The Association Between Cultural Tightness and COVID-19 Vaccine Confidence From 28 Countries: Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Social norms provided a framework for understanding a variety of behaviors. Cultural tightness was introduced to measure the level of adherence to social norms and tolerance of deviant behavior. Objective: We aimed to explore the association between cultural tightness and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Methods: A total of 44,339 participants aged 18 years and older were enrolled from 28 different countries between 2020 and 2022. We used the Vaccine Confidence Index (3 items related to evaluation of importance, effectiveness, and safety) with a 5-point Likert scale to collect COVID-19 vaccine confidence. Demographic information at the individual-level was obtained through the survey, while national-level data were sourced from the World Bank and Hofstede insights. Multilevel linear regressions with random effects for country were used to examine the association between cultural tightness and COVID-19 vaccine confidence. Results: Of the participants, 21,968 (50.2%) were male and 18,957 (43.3%) had an education level of university or above. Vietnam exhibited the highest level of confidence (mean 13.31, SD 1.71) on COVID-19 vaccine and Slovakia had the lowest level (mean 9.52, SD 0.14). The higher levels of cultural tightness were positively linked to greater vaccine confidence (β=1.94, 95% CI 1.72-2.15; P<.001) after controlling individual- and national- level variables. Individuals who were younger in age, female, had lower levels of educational level, or belonged to minority religious groups demonstrated a positive association with lower vaccine confidence. Hofstede's 5 cultural dimensions were not significantly associated with vaccine confidence. The level of vaccine confidence in 2021 (β=-0.54, 95% CI -0.67 to -0.37; P<.001) and 2022 (β=-0.23, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.10; P<.001) was lower than that observed in 2020. Conclusions: Lower level of cultural tightness might be positively associated with low vaccine confidence. Our findings offered the insight for designing tailor interventions to vaccine hesitancy in different cultural tightness context.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".