This is why we hesitate to

– We should be careful about singling out certain groups and saying that they have made mistakes, says Lars-Olof Johansson.

Why many people hesitate to get vaccinated

It is called “the omission bias” and means that an action that has bad consequences is perceived as more reprehensible than passive inaction that has equally bad consequences. – It may be an explanation as to why some people hesitate to get vaccinated, explains Lars-Olof Johansson, Professor of Psychology.

We humans like to see ourselves as rational beings who make informed decisions. However, often it is our gut feeling that counts, explains Lars-Olof Johansson. – Especially when there is a high degree of uncertainty, which is the case with COVID-19, we often let our emotions govern us. The vaccine is completely new and untested and no one has an answer as to how long a person’s immunity will last. Some vaccines are 95 percent effective, others only 60 percent, some are more effective in younger people but less effective in older people. Researchers know what is good at a population level but not what is best for me as an individual. Our gut feeling tells us that an active choice can ultimately go very wrong, while passivity, not getting vaccinated,

Photo: KAROLINA GRABOWSKA

feels safer: should you get sick, that’s what happens, it is not dependent on something you have done.

However, someone who for some reason is reluctant or does not want to get vaccinated, needs to explain their opposition rationally.

– Sometimes the opposition can be related to the person’s identity or group affiliation. Then it will take quite a lot for the person to change their position, such as that they themselves, or someone close to them, becoming really ill, thus making it obvious that a vaccination might have been better after all.

“Hindsight bias”, i.e. the tendency, upon learning the outcome of an event to overestimate one’s ability to have foreseen the outcome, is another reason why it is difficult to make decisions. What seems reasonable today may well turn out to be completely crazy tomorrow, and to have undesirable consequences, Lars-Olof Johansson explains. – As a psychologist, I can get very annoyed at the ongoing discussion about all the mistakes made during the pandemic. Anyone who, in an uncertain situation, makes decisions based on the information that actually is available, is doing the right thing. Then, when new information emerges, it may of course turn out that you should have acted differently, but that information was not known when the decision was made.

One way to deal with uncertainty is through the precautionary principle. For example, most people accept that they have to wear a seat belt when driving, even though they do not worry very much about having an accident. – But what does it mean to be careful during a pandemic? In part, it involves closing down businesses and other operations so that the infection spreads more slowly, which gives the healthcare services a chance to keep up. But how much of society should you shut down before it starts impacting people in other ways? What this crisis has shown is, in fact, that a lot of other things played a role, which were in place long before the pandemic began, and which have nothing to do with the actual shutdown. Among other things, we have an ageing population and also a poorly functioning elderly care system in many places. We see a lack of resources, class differences, overcrowded housing, overcrowded public transport and people who work in open-plan office landscapes. Furthermore, we have our habitual social behaviours, all factors that probably adversely affected the spread of the infection.

– I would like to see serious scientific studies that include all the possible explanations for why things went so badly. Eventually, we will understand more about which factors were important, but that will probably take several years. So how should we deal with all the uncertainty, fear, and perhaps despair that a pandemic causes? – Firstly, we should be careful about singling out certain groups and claiming that they were the ones who made mistakes or were irresponsible, says LarsOlof Johansson. And secondly, in such a serious situation politicians must stop their power plays and start to discuss the problem itself. But most important of all is to stick to the truth. All scientific communication is based on the understanding that our models are not perfect, but they are better than just guessing. If we fail to communicate that, people will come up with their own explanations and theories. And that can have very serious consequences.