English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Though popular opinion in the US is favorable toward vaccination, a growing hesitancy to vaccinate children threatens rates of uptake and coverage. In response, researchers now study psychological factors thought to influence vaccine-decisions, as having this information might be useful in addressing vaccine hesitancy in the clinic and beyond. The present thesis reviews evidence from this body of work, and shares results of a new study on the influence of analytic and intuitive thinking styles upon endorsement of childhood vaccines. In a national sample (N = 543), analytic thinking predicted endorsement alone and in the presence of covariates in a regression model, while intuitive thinking’s relation to endorsement in the model was statistically unclear, and so did not support or refute claims in the literature suggesting this association. Implications and limitations of results, as well as possible directions for future research are discussed in detail.

Analytic Thinking Predicts Vaccine Endorsement: Linking Cognitive Style and Affective Orientation Toward Childhood Vaccination