Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2021/COVID-19 vaccine motivation

Comment

Hello, I noticed that in your overview you have referenced APA 6th edition style instead of 7. In the new edition for in-text citation for a work with three or more authors, include the name of only the first author plus "et al." in every citation. I hope you don't mind that I've made these changes. Your topic chapter is really robust, good work! --U3065868 (discuss • contribs) 08:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi! Book chapter is looking great so far and really interesting read! I liked your inclusion of reflective exercises. I think your chapter would benefit from including some possible answers to these reflection activities or possible case studies to solidify knowledge in your reader. All the best for the rest of this chapter! --Anna u3200574 (discuss • contribs) 08:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Comment

Hello, this is a great topic, just thinking it would be very interesting to explore the reasons people might be skeptical and misinformation affects people's motivation to get the vaccine. Thank you, Ksenia --Takudzwa14 (discuss • contribs) 09:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Comment

Hello, I can see that you have mentioned the relationship between parents and vaccination and the health outcomes for children. I think you will find this thesis by Cathy Frazer very helpful https://doi.org/10.25911/5d63bcd4a9cea. It discusses how important it is to ensure effective science communication is provided to parents for the immunisation of children in order to protect children against preventable diseases. This is very current topic for a book chapter and is very pertinent in the current climate, best of luck. Thank you, Ksenia --U3217975 (discuss • contribs) 06:17, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Heading casing

FYI, the recommended Wikiversity heading style uses sentence casing. For example: Self-determination theory rather than Self-Determination Theory Here's an example chapter with correct heading casing: Growth mindset development -- Jtneill - Talk - c 13:09, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Topic development feedback

The topic development has been reviewed according to the marking criteria. Written feedback is provided below, plus there is a general feedback page. Please also check the chapter's page history to check for editing changes made whilst reviewing the chapter plan. Responses to this feedback can be made by starting a new section below and/or contacting the reviewer. Topic development marks are available via UCLearn. Note that marks are based on what was available before the due date, whereas the comments may also be based on all material available at time of providing this feedback.

Title The title is correctly worded and formatted The sub-title is correctly worded and formatted User page Excellent - used effectively Description about self provided Consider linking to your eportfolio page and/or any other professional online profile or resume such as LinkedIn. This is not required, but it can be useful to interlink your professional networks. Link provided to book chapter Social contribution Excellent - summarised with direct link(s) to evidence Headings Promising 2-level heading structure - could benefit from further development by expanding the structure. Avoid having sections with 1 sub-heading - use 0 or 2+ sub-headings. See earlier comment about Heading casing. = Basic development of key points for most sections, with relevant citations Target an international audience; Australians only represent 0.33% of the world population Covid-19 -> COVID-19 (capitalisation) Overview - Consider adding: focus questions an image an example or case study For sections which include sub-section include key points for an overview paragraph prior to branching into the sub-headings Perhaps also consider: needle fear misinformation cognitive biases: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2020.613290/full Good balance of theory and research Expand theory and research Include in-text interwiki links for the first mention of key terms to relevant Wikipedia articles and/or to other relevant book chapters Avoid overcapitalisation (APA style) - more info Conclusion (the most important section): hasn't been developed what might the take-home, practical messages be? in a nutshell, what are the answer(s) to the question(s) in the sub-title? Key points No comment Figure A figure is presented Caption should include Figure X. ... (APA style) Caption explains how the image connects to key points being made in the main text Cite each figure at least once in the main text References Very good For APA referencing style, check and correct: capitalisation Resources See also Very good Wikipedia link was external - I've made it internal External links OK Rename links so that they are more user friendly

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 13:09, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Helpful article

Hi, your chapter looks like it coming together nicely! I have found an article for your "social identity and misinformation" section that may help provide an additional explanation in regard to group membership and norms during the COVID-19 pandemic. Marmarosh et al. (2020) break down the effects of the pandemic and quarantining into sizable bites, notably a section about group cohesion in times of distress and loneliness and the benefits of groups. The recency of the COVID-19 pandemic means the article is very current, although, literature continues to grow as the pandemic continues. I hope this resource is valuable to your chapter progression. --CharliU3203035 (discuss • contribs) 23:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

@U3020459: This resource seems a bit biased. I started a general discussion about this topic over at [1] and rather than repeat myself here, I'll invite you to have a look and join that discussion if you wish. Personally, while I don't object to vaccination per se I do object to vaccination mandates and believe it is in the public interest for others to do so as well. There seems to be a frequent presumption (not just in this resource) that many of those people who object are "misinformed" and phrases like "vaccine hesitancy" presume indecisiveness. Please join the discussion on the main covid-19 talk page if you are interested. I encourage you to consider what I've written there. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 13:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I"ll make a few (hopefully constructive) suggestions. Briefly skimming the resource, it seems as though the potential for conflicts of interest is only alluded to once: "...or scepticism towards the interests of companies that produce vaccines (Fedele et al, 2021)". I don't think "skepticism" is the right word. Such concerns are well-justified and probably deserve a bit more analysis. Also, I strongly object to any presumption of a dichotomy between "vaccine acceptance" and "vaccine hesitance". If someone decides they do not want to receive a vaccine (for whatever reason), it would not be accurate to call them "vaccine hesitant". If you are not concerned with addressing this group, then perhaps it's better identify them and say so explicitly at the beginning. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 14:37, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Chapter review and feedback

This chapter has been reviewed according to the marking criteria. Written feedback is provided below, plus there is a general feedback page. Please also check the chapter's page history to check for editing changes made whilst reviewing through the chapter. Chapter marks will be available via UCLearn along with social contribution marks and feedback. Keep an eye on Announcements.

Overall Overall, this is a solid chapter that makes good use of psychological theory and research to help address a practical, real-world phenomenon or problem. For additional feedback, see the following comments and these copyedits. Overview Well developed Overview. Simplify focus questions. Theory — Breadth Briefly establish the "problem" or challenge up front, before diving into motivational theory (i.e., how to motivate sufficient vaccination to achieve public health goals. A wide range of relevant theories are well selected, described, and explained. The chapter doesn't wander off into discussion of irrelevant theory. Theory — Depth Appropriate depth is provided about the selected theory(ies). Key citations are well used. Tables and/or lists are used to help clearly convey key theoretical information. Some useful examples are provided to illustrate theoretical concepts. More examples could be useful to illustrate key concepts. Research — Key findings Relevant research is well reviewed. More detail about key studies would be ideal. Greater emphasis on major reviews and/or meta-analyses would be helpful. Research — Critical thinking Basic critical thinking about research is evident. Critical thinking about research could be further evidenced by: describing the methodology (e.g., sample, measures) in important studies discussing the direction of relationships considering the strength of relationships acknowledging limitations suggesting specific directions for future research Some claims are unreferenced (e.g., see the tags). Integration The chapter places more emphasis on theory than research. Where research is discussed, it is integrated with theory. Conclusion Key points are well summarised. Consider reminding the reader about the importance of the problem or phenomenon of interest. Add practical, take-home message(s). Written expression — Style Written expression Overall, the quality of written expression is good. Check and correct formatting for the term "COVID-19". Avoid starting sentences with a citation unless the author is particularly pertinent. Instead, it is more interesting for the the content/key point to be communicated, with the citation included along the way or, more typically, in parentheses at the end of the sentence. Some of the written expression is quite abstract, which makes this a difficult read for an unfamiliar reader. Consider ways of simplifying the written expression to make it more accessible to a wider audience. This is the essence of science communication. Layout The chapter is well structured, with major sections using sub-sections. Perhaps starting with automatic processes and following with reflective processes might create a better flow. I was a little lost after the Overview about what was happening and where the chapter was going. Abbreviations Check and correct grammatical formatting for abbreviations (such as e.g., i.e.., etc.). Once an abbreviation is established (e.g., SIT), use it consistently. Don't set up an abbreviation and then not use it or only use it sometimes. APA style Direct quotes need page numbers - even better, write in your own words. Figures and tables Figures are very well captioned. Figure captions should use this format: Figure X. Descriptive caption in sentence casing. See example. Table captions should use APA style. See example. Each Table and Figure is referred to at least once within the main text. Refer to each Table and Figure using APA style (e.g., do not use italics, check and correct capitalisation). Citations are not in full APA style (7th ed.). For example: If there are three or more authors, cite the first author followed by et al., then year. For example, either: in-text, Smith et al. (2020), or in parentheses (Smith et al., 2020) Multiple citations in parentheses should be listed in alphabetical order by first author surname. A full stop is needed after "et al" (i.e., "et al."). Use ampersand (&) inside parentheses and "and" outside parentheses. References use correct APA style. Written expression — Learning features Overall, the use of learning features is very good. One use of embedded in-text interwiki links to Wikipedia articles. Adding more interwiki links for the first mention of key words and technical concepts would make the text more interactive. See example. Good use embedded in-text links to related book chapters. Good use of table(s). Good use of feature box(es). Very good use of quiz(zes). Excellent, creative, and rich use of reflective exercises. Social contribution ~8 logged, useful, major social contributions with direct links to evidence.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 07:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Multimedia feedback

The accompanying multimedia presentation has been marked according to the marking criteria. Marks are available via the unit's UCLearn site. Written feedback is provided below, plus see the general feedback page. Responses to this feedback can be made by starting a new section below. If you would like further clarification about the marking or feedback, contact the unit convener.

Overall Overall, this is an excellent presentation. Overview An opening slide with the title and sub-title is presented and narrated - this helps to clearly convey the purpose of the presentation. This presentation has an engaging introduction to hook audience interest. A context for the topic is established. Asks focus questions (the sub-title in this case) that lead to take-away messages. Content The presentation does an excellent job of addressing the topic. An appropriate amount of content is presented - not too much or too little. The presentation is well structured. The presentation makes excellent use of relevant psychological theory. The presentation makes excellent use of relevant psychological research. The presentation makes excellent use of one or more examples or case studies or practical advice. The presentation provides practical, easy to understand information. Conclusion A Conclusion slide is presented with clear summary and take-home message(s). Audio The audio is easy to follow and interesting to listen to. The presentation makes effective use of narrated audio. Excellent intonation enhances listener interest and engagement. Audio recording quality was excellent. Video Overall, visual display quality is excellent. The presentation makes effective use of text and image based slides. The font size is sufficiently large to make it easy to read. The amount of text presented per slide makes it reasonably easy to read and listen at the same time. The visual communication is effectively supplemented by images and/or diagrams. The presentation is well produced using simple tools. Meta-data The chapter title and sub-title are used in the name of the presentation - this helps to clearly convey the purpose of the presentation. A brief written description of the presentation is provided. Consider expanding. Links to and from the book chapter are provided. Licensing Image sources and their copyright status are communicated. A copyright license for the presentation is provided in the presentation description but not in the meta-data.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 04:32, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Forced vaccines

@Jtneill: If this or similar topics are revisited in future chapters, care should be taken not to misrepresent those who decline to receive a vaccine as ignorant or misinformed about its safety or effectiveness, which I feel is a very common trend in the media and receives a great deal of emphasis in this resource. You can cite surveys but when the media's 'discourse' largely follows this narrow track, it becomes a bit self-fulfilling. One should not be forced to receive an injection from someone they don't trust, regardless of what some clinical trial shows. If someone thinks that citing health effects is the most reasonable or popular objection, that's what they're going to say even if it's not exactly how they feel. It's a conflict of interest when so much public policy and guidelines are used to force injected product upon an entire nation. People with comorbidities in the 70+ age group accounted for the vast majority of covid-19 mortality. That is to say, people who were on their last legs. I sympathize with those who've lost people to covid-19, but living to 75 and dying of a bad flu is really not such a bad way to go. To force vaccines upon not at risk groups like college students (usually without even respecting natural immunity) is senseless and violating. A cash grab at the expense of liberty and decency. This is why people don't trust these companies and certainly don't want an injection from them, and that's their prerogative. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 09:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I didn't see that I had already commented earlier on this, so pardon me for making multiple sections. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 09:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)