend to blame the affected individual, ostracize them from society, feel less fondness and pity toward them, and exhibit less desire to offer assistance (Corrigan et al., 2000, 2003; Weiner et al., 1988). Higher perceived controllability of behavior is also associated with lower levels of trust (Tomlinson & Mryer, 2009). Weiner (2006) argued that when observers perceive actors as responsible for wrongdoing, they experience more anger toward them, and this anger can, in turn, lead to aggressive behavior directed at the source of the emotion (Berkowitz, 2012).

Recently, Yao and Sigel’s (2021) study showed that stronger perceptions of intentionality and controllability increased the perception of responsibility, anger, and the desire to punish individuals for spreading COVID-19 on an airplane. Higher perceived controllability also decreased sympathy toward those who transmitted the virus. Vaccination or non-vaccination can be considered as a behavior characterized by high intentionality and controllability. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the decision not to vaccinate against highly contagious viruses such as influenza and COVID-19 would be a basis for attributing responsibility for virus transmission and would overall shape the perception of the unvaccinated actor. Vaccination status, in particular, may influence the assessment of morality and trust, as one of the motivations for vaccination, especially among young people, is the desire to protect the health of others through their own vaccination (Drążkowski et al., 2022). Thus, since vaccinating carries moral implications for some individuals (Drążkowski & Trepanowski, 2021), the absence of vaccination may be perceived as a manifestation of a lack of morality and trustworthiness.

The Defensive Attribution

This theory suggests that observers are motivated to distort their attributions of causality and responsibility for the negative behavior of others in order to avoid being blamed for similar behavior in future situations (Shaver, 1970). Specifically, when a behavior occurs in a context that is highly relevant and familiar to the observer, and when there is a high personal relevance between the observer and the actor (meaning the observer identifies with the actor and feels similar to them), the observer will perceive less responsibility on the part of the actor for their behavior. This self-protective tendency in observers aims to avoid potential blame for their own involvement in any future incident (Chaikin & Darley, 1973). For example, male observers, due to their similarity to male actor-perpetrators and a deeply ingrained fear of future allegations of harassment, attribute less responsibility to the perpetrator for their behavior compared to female observers (Key & Ridge, 2011). However, if the observers do not perceive themselves as potential perpetrators due to low personal relevance, they will attribute more responsibility to the perpetrators, as they see themselves as potential victims of such behavior in the future.

Most people have personally experienced infections caused by highly contagious viruses such as influenza and COVID-19, or their close relatives have, and thus such infection has a high situational relevance for them. From the perspective of defensive attribution theory, if the observer has the same vaccination status as the actor, then a high personal relevance can exist. Thus, vaccinated observers should judge unvaccinated actors more harshly than vaccinated actors, fearing that they will infect them or their relatives in the future. From another perspective, vaccinated observers should judge vaccinated actors more leniently to reduce the fear of being suspected of infecting someone in the future. Further, this fear can be stronger when an unvaccinated actor infects a vaccinated person. Similar vaccination status between the observer and the infected “victim” may increase observers’ fear of infection, leading them to attribute greater responsibility to the unvaccinated actor. Analogically, the process of assigning responsibility may be relevant for unvaccinated observers. They should assign less responsibility to unvaccinated actors than vaccinated observers to alleviate concerns about being accused of infecting someone in the future. The prediction may be less clear for unvaccinated observers’ judgment of vaccinated actors since it is difficult to imagine how being vaccinated can contribute to infecting others. However, presumably, unvaccinated observers may judge vaccinated actors more harshly, for example, because they perceive them as careless in reducing the risk of infection after vaccination. Following this reasoning, the fear of being infected by a careless vaccinated actor can be greater when a vaccinated actor infects an unvaccinated person. The similarity of the unvaccinated observer to the unvaccinated “victim” may increase the fear of being infected and cause greater responsibility to be attributed to the vaccinated actor.

Additionally, defensive attribution theories suggest that the fear of infection by highly contagious viruses may play a key role in attributing responsibility for infection related to vaccination status. The greater the fear of infection is, the more severe the person perceives the disease to be (Drążkowski & Trepanowski, 2022). Conversly, prior findings showed that the greater the severity of a negative event, the greater the attribution of responsibility (Robbennolt, 2000). Thus, observers who are more fearful of infection and perceive the contracting of this virus as more severe should attribute more responsibility for the infection to the actor.

Current Study

This paper aims to investigate the influence of vaccination status on the attribution of responsibility to individuals suspected of being the source of infection from highly contagious viruses, as well as on the evaluation of these individuals. Based on a review of attribution theory, we have identified that observers of the chain of infection may be prone to committing a fundamental attribution error and attributing the infection to the behavior and characteristics of the actor suspected of being the source. Considering that vaccination status is typically an intentional and controllable behavior, according to Weiner’s attribution model, vaccination can serve as the basis for attributing responsibility for an event, which can in turn lead to the experience of certain emotions and the formation of judgments about the actor’s traits. In the context of the perceived relationship between vaccination against highly contagious viruses and new infections, we hypothesize that greater attribution of responsibility will be accompanied by increased feelings of anger and reduced empathy toward the actor in situations involving actor illness, as well as a perception of the actor as less trustworthy and moral.

Furthermore, based on defensive attribution theories, we anticipate the following:

– vaccinated observers will attribute greater responsibility to unvaccinated actors for infecting others compared to vaccinated actors;

– vaccinated observers will attribute even greater responsibility when an unvaccinated actor infects a vaccinated person;

– unvaccinated observers will attribute greater responsibility to vaccinated actors for infecting others compared to unvaccinated actors;

– unvaccinated observers will attribute even greater responsibility when a vaccinated actor infects an unvaccinated person.

Additionally, we expect that a higher fear of infection and a greater perceived severity of the disease will lead to a greater attribution of responsibility for the infection to the actor. Taking into account that a higher perceived severity of the disease and fear of infection are associated with the intention to vaccinate (Drążkowski & Trepanowski, 2022; Mertens et al., 2022), controlling for these variables in our analysis will allow us to assess the extent to which observer vaccination status actually influences the attribution of responsibility in situations involving new infections.

Materials and Methods

Participants

A total of 414 Polish people (292 females) aged between 13 and 76 years (M = 28.90, SD = 12.52) participated in the study through an invitation published on social media between December 2021 and April 2022. As 19 participants were underage, we excluded them from the analysis, resulting in a total sample size of 395. Sample specifications are provided in Table 1, and the data, codebook, and script are freely available on the Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/z96pq/?view_only=16e3452f216c4886803a42f2a065c849. All procedures performed in the study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Ethical Committee of the Faculty of Psychology and Cognitive Science, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan. The survey was anonymous, conducted electronically, and participants were not required to provide it. All participants provided written informed consent.

Table 1.

Sample Specification.

Descriptive variable	N	%
Age (M = 29.06; SD = 12.51)
18–29	268	67.8
30–39	47	12.0
40–49	39	10.0
50–59	27	6.8
60–65	9	2.3
66+	4	1.0
Missing data	1	0.03
Gender
Male	112	70.6
Female	279	28.4
Non-binary/other	4	1.0
Education
Elementary/secondary	8	2.0
Occupational	11	2.8
Middle	125	31.6
Higher (incomplete)	112	28.4
Higher	139	35.2
Have you gotten sick with COVID-19?
No	156	39.5
Yes	131	33.2
I don’t know	108	27.3
Are you vaccinated against COVID-19?
No	98	24.8
Yes	297	75.2

Design and Procedure

The study employed a 2 (actor vaccination status: vaccinated vs. unvaccinated) × 2 (observer vaccination status: vaccinated vs. unvaccinated) × 2 (infected person vaccination status: vaccinated vs. unvaccinated) between-subjects experimental design. To implement this design, an online experimental study was conducted. Initially, participants were provided with information about their rights as participants and asked to provide informed consent. Following that, they completed a series of questionnaires, beginning with assessments of disease severity and fear of infection (Ahorsu et al., 2020) in the specified order.

Afterward, the participants were randomly assigned to read one of the eight versions of a scenario describing the transmission routes of COVID-19 in a specific setting. The scenario depicted a Polish male named Marcin who tested positive for the coronavirus, and a few days later, one of his co-workers also contracted the virus. At their workplace, it was determined that Marcin was the likely source of the infection for his colleague. In the scenario, we manipulated two factors: Marcin’s vaccination status (vaccinated vs. unvaccinated) and his co-worker’s vaccination status (vaccinated vs. unvaccinated). Since the severity of negative events, such as COVID-19 infection, can influence the attribution of responsibility (Robbennolt, 2000), and considering the wide range of outcomes associated with COVID-19 (from mild cases to fatal illness), we decided to counterbalance the severity of the co-worker’s experience with COVID-19 (high or low). This approach aimed to enhance the generalizability of the results by avoiding reliance on a single extreme disease outcome. It should be noted that disease severity was not considered as a separate independent variable in our analyses.

After reading the vignette, participants rated the level of responsibility attributed to the actor (Marcin) for infecting his colleague, whether the actor should feel guilty about the situation, and the observer’s feelings of anger and compassion toward the actor. Subsequently, participants rated the actor’s morality and trustworthiness. Finally, participants provided demographic information, including age, gender, education, vaccination status, and personal history of contracting COVID-19. The scenario and survey items used in the study can be found in Supplementary File 1, provided in both English and Polish, except for the Fear of Infection scale, which is available in the original paper by Ahorsu et al. (2020).

Measures

Participants’ measures:

Severity of Disease

The self-perceived danger and severity of contracting disease were assessed using three items (e.g., “I believe that COVID-19 is a severe and dangerous illness”) rated on a seven-point scale (1 = “completely disagree” to 7 = “completely agree”; α = .89).

Fear of Infection

The Fear of Infection Scale (Ahorsu et al., 2020) was used to measure fear, consisting of seven items (e.g., “I am afraid of losing my life because of COVID-19”) rated on a seven-point scale where 1 = “I completely agree” and 7 = “I do not agree at all”; α = .87.

Actors’s measures.

Responsibility

The perceived responsibility of the actor for infecting the coworker was assessed with four items (e.g., “To what extent did Marcin act recklessly in this situation?”) rated on a seven-point scale (1 = “Not at all”; 7 = “Completely”; α = .94).

Anger

The perceived anger toward the actor for his behavior was assessed with four items (e.g., “To what extent do you feel animosity toward Marcin?”) rated on a seven-point scale (1 = “Not at all”; 7 = “Completely”; α = .96).

Compassion

The perceived compassion for the actor being in the described situation was assessed with three items (e.g., “How much sympathy do you feel for Marcin?”) rated on a seven-point scale (1 = “Not at all”; 7 = “Completely”; α = .90).

Morality

The perceived morality of the actor was assessed using the morality subscale from the Agency and Communion Scale (Abele & Wojciszke, 2007). Adjectives (e.g., “Moral”) were rated on a seven-point scale (1 = “Marcin is not like that at all”; 7 = “Marcin is certainly like that”; α = .96).

Trustworthiness

The perceived trustworthiness of the actor was assessed using the Specific Interpersonal Trust Scale (Johnson-George & Swap, 1982). Five items (e.g., “If we were to meet somewhere for coffee, Marcin would definitely come”) were rated on a seven-point scale (1 = “I strongly disagree”; 7 = “I strongly agree”; α = .93).

Initial factor analyses revealed that the compassion and anger measures were grouped within the same factor, and therefore, they were combined for further analyses (α = .96).

Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics are presented in Table 2. As more than 75% of the study participants were vaccinated, and vaccination status was included as a factor in the ANOVA, an uneven distribution of participants across the study conditions can be observed in Table 2. Prior to conducting the analysis, data normality was assessed. All variables were abnormally distributed, as indicated by the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (ps < .001). Furthermore, for some of the variables a lack of homogeneity of variances based on Levene’s F test was found: attribution of responsibility, F(7, 386) = 2.21, p = .033; trustworthiness, F(7, 386) = 2.62, p = .012; morality, F(7, 386) = 0.82, p = .572; empathy, F(7, 386) = 1.23, p = .286. Since there is strong evidence supporting the robustness of ANOVAs to violations of their assumptions (e.g., Blanca et al., 2017; Schminder et al., 2010), and considering the absence of non-parametric alternatives for three-way ANOVA, we have chosen to use ANOVA for testing our hypotheses.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics.

Actor vaccinated	Observer vaccinated	Coworker vaccinated	N	Responsibility			Trustworthiness			Morality				Empathy
Actor vaccinated	Observer vaccinated	Coworker vaccinated	N	M	SD		M		SD	M		SD		M		SD
Yes	No	No	27	1.70	0.91	4.77		1.46		4.67	1.50		3.37		1.67
Yes	No	Yes	23	2.27	1.10	4.66		0.86		3.81	0.95		2.84		1.68
Yes	Yes	No	50	2.57	1.11	4.72		1.21		4.00	1.23		4.31		1.35
Yes	Yes	Yes	74	2.68	1.04	4.72		1.07		3.97	1.15		4.38		1.38
No	No	No	21	1.80	1.06	5.53		1.25		4.77	1.43		4.63		1.59
No	No	Yes	25	1.79	0.81	4.63		1.67		4.31	1.25		4.22		1.62
No	Yes	No	65	3.83	1.41	4.32		1.38		3.29	1.24		3.17		1.44
No	Yes	Yes	78	3.92	1.09	4.14		1.08		3.24	1.08		3.23		1.38
Yes	Yes	—	151	2.62	1.08	4.78		1.03		3.98	1.19		4.35		1.36
Yes	No	—	50	1.96	1.03	4.72		1.21		4.28	1.33		3.12		1.68
No	Yes	—	143	3.88	1.24	4.23		1.23		3.26	1.15		3.23		1.38
No	No	—	46	1.79	0.92	5.04		1.55		4.52	1.34		4.41		1.60
—	Yes	No	142	3.17	1.40	4.54		1.22		3.66	1.28		3.78		1.50
—	Yes	Yes	155	3.30	1.23	4.49		1.09		3.60	1.17		3.80		1.49
—	No	No	49	1.77	0.97	5.08		1.40		4.72	1.45		3.86		1.77
—	No	Yes	48	2.02	0.98	4.64		1.33		4.07	1.13		3.56		1.77
Yes	—	—	201	2.46	1.10	4.77		1.07		4.06	1.23		4.04		1.54
No	—	—	189	3.37	1.47	4.42		1.35		3.57	1.32		3.50		1.54
—	Yes	—	297	3.24	1.31	4.51		1.15		3.63	1.22		3.79		1.49
—	No	—	97	1.89	0.98	4.87		1.38		4.40	1.34		3.71		1.77
—	—	Yes	203	3.00	1.29	4.53		1.15		3.71	1.18		3.74		1.56
—	—	No	191	2.81	1.44	4.68		1.29		3.93	1.40		3.80		1.57

A 2 × 2 × 2 analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to examine the effects of observer vaccination status (vaccinated vs. unvaccinated), actor vaccination status (vaccinated vs. unvaccinated), and infected person vaccination status (vaccinated vs. unvaccinated) on dependent variables, including attribution of responsibility, perceived trustworthiness and morality of the actor, and empathy felt for the actor. Age, perceived severity of disease, and fear of infection were included as covariates in all ANOVA models. Results of three-way ANOVA are presented in Table 3. Significant interactions identified in the ANOVA models were followed by post hoc comparisons using the Bonferroni test with a significance level of .05 and with confidence intervals. Since our data did not meet the assumptions of ANOVA, we employed a more conservative approach for conducting post hoc tests. Specifically, we utilized bootstrapping with a sample size of 5,000 and performed pairwise comparisons using the Mann-Whitney U test with Bonferroni correction (see Table 4). In order to reduce the likelihood of type I error, we applied a stringent criterion for determining significant differences between the compared groups. This criterion required all four tests to be significant: (1) Bonferroni, (2) Bonferroni confidence intervals, (3) bootstrapping with confidence intervals, and (4) Mann-Whitney U test with Bonferroni correction. Finally, after the study we conducted a sensitivity power analysis (α = .05, power = 0.08), which indicated that the minimum detectable effect size should occur at Cohen’s f = 0.200. For each model the observed effect sizes were greater than the minimum detectable Cohen f effect size.

Table 3.

Results of Three Way ANOVA.

Predictor	Anger and responsibility		Trustworthiness		Morality		Empathy
Predictor	F	Part.η²	F	Part.η²	F	Part.η²	F	Part.η²
Model	32.80***	0.461	3.83***	0.091	7.26***	0.159	9.06***	0.191
Age	7.19**	0.018	0.39	0.001	0.67	0.002	0.87	0.002
Severity	7.76**	0.020	0.16	0.000	1.29	0.003	18.99***	0.047
Fear of infection	32.90***	0.079	5.78*	0.015	2.33	0.006	1.72	0.004
Actor	12.11**	0.031	0.20	0.001	1.34	0.003	0.00	0.000
Observer	24.65***	0.060	2.35	0.006	9.02**	0.023	2.65	0.007
Coworker	1.51	0.004	3.40	0.009	5.73*	0.015	1.26	0.003
Actor × Observer	42.94***	0.10	10.18**	0.026	14.00***	0.035	45.00***	0.105
Actor × Coworker	0.94	0.002	4.08*	0.011	0.25	0.001	0.16	0.000
Observer × Coworker	0.16	0.000	2.35	0.006	4.45**	0.011	2.44	0.006
Actor × Observer × Coworker	1.79	0.005	0.54	0.001	0.65	0.002	0.00	0.000

Note. df for all models = 10, 393; Severity—Perceived severity of disease; Actor—vaccination of the actor/Marcin (vaccinated/not vaccinated); Observer—vaccination of the observer (vaccinated/not vaccinated); Coworker—vaccination of the coworker (vaccinated/not vaccinated).

p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001.

Table 4.

Results of Post Hoc Comparisons for Significant Two-Way ANOVA.

Variables*	Comparison groups*			Bonferroni	CI-LB	CI-UB	CI_boot-LB	CI_boot-UB	Mann–Whitney
Responsibility
	Observer vaccinated	Actor vaccinated
	Yes	Yes	No	<0.001	−1.662	−1.121	−1.682	−1.107	4,786.50 (<0.001)
	No	Yes	No	0.08	−0.050	0.897	0.023	0.801	1,161.50 (0.792)
	Actor vaccinated	Observer vaccinated
	Yes	Yes	No	0.83	−0.489	0.393	−0.403	0.484	2,477.00 (<0.001)
	No	Yes	No	<0.001	1.336	2.198	−2.144	−1.395	666.50 (<0.001)
Trustworthiness
	Observer vaccinated	Actor vaccinated
	Yes	Yes	Yes	<0.001	0.234	0.780	0.243	0.765	7,653.00 (<0.001)
	No	Yes	No	0.116	−0.860	0.094	−0.894	0.166	987.00 (0.130)
	Actor vaccinated	Observer vaccinated
	Yes	Yes	Yes	0.414	−0.259	0.629	−0.213	0.561	3,513.50 (0.314)
	No	Yes	No	0.002	−1.139	−0.271	−1.179	−0.239	2,162.00 (<0.001)
Empathy
	Observer vaccinated	Actor vaccinated
	Yes	Yes	Yes	<0.001	0.798	1.455	0.809	1.442	6,152.50 (<0.001)
	No	Yes	No	<0.001	−1.704	−0.554	−1.782	−0.463	708 (<0.001)
	Actor vaccinated	Observer vaccinated
	Yes	Yes	Yes	0.004	0.251	1.321	0.284	1.278	2,166.00 (<0.001)
	No	Yes	No	<0.001	−1.993	−0.946	−2.046	−0.880	2,022.00 (<0.001)
Morality
	Observer vaccinated	Actor vaccinated
	Yes	Yes	Yes	<0.001	0.419	0.974	0.428	0.959	6,907.50 (<0.001)
	No	Yes	No	0.139	−0.852	0.120	−0.874	0.138	1,023.00 (0.208)
	Actor vaccinated	Observer vaccinated
	Yes	Yes	Yes	0.993	−0.450	0.454	−0.402	0.403	3,467.50 (0.259)
	No	Yes	No	<0.001	−1.507	−0.623	−1.517	−0.614	1,442.00 (<0.001)
Morality
	Observer vaccinated	Co-worker vaccinated
	Yes	Yes	Yes	0.782	−0.317	0.239	−0.307	0.236	10,790.50 (0.771)
	No	Yes	No	0.01	−1.122	−0.155	−1.152	−0.127	912.50 (0.039)
	Co-worker vaccinated	Observer vaccinated
	Yes	Yes	Yes	0.306	−0.682	0.215	−0.645	0.207	2,828.00 (0.007)
	No	Yes	No	<0.001	−1.279	−0.387	−1.301	−0.398	2,007.50 (<0.001)
Trustworthiness
	Observer vaccinated	Co-worker vaccinated
	Yes	Yes	Yes	0.760	−0.316	0.231	−0.295	0.214	10,344.00 (0.368)
	No	Yes	No	0.052	−0.946	0.005	−0.1025	0.063	1,064.50 (0.331)
	Co-worker vaccinated	Observer vaccinated
	Yes	Yes	Yes	0.837	−0.394	0.486	−0.488	0.399	3,378.00 (0.240)
	No	Yes	No	0.034	−0.912	−0.036	−0.936	−0.050	2,873.00 (0.068)

Note. CI-LB and CI-UB represent confidence intervals for Bonferroni post hoc comparisons; CIboot-LB and CIboot-UB represent confidence intervals for post hoc comparisons using bootstrap resampling (n = 5,000); U Mann–Whitney indicates a non-parametric comparison between two groups—it is considered significant for p < .0125 with Bonferroni correction for four comparisons; group comparisons that are significant in all post hoc tests have been highlighted in bold.

Variables are repeated as they regard different comparison groups.

Results

Attribution of Responsibility

The results of the ANOVA revealed that vaccinated observers, observers who had a higher fear of infection, observers who perceived the disease as severe, and younger observers attributed significantly greater responsibility for the infection to the actor compared to their counterparts. Overall, observers assigned more responsibility for the infection to the unvaccinated actor compared to the vaccinated actor. Specifically, vaccinated observers attributed more responsibility to the unvaccinated actor than to the vaccinated actor, and this difference was also significant compared to the ratings of unvaccinated observers. On the other hand, for unvaccinated observers, the attribution of responsibility was not influenced by whether the actor was vaccinated or not.

The vaccination status of the infected coworker did not have an effect on the attribution of responsibility for the infection. Furthermore, there were no significant interactions between (1) observer vaccination and infected coworker vaccination, (2) actor vaccination and infected coworker vaccination, (3) observer vaccination, infected coworker vaccination, and actor vaccination.

Perceived Trustworthiness of Actor

The vaccination status of the actor, observer, and infected coworker did not have an effect on the perceived trustworthiness of the actor. However, further analysis of these factors revealed significant interactions among them. Vaccinated observers rated the unvaccinated actor as less trustworthy compared to when the actor was vaccinated and compared to the ratings of unvaccinated observers. On the other hand, for unvaccinated observers, the trustworthiness of the actor was not influenced by whether the actor was vaccinated or not.

Although the interaction between actor vaccination and coworker vaccination was significant, post hoc tests did not reveal any significant differences between the different study conditions.

As the fear of infection increased, the perception of the actor as less trustworthy also increased. The age of observers and the perceived severity of the disease did not show a significant relationship with the perceived trustworthiness of the actor. Additionally, there were no significant interactions between (1) observer vaccination and coworker vaccination and (2) observer vaccination, coworker vaccination, and actor vaccination.

Perceived Morality of the Actor

Vaccinated observers rated the actor as less moral compared to unvaccinated observers, and the vaccination status of the actor did not influence the perception of his morality. However, interaction analyses revealed that vaccinated observers perceived the unvaccinated actor as significantly less moral compared to the situation where the actor was vaccinated and compared to unvaccinated observers. On the other hand, for unvaccinated observers, the morality of the actor was not affected by whether he was vaccinated or not.

When the infected coworker was unvaccinated, the actor was perceived as more moral compared to when the infected coworker was vaccinated. When the co-worker was unvaccinated, vaccinated observers rated the unvaccinated actor as less trustworthy compared to unvaccinated observers. For vaccinated observers, the morality of the actor was not influenced by whether the infected coworker was vaccinated or not.

Age, perceived severity of disease, and fear of infection did not have an effect on observers’ ratings of the actor’s morality. There were no significant interactions between actor vaccination and infected coworker vaccination, as well as between observer vaccination, infected coworker vaccination, and actor vaccination.

Empathy Felt for the Actor

Whether the actor and observer were vaccinated or not did not have an effect on the empathy felt for the actor. However, analysis of these factors revealed a significant interaction between them. Vaccinated observers rated that when the actor was unvaccinated, they felt less empathy for him compared to when he was vaccinated and compared to unvaccinated observers. In contrast, unvaccinated observers rated that when the actor was unvaccinated, they felt more empathy for him compared to when he was vaccinated. There were no differences in the assessment of empathy felt for the actor between vaccinated and unvaccinated observers.

Observers who perceived the disease as severe reported feeling more empathy for the actor. Age and fear of infection did not have an effect on observers’ ratings of the actor’s empathy. Whether the infected coworker was vaccinated or not did not influence the empathy felt for the actor. Additionally, the two-way and three-way interactions involving the coworker vaccination variable with actor vaccination and observer vaccination were not significant.

Discussion

Using attribution theory as a theoretical basis, we aimed to examine the influence of vaccination status on the attribution of responsibility to the person suspected of being the source of infection caused by highly contagious viruses and on evaluating this person. We examined how the vaccination status of the observer, actor, and infected person affects the attribution of the actor’s responsibility and evaluation of the actor’s characteristics. Consistent with our expectations, vaccinated observers attributed (as opposed to unvaccinated) more responsibility for infection to the unvaccinated actor, whom they perceived as less moral and trustworthy and felt less empathy toward. However, for the unvaccinated observers, the vaccination status of the actor was irrelevant to their attribution of responsibility and assessment of the actor’s characteristics. Nor did observers account for evaluating the actor whether the person he allegedly infected was vaccinated. Our results showed that unvaccinated individuals might be negatively assessed by vaccinated individuals when they contract a virus and are suspected of being the source of subsequent infection caused by highly contagious viruses.

Based on Weiner’s (1985, 2006) attribution model and the defensive attribution model (Shaver, 1970), we made the following assumptions: (1) vaccination is an intentional and controllable behavior; (2) having the same vaccination status between the observer and actor indicates a high level of personal relevance; and (3) infections caused by highly contagious viruses are highly relevant to most people. Drawing from these attribution models and assumptions, we predicted that vaccinated observers would attribute greater responsibility for infecting another person to unvaccinated actors compared to vaccinated actors. We also expected vaccinated observers to perceive unvaccinated actors as less trustworthy and moral and feel less empathy toward them. According to the defensive attribution model, vaccinated observers would judge unvaccinated actors more harshly due to the fear of potential future infections for themselves and their relatives. This harsh judgment serves as a means to control the perceived threat. Conversely, vaccinated observers may judge vaccinated actors more leniently to alleviate the fear of being accused of infecting someone in the future. Vaccinated individuals may believe that vaccination protects others from infection (Huynh et al., 2021), and therefore, they do not perceive vaccinated individuals as a source of infection.

However, attribution models failed to predict how unvaccinated observers would judge an actor suspected of being newly infected. The vaccination status of the actor was found to be irrelevant to unvaccinated observers. The lack of greater attribution of responsibility to vaccinated actors is likely because there are no widespread conspiracy beliefs suggesting that vaccination against contagious viruses increases the risk of infecting others (which intuitively seems irrational). Additionally, unvaccinated individuals may have less fear of infecting others and being suspected as the source of infection. According to the defensive attribution theory, these two types of fear should lead to a more negative evaluation of vaccinated actors by unvaccinated observers, but this was not observed, with one exception. Unvaccinated observers only reported feeling more empathy toward unvaccinated actors who were suffering from the disease compared to vaccinated actors. This result can be explained by the fact that people tend to feel more empathy toward those who are similar to them (Majdandžić et al., 2016). Thus, unvaccinated observers may have been guided by their shared vaccination status when experiencing a greater degree of empathy toward the sick actor.

Furthermore, vaccinated observers, in comparison to unvaccinated observers, attributed greater responsibility to the actor for infecting another person and perceived the actor as less moral. Regardless of the actor’s vaccination status, the perceived fear of infection, and the severity of the disease, vaccinated observers tended to judge individuals suspected of being the source of new infections more harshly. This finding may be attributed to our focus on young individuals, for whom one of the motivations for vaccination is protecting others, and who perceive vaccination against contagious viruses as a moral behavior (Drążkowski et al., 2022). Moral norms associated with vaccination against contagious viruses are highly related to the intention to vaccinate (Drążkowski & Trepanowski, 2021). Therefore, we speculate that vaccinated observers may perceive the behavior of actors in public spaces as reckless, potentially leading to new infections, which could contribute to attributing responsibility and perceiving these actors’ behavior as immoral.

The vaccination status of an infected person does not affect observers’ attributions of responsibility for the infection or their evaluation of the actor’s characteristics. Observers judge the actor based solely on whether or not they were vaccinated. The lack of impact of an infected person’s vaccination status on the actor’s rating may be attributed to observers making a fundamental attribution error. Since the fundamental attribution error is known to be culture-dependent (Choi et al., 1999), caution should be exercised when interpreting these results within the context of this error. As “cognitive misers,” observers make quick and effortless internal attributions for the infected situation by focusing solely on the actor and their characteristics (Gilbert et al., 1988; Posner et al., 2004; Uleman et al., 2008). Considering the vaccine status of the infected person is already part of the external attribution, which requires cognitive resources and motivation (Gilbert et al., 1988). It is important to note that the vaccination status of an infected person can affect the assessment of responsibility attribution for the infection. If observers were asked to evaluate the responsibility of an infected person, the vaccination status of the infected individual might influence their evaluation, and the vaccination status of the infection source may not be relevant. On the other hand, applying the principle of Occam’s razor, which states that the simpler explanation is generally preferred among competing explanations, suggests that the cognitive miser hypothesis may be better suited to explain the lack of impact of an infected person’s vaccination status on the evaluation of the actor. The cognitive miser hypothesis is more straightforward as it does not require assuming a pervasive bias, but rather emphasizes that internal attributions serve as an efficient way to process information (Uleman et al., 2008).

There was one exception where the vaccination status of the infected person influenced the rating of the actor. Surprisingly, unvaccinated observers perceived the actor as more moral when the infected person was unvaccinated compared to when they were vaccinated. It appears that for unvaccinated observers, infecting another unvaccinated person is seen as more morally significant than infecting a vaccinated person. However, for vaccinated observers, the vaccination status of the infected coworker did not affect the assessment of the actor’s morality.

A higher fear of infection is associated with perceiving the disease caused by a contagious virus as more severe. As expected, observers with greater fear of infection and those perceiving the disease as more severe attributed greater responsibility for the infection. According to the assumptions of defensive attribution, these relationships stem from the observers’ motivation to reduce their fear. Defensive attribution theories posit that fear is the driving force behind attributional efforts, and all efforts are aimed at reducing this fear (Walster, 1966). When the source of the threat (virus contagion) is clearly identified, the sense of control over the threat increases (Lanciano et al., 2020). Our results align with previous research showing that as the consequences of an action become more severe, the attribution of responsibility for the infection increases (Robbennolt, 2000). Additionally, observers who perceive the disease caused by the contagious virus as severe reported feeling greater empathy toward the actor who was the source of the infection. Thus, when the disease is perceived as severe, the attribution of greater responsibility for the infection is accompanied by a greater sense of empathy toward the affected actor, which appears to be inconsistent.

Practical Implications

Our study revealed that vaccinated individuals tend to hold unvaccinated individuals responsible for infections caused by contagious viruses. Unvaccinated individuals who become infected and are suspected of being the source of new infections may not only receive less support and empathy from their vaccinated friends and colleagues but also face hostility due to being blamed for infecting others. This blame is accompanied by a perceived increase in anger toward them. Additionally, vaccinated individuals rated unvaccinated individuals suspected of infecting a coworker as less moral and trustworthy. As assessments of morality and trustworthiness are fundamental aspects of how we value others (Cottrell et al., 2007; Hartley et al., 2016), the perceived lack of these qualities in the person being evaluated can significantly and detrimentally affect relationships. However, it is important to note that epidemiological studies suggest that identifying the precise source of infection within a specific social environment is challenging, especially without conducting multiple virus tests for each person involved (Wong et al., 2021). Recent findings indicate that COVID-19 vaccines may not provide a substantial reduction in the risk of infecting others with the Delta variant of the virus, particularly in cases involving frequent contact with those individuals (Singanayagam et al., 2022). Therefore, our findings indicate that while vaccination against infections caused by contagious viruses is widely recognized as an effective measure in combating the pandemic (Zheng et al., 2022) and is perceived as moral and prosocial behavior (Drążkowski et al., 2022), it is important to consider the potential undeserved negative judgment and treatment toward unvaccinated individuals when new infections emerge in their environment. It is crucial to acknowledge that even vaccinated individuals who are asymptomatic can contribute to the spread of infections. Thus, assigning sole blame to a particular unvaccinated person for infecting others, unless clear intentionality is evident, may not be entirely justified or fair. Given the potential risks associated with stigmatization when attributing responsibility for an illness to specific individuals (Dijker & Koomen, 2003), our results suggest the need for media, healthcare professionals, government entities, and health information policymakers to exercise caution in order to prevent such stigmatization. Considering recent data indicating that vaccines may not offer complete protection against contracting highly contagious viruses (Singanayagam et al., 2022), it is worth considering incorporating this message into health information policies that vaccines may not prevent individuals from infecting others. This approach could help reduce the risk of accusations against unvaccinated individuals and potential persecution by those who are vaccinated. Additionally, it would encourage vaccinated individuals to exercise caution when they experience disease symptoms. There is a significant societal divide between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals (Henkel et al., 2022), which can strain friendships and family relationships. Therefore, our findings confirm the existence of this antagonism and suggest that in situations where new infections arise within a specific social environment, unvaccinated individuals tend to attribute blame to vaccinated individuals.

Secondly, our study findings carry a significant message for unvaccinated individuals who may be unaware of the potential negative social consequences that may arise if infections caused by contagious viruses occur in their social circles, such as their workplaces. It is important to note that when infections caused by contagious viruses are identified within a specific social environment, unvaccinated individuals who are recently diagnosed with the infection may face greater accusations from vaccinated individuals regarding the spread of the virus compared to vaccinated individuals. This situation poses a risk of blame, ostracism, and potential stigmatization of unvaccinated individuals. The decision to vaccinate or not is typically based on a cost-benefit analysis, weighing the potential consequences of the decision (Beach & Mitchell, 1978). Awareness of the negative public perception that may arise when infections occur in the vicinity of unvaccinated individuals can increase the perceived costs of choosing not to vaccinate. It is argued that unvaccinated individuals may face strong negative reactions from their social environment, including family members, colleagues, or friends, particularly if those individuals are vaccinated, in the event that they contract an infection caused by a contagious virus and others with whom they have had contact also become infected. This may lead to rejection and social exclusion. Presenting unvaccinated individuals with a cost-benefit analysis that emphasizes the potential consequences of being accused of infecting others can be an effective approach to persuade them to choose vaccination. For some individuals, this knowledge may tip the balance in favor of vaccination. Targeted health campaigns that inform unvaccinated individuals about the increased risk of being blamed for infecting others can serve as a crucial argument to promote vaccination. Therefore, our findings have significant implications for ongoing governmental interventions and mass media campaigns designed to encourage vaccination against contagious viruses such as influenza or COVID-19. However, the effectiveness of persuasive messages utilizing the aforementioned arguments should be examined in future studies.

Limitation and Directions for Future Studies

Our study had several limitations that have implications for future research. Firstly, the participants in our study were required to have internet access, which may have introduced sample bias as it likely drew from a wealthier population with higher educational backgrounds compared to the general population. This limitation should be considered when interpreting the findings. Secondly, the sample size, particularly for the unvaccinated participants, was relatively small within each group. This limited our ability to test more complex hypotheses and may have affected the generalizability of the results. Future studies should aim to include larger and more diverse samples to obtain more robust findings. Thirdly, our study focused on cognitive and emotional reactions to a hypothetical scenario. We did not assess actual behavior, which could be explored in future observational studies. Investigating the relationship between attribution of responsibility and real-life actions would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the topic. Another limitation pertains to the statistical approach used for testing the differences between study conditions. Despite the data violating assumptions, we opted to employ ANOVA due to its robustness in controlling type I error, even under non-normal conditions (Blanca et al., 2017; Schminder et al., 2010). However, it is important to exercise caution when interpreting our results, as they may have been influenced by the statistical approach employed. In conclusion, our study highlights the need for further research to examine the various determinants of attribution of responsibility. Addressing the limitations mentioned above, such as expanding the participant pool and incorporating behavioral measures, would contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of this important area of study.

Conclusions

We contribute to the growing psychological literature on the determinants of social perception regarding the transmission of contagious viruses by investigating how vaccination status affects the evaluation of individuals who may have endangered others by potentially infecting them. Vaccinated individuals attributed greater responsibility for the infection to the unvaccinated actor, perceiving them as less moral and trustworthy and feeling less empathy toward them. However, for unvaccinated individuals, the vaccination status of a person suspected of being the source of new infections was irrelevant to their assessment. When evaluating a suspected source of infection, people did not take into account the infected person’s vaccination status. Our findings provide a deeper understanding of the perception of the chain of infection, particularly in terms of attributing responsibility to individuals suspected of infecting others. The results of our study suggest, on one hand, the importance of protecting unvaccinated individuals from stigmatization in the context of contagious virus transmission. On the other hand, they highlights the potential of informing them about the social costs they may face if they are suspected of being the source of new infections as a way to encourage them to get vaccinated.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-sgo-10.1177_21582440241251471 – Supplemental material for “It’s Your Fault!”—Said the Vaccinated to the Unvaccinated. The Effect of COVID-19 Vaccination on Responsibility Attribution

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-sgo-10.1177_21582440241251471 for “It’s Your Fault!”—Said the Vaccinated to the Unvaccinated. The Effect of COVID-19 Vaccination on Responsibility Attribution by Dariusz Drążkowski and Radosław Trepanowski in SAGE Open

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in the study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Institutional Research Committee (Ethical Committee of the Faculty of Psychology and Cognitive Science, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan). The survey was anonymous, conducted electronically, and did not require providing any personal data. All participants provided written informed consent.

ORCID iDs

Dariusz Drążkowski

Radosław Trepanowski

Data Availability Statement

Data, codebook, and script are freely available on the Open Science Framework: .

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Abele

A. E.

Wojciszke

(2007). Agency and communion from the perspective of self versus others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(5), 751–763. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.751

Ahorsu

D. K.

Lin

C. Y.

Imani

Saffari

Griffiths

M. D.

Pakpour

A. H.

(2020). The fear of COVID-19 scale: Development and initial validation. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-020-00270-8

Arriola

Garg

Anderson

E. J.

Ryan

P. A.

George

Zansky

S. M.

Bennett

Reingold

Bargsten

Miller

Chaves

S. S.

(2017). Influenza vaccination modifies disease severity among community-dwelling adults hospitalized with influenza. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 65(8), 1289–1297. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/cix468

Beach

L. R.

Mitchell

T. R.

(1978). A contingency model for the selection of decision strategies. Academy of Management Review, 3(3), 439–449. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1978.4305717

Berkowitz

(2012). A different view of anger: The cognitive-neoassociation conception of the relation of anger to aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 38(4), 322–333. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21432

Blanca

M. J.

Alarcón

Arnau

Bono

Bendayan

(2017). Non-normal data: Is ANOVA still a valid option? Psicothema, 29(4), 552–557. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2016.383

Braeye

Cornelissen

Catteau

Haarhuis

Proesmans

De Ridder

Djiena

Mahieu

De Leeuw

Dreuw

Van Cauteren

(2021). Vaccine effectiveness against infection and onwards transmission of COVID-19: Analysis of Belgian contact tracing data, January–June 2021. Vaccine, 39(39), 5456–5460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.08.060

Bridgland

V. M.

Moeck

E. K.

Green

D. M.

Swain

T. L.

Nayda

D. M.

Matson

L. A.

Hutchison

N. P.

Takarangi

M. K.

(2021). Why the COVID-19 pandemic is a traumatic stressor. PLoS One, 16(1), e0240146. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240146

Chaikin

A. L.

Darley

J. M.

(1973). Victim or perpetrator? Defensive attribution of responsibility and the need for order and justice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25(2), 268–275. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0033948

10.

Choi

Nisbett

R. E.

Norenzayan

(1999). Causal attribution across cultures: Variation and universality. Psychological Bulletin, 125(1), 47–63. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.1.47

11.

Cogan

J. C.

Herek

G. M.

(1998). Stigma. In Smith

R. A.

(Ed.), The encyclopedia of AIDS: A social, political, cultural, and scientific record of the HIV epidemic (pp. 466–467). Fitzroy Dearborn.

12.

Corrigan

P. W.

Markowitz

F. E.

Watson

Rowan

Kubiak

M. A.

(2003). An attribution model of public discrimination towards persons with mental illness. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 44(2), 162–179. https://doi.org/10.2307/1519806

13.

Corrigan

P. W.

River

L. P.

Lundin

R. K.

Wasowski

K. U.

Campion

Mathisen

Goldstein

Bergman

Gagnon

Kubiak

M. A.

(2000). Stigmatizing attributions about mental illness. Journal of Community Psychology, 28(1), 91–102. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6629(200001)

14.

Cottrell

C. A.

Neuberg

S. L.

N. P.

(2007). What do people desire in others? A sociofunctional perspective on the importance of different valued characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(2), 208–231. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.92.2.208

15.

Dagan

Barda

Kepten

Miron

Perchik

Katz

M. A.

Hernan

M. A.

Lipsitch

Reis

Balicer

R. D.

(2021). BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 vaccine in a nationwide mass vaccination setting. New England Journal of Medicine, 384(15), 1412–1423. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2101765

16.

Demirtaş-Madran

H. A.

(2020). Exploring the motivation behind discrimination and stigmatization related to COVID-19: A social psychological discussion based on the main theoretical explanations. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 569528. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.569528

17.

Dijker

A. J.

Koomen

(2003). Extending Weiner’s attribution-emotion model of stigmatization of ill persons. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 25(1), 51–68. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15324834BASP2501_4

18.

Drążkowski

Trepanowski

(2021). Reactance and perceived disease severity as determinants of COVID-19 vaccination intention: An application of the theory of planned behavior. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 27(10), 2171–2178. https://doi.org/10.1080/13548506.2021.2014060

19.

Drążkowski

Trepanowski

(2022, December 15). A preliminary examination of the associations between belief in God and in afterlife, death anxiety, and COVID-19 protective behaviors within a non-representative Polish community sample. . PsyArXiv. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/yhw3u

20.

Drążkowski

Trepanowski

Fointiat

(2022). Vaccinating to protect others: The role of selfpersuasion and empathy among young adults. Vaccines, 10(4), 553. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines10040553

21.

Faller

Schilling

Lang

(1995). Causal attribution and adaptation among lung cancer patients. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 39(5), 619–627. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3999(94)00002-6

22.

Gilbert

D. T.

Malone

P. S.

(1995). The correspondence bias. Psychological Bulletin, 117(1), 21–38. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0033-2909.117.1.21

23.

Gilbert

D. T.

Pelham

B. W.

Krull

D. S.

(1988). On cognitive busyness: When person perceivers meet persons perceived. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(5), 733–740. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.54.5.733

24.

Harris

R. J.

Hall

J. A.

Zaidi

Andrews

N. J.

Dunbar

J. K.

Dabrera

(2021). Effect of vaccination on household transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in England. New England Journal of Medicine, 385(8), 759–760. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc2107717

25.

Hartley

A. G.

Furr

R. M.

Helzer

E. G.

Jayawickreme

Velasquez

K. R.

Fleeson

(2016). Morality’s centrality to liking, respecting, and understanding others. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7(7), 648–657. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550616655359

26.

Heider

(1958). The naive analysis of action. In Heider

(Ed.), The psychology of interpersonal relations (pp. 79–124). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1037/10628-004

27.

Henkel

Sprengholz

Korn

Betsch

Böhm

(2022). Understanding the trouble spot: Does vaccination status identification fuel societal polarization? PsyArXiv. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/mgqk5

28.

Hsu

Grüne

Buess

Joisten

Klobucnik

Nießen

Patten

Wolff

Wiesmüller

G. A.

Kossow

Hurraß

(2021). COVID-19 breakthrough infections and transmission risk: Real-world data analyses from Germany’s largest public health department (Cologne). Vaccines, 9(11), 1267. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines9111267

29.

Huynh

Van Nguyen

Nguyen

D. D.

Lam

Q. M.

Pham

T. N.

Nguyen

H. T. N.

(2021). Knowledge about COVID-19, beliefs and vaccination acceptance against COVID-19 among high-risk people in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. Infection and Drug Resistance, 14, 1773–1780. https://doi.org/10.2147%2FIDR.S308446

30.

Hwang

E. Z. N.

(2022). Role of COVID-19 Attributions in inciting violence toward older Asian individuals [Doctoral dissertation, Yale University].

31.

Johnson-George

Swap

W. C.

(1982). Measurement of specific interpersonal trust: Construction and validation of a scale to assess trust in a specific other. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(6), 1306–1317. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.43.6.1306

32.

Jones

E. E.

Harris

V. A.

(1967). The attribution of attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 3(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(67)90034-0

33.

Kasper

Frébert

Testé

(2022). Caught COVID-19? Covidiot! Attributions of humanness and social punishment toward an ingroup member who breaks lockdown rules. Social Psychology, 53(2), 84. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1027/1864-9335/a000478

34.

Kelley

H. H.

(1967). Attribution theory in social psychology [Symposium]. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. University of Nebraska Press.

35.

Key

C. W.

Ridge

R. D.

(2011). Guys like us: The link between sexual harassment proclivity and blame. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28(8), 1093–1103. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407511402420.

36.

Labbé

Pelletier

Bettinger

J. A.

Curran

Graham

J. E.

Greyson

MacDonald

N. E.

Meyer

S. B.

Steenbeek

Dubé

È.

(2022). Stigma and blame related to COVID-19 pandemic: A case-study of editorial cartoons in Canada. Social Science & Medicine, 296, 114803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.114803

37.

Lanciano

Graziano

Curci

Costadura

Monaco

(2020). Risk perceptions and psychological effects during the Italian COVID-19 emergency. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 580053. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.580053

38.

Levine-Tiefenbrun

Yelin

Katz

Herzel

Golan

Schreiber

Wolf

Nadler

Ben-Tov

Kuint

Kishony

(2021). Initial report of decreased SARS-CoV-2 viral load after inoculation with the BNT162b2 vaccine. Nature Medicine, 27(5), 790–792. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-021-01316-7

39.

Leys

(2022). Iowa widow blames unvaccinated people for her husband’s death from “breakthrough” COVID infection. Des Moines Register. Available at: https://eu.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/health/2021/09/14/widow-blames-unvaccinated-iowaman-breakthrough-covid-death/8276384002/

40.

(2022). How are we going to treat Chinese people during the pandemic? Media cultivation of intergroup threat and blame. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 26(3), 515–533. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302221075695

41.

Majdandžić

Amashaufer

Hummer

Windischberger

Lamm

(2016). The selfless mind: How prefrontal involvement in mentalizing with similar and dissimilar others shapes empathy and prosocial behavior. Cognition, 157, 24–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.08.003

42.

Mertens

Lodder

Smeets

Duijndam

(2022). Fear of COVID-19 predicts vaccination willingness 14 months later. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 88, 102574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2022.102574

43.

Moskowitz

J. T.

Hult

J. R.

Bussolari

Acree

(2009). What works in coping with HIV? A metaanalysis with implications for coping with serious illness. Psychological Bulletin, 135(1), 121–141. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0014210

44.

O’Sullivan

(2003). The fundamental attribution error in detecting deception: The boy-who-cried-wolf effect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(10), 1316–1327. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203254610

45.

Posner

M. I.

Snyder

C. R. R.

Solso

(2004). Attention and cognitive control. In Balota

D. A.

Marsh

E. J.

(Eds.), Cognitive psychology: Key readings (pp. 205–223). Psychology Press

46.

Robbennolt

J. K.

(2000). Outcome severity and judgments of “responsibility”: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(12), 2575–2609. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02451.x

47.

Roesch

S. C.

Weiner

(2001). A meta-analytic review of coping with illness: Do causal attributions matter? Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 50(4), 205–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3999(01)00188-X

48.

Ross

(1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. In Berkowitz

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 173–220). Academic Press.

49.

Salo

Hägg

Kortelainen

Leino

Saxell

Siikanen

Sääksvuori

(2021). The indirect effect of mRNA-based Covid-19 vaccination on unvaccinated household members. Nature Communications, 13(1), 1162. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.27.21257896

50.

Schminder

Ziegler

Danay

Beyer

Bühner

(2010). Is it really robust? Reinvestigating the robustness of ANOVA against violations of the normal distribution. European Research Journal of Methods for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 6(4), 147–151. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241/a000016

51.

Shaver

K. G.

(1970). Defensive attribution: Effects of severity and relevance on the responsibility assigned for an accident. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 14(2), 101–113. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0028777

52.

Singanayagam

Hakki

Dunning

Madon

K. J.

Crone

M. A.

Koycheva

Derqui-Fernandez

Barnett

J. L.

Whitfield

M. G.

Varro

Lackenby

(2022). Community transmission and viral load kinetics of the SARS-CoV-2 delta (B. 1.617. 2) variant in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals in the UK: A prospective, longitudinal, cohort study. The Lancet Infectious Diseases, 22(2), 183–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(21)00648-4

53.

Skitka

L. J.

Tetlock

P. E.

(1992). Allocating scarce resources: A contingency model of distributive justice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28(6), 491–522. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(92)90043-J

54.

Tetlock

P. E.

Levi

(1982). Attribution bias: On the inconclusiveness of the cognition-motivation debate. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 18(1), 68–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(82)90082-8

55.

Tomlinson

E. C.

Mryer

R. C.

(2009). The role of causal attribution dimensions in trust repair. Academy of Management Review, 34(1), 85–104. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.35713291

56.

Uleman

J. S.

Adil Saribay

Gonzalez

C. M.

(2008). Spontaneous inferences, implicit impressions, and implicit theories. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 329–360. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093707

57.

Van Mulukom

Muzzulini

Rutjens

B. T.

Van Lissa

C. J.

Farias

(2021). The psychological impact of threat and lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic: Exacerbating factors and mitigating actions. Translational Behavioral Medicine, 11(7), 1318–1329. https://doi.org/10.1093/tbm/ibab072

58.

Walster

(1966). Assignment of responsibility for an accident. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3(1), 73–79. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0022733

59.

Weiner

(1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92(4), 548–573.

60.

Weiner

(2006). Social motivation, justice, and the moral emotions: An attributional approach. Psychology Press.

61.

Weiner

Perry

R. P.

Magnusson

(1988). An attributional analysis of reactions to stigmas. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(5), 738–748. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.55.5.738

62.

Wong

L. Y.

Tan

A. L.

Leo

Y. S.

Lee

V. J. M.

Toh

M. P. H. S.

(2021). Healthcare workers in Singapore infected with COVID-19:23 January–17 April 2020. Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses, 15(2), 218–226. https://doi.org/10.1111/irv.12803

63.

Yao

Siegel

J. T.

(2021). The influence of perceptions of intentionality and controllability on perceived responsibility: Applying attribution theory to people’s responses to social transgression in the COVID-19 pandemic. Motivation Science, 7(2), 199–206. https://doi.org/10.1037/mot0000220

64.

Zheng

Shao

Chen

Zhang

Wang

Zhang

(2022). Real-world effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines: A literature review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Infectious Diseases, 114, 252–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2021.11.009

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.01 MB