Self- and informant-reported personality traits and vaccination against COVID-19
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As COVID-19 vaccines' accessibility has grown, so has the role of personal choice in vaccination, and not everybody is willing to vaccinate. Exploring personality traits' associations with vaccination could highlight some person-level drivers of, and barriers to, vaccination. We used self- and informant-ratings of the Five-Factor Model domains and their subtraits (a) measured approximately at the time of vaccination with the 100 Nuances of Personality (100NP) item pool (N = 56,575) and (b) measured on average ten years before the pandemic with the NEO Personality Inventory-3 (NEO-PI-3; N = 3,168). We tested individual domains' and either items' (in the 100NP sample) or facets' (in the NEO-PI-3 sample) associations with vaccination, as well as their collective ability to predict vaccination using elastic net models trained and tested in independent sample partitions. Although the NEO-PI-3 domains and facets did not predict vaccination ten years later, the domains correlated with vaccination in the 100NP sample, with vaccinated people scoring slightly higher on neuroticism and agreeableness and lower on openness, controlling for age, sex, and education. Collectively, the five domains predicted vaccination with an accuracy of r = .08. Associations were stronger at the item level. Vaccinated people were, on average, more science-minded, politically liberal, respectful of rules and authority, and anxious but less spiritual, religious, and self-assured. The 100NP items collectively predicted vaccination with r = .31 accuracy. We conclude that unvaccinated people may be a psychologically heterogeneous group and highlight some potential areas for action in vaccination campaigns.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".