This isn't as bad as you think, it's a nature paper. Hell, but for a few comments in the discussion, I was about to call it good.
It's not just what the title of this summary article says, go read the full thing and see what it says, its actually looking far more at 'how much you identify with either being vaccinated or unvaccinated, what factors influence this, and then what that means for behaviour'. It's not just whether these people are vaccinated or not, they first measure how much they agree with being proud of it, we're looking for people forming an identify around it. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-022-01469-6
For example, it gives us a nice look at who the 'proud' vaccinated are:
Among the vaccinated, individuals were found to identify more strongly with their vaccination status when they were older (β = 0.19, b = 0.01, CI = [0.01, 0.01]), trusted the government more (β = 0.29, b = 0.17, CI = [0.14, 0.19]), when they reported that people important to them were vaccinated (descriptive norm to be vaccinated; β = 0.10, b = 0.09, CI = [0.04, 0.14]) and, most notably, when they assumed that people important to them thought that one should be vaccinated (injunctive norm to be vaccinated; β = 0.34, b = 0.25, CI = [0.20, 0.30]). VSI was also stronger among those who reported searching more frequently for COVID-19-related information (β = 0.21, b = 0.14, CI = [0.11, 0.17]). Left-wing voters identified less with being vaccinated than centrists (b = −0.10, CI = [−0.21, 0.00]) and the same was true for right-wing voters (b = −0.30, CI = [−0.42, −0.12]) and non-voters (b = −0.33, CI = [−0.43,−0.23]).
Ok of course, people who listen to the mainstream news are more likely to identify with being poisoned vaxxed up, but this tells us how much, and there is a surprise or two there, with the self-described centrists identifying more with it than the left, its also more of a boomer karen thing than a gen z or millenial thing, being associated with age. Good info to know too, and not necessarily intuitive. Remember this isn't measuring who is and isn't vaxxed, its who is out there forming an identity around being vaxxed (and then acting on it, as we'll see later)
The fact that those who identify strongly with being unvaxxed about it feel more isolated isn't the finding from this, its one of the expected and less interesting ones, except that we can now begin to look at exactly how much of that sentiment there is.*
They also took 3 snapshots of people at different times, and so we can look at what happened to change their minds.
Read further down, they even played a little game to determine if the perceptions of being persecuted by the vaxxed were perhaps justified:
To investigate whether perceived discrimination had any factual basis, participants were asked to play two dictator games. They were asked to distribute €100 between themselves and a vaccinated person (game 1) or an unvaccinated person (game 2, randomized order). Ingroup preference was measured as the difference between the distributed amounts and indicated the strength of discrimination. The games were conducted in December 2021 and repeated in February and July 2022. At all three timepoints, the average ingroup preference of vaccinated individuals (December 2021: M = €18.40, s.d. = €29.80) was higher compared to unvaccinated participants (M = €7.37, s.d. = €23.90, t(4,981.00) = 14.86, P < 0.001, d = 0.41, CI = [0.35, 0.47]). While vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals granted comparable amounts to ingroup members (December 2021: Mvaccinated = €48.06, s.d.vaccinated = €23.83, Munvaccinated = €45.93, s.d.unvaccinated = €25.11, t(4,151.40) = 3.07, P = 0.002, d = 0.09, CI = [0.03, 014]), vaccinated participants gave considerably less money to outgroup members than did unvaccinated individuals (Mvaccinated = €29.66, s.d.vaccinated = €26.55, Munvaccinated = €38.56, s.d.unvaccinated = €25.30, t(4,478.10) = 12.23, P < 0.001, d = 0.34, CI = [0.28, 0.40]). Furthermore, ingroup preference among the unvaccinated increased with VSI and this effect was even stronger among vaccinated individuals (Fig. 1d). Thus, the more vaccinated people identified with being vaccinated, the more they discriminated against unvaccinated players. The unvaccinated also did this but to a smaller extent. The stronger discrimination behaviour of vaccinated individuals matches the finding that perceptions of being discriminated against were reported more frequently by unvaccinated people. This suggests that reports of discrimination are not fiction but fact.
The vaxxed were given money and asked to share, they did not do so with the unvaxxinated, far more than the unvaxxinated did, their ingroup preference is stronger and more severe the stronger they identify with 'being vaxxed'
This is not trash, it has quite a few interesting little nuggets. Ok yes, we all know it's true, but some social scientist has actually gone and tried to prove it (as well as you can in that sort of test) and put some actual numbers on it.
They at the end have an absolutely trash proposal and position on how gov's should respond, absolutely. In their discussion and conclusion (but then, they all seem to be obligated to). To call this entire thing trash is short sighted however. There is some quite useful information in here, the data is on our side and this shows it.
The stronger discrimination behaviour of vaccinated individuals matches the finding that perceptions of being discriminated against were reported more frequently by unvaccinated people. This suggests that reports of discrimination are not fiction but fact.
Thanks for the detailed breakdown.
I take issue with their "analysis" of discrimination, even if they seem to reach the appropriate conclusion.
They frame here "discrimination" against the unvaxxed as a behavioural and psychological construct of individual persons and tested their hypothesis whether the unjabbed's grievances were fake news.
While there certainly was some bigotry at the individual level from family/friends/co-workers/etc, framing and testing "discrimination" against the unjabbed as a phenomenon between two individuals ignores the greater objective reality of true systemic discrimination where the State capriciously robbed individuals of their rights to work, to cross borders, to travel, to conduct commerce, to enter premises, to experience entertainment, etc.
Oh it is undoubtedly quite artificial and individual how they looked at it, 100%. However, I don't see a good way that they can test for it otherwise. But then I also don't see that the state level systemic stuff needs much testing when you can just examine policy. You want to examine its effects sure, but it's certain that it exists. This is new then, whereas the evidence for the state level stuff just needs cataloguing. So this is my view in many ways even more useful because now we can show evidence for all levels of discrimination, at the system state level and personal. Any state policies or advertisements that help promote it as an identity can in fact now even be tied to causing personal level grief also.
They were wrong to ignore the state discrimination (and to propose more of it even in the discussion), but we've at least got some interesting data here.
To investigate whether perceived discrimination had any factual basis, participants were asked to play two dictator games.
This suggests that reports of discrimination are not fiction but fact
I think it's the condescending and smarmy way that they presented this part of their experiment.
They framed it where if their stupid construct didn't detect measurable interpersonal bias, that all the bitching about gross rights violations was misinformation.
Yeah you've got a good point here and it shows how bias can find its way in. You're right, not finding measurable interpersonal bias wouldn't prove the null, it would simply fail to prove the alternative in that experiment, they should know better and phrase it that way. That they didn't is revealing
I agree with your concerns there too, the authors are far from perfect in that regard, but still maintain that this is rather useful and interesting data. They had to begrudgingly admit we are right on this. The fact that even through their bias and awful recommendations this shows we are right is itself interesting.
This isn't as bad as you think, it's a nature paper. Hell, but for a few comments in the discussion, I was about to call it good.
It's not just what the title of this summary article says, go read the full thing and see what it says, its actually looking far more at 'how much you identify with either being vaccinated or unvaccinated, what factors influence this, and then what that means for behaviour'. It's not just whether these people are vaccinated or not, they first measure how much they agree with being proud of it, we're looking for people forming an identify around it. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-022-01469-6
For example, it gives us a nice look at who the 'proud' vaccinated are:
Ok of course, people who listen to the mainstream news are more likely to identify with being
poisonedvaxxed up, but this tells us how much, and there is a surprise or two there, with the self-described centrists identifying more with it than the left, its also more of a boomer karen thing than a gen z or millenial thing, being associated with age. Good info to know too, and not necessarily intuitive. Remember this isn't measuring who is and isn't vaxxed, its who is out there forming an identity around being vaxxed (and then acting on it, as we'll see later)The fact that those who identify strongly with being unvaxxed about it feel more isolated isn't the finding from this, its one of the expected and less interesting ones, except that we can now begin to look at exactly how much of that sentiment there is.*
They also took 3 snapshots of people at different times, and so we can look at what happened to change their minds.
Read further down, they even played a little game to determine if the perceptions of being persecuted by the vaxxed were perhaps justified:
The vaxxed were given money and asked to share, they did not do so with the unvaxxinated, far more than the unvaxxinated did, their ingroup preference is stronger and more severe the stronger they identify with 'being vaxxed'
This is not trash, it has quite a few interesting little nuggets. Ok yes, we all know it's true, but some social scientist has actually gone and tried to prove it (as well as you can in that sort of test) and put some actual numbers on it.
They at the end have an absolutely trash proposal and position on how gov's should respond, absolutely. In their discussion and conclusion (but then, they all seem to be obligated to). To call this entire thing trash is short sighted however. There is some quite useful information in here, the data is on our side and this shows it.
Thanks for the detailed breakdown.
I take issue with their "analysis" of discrimination, even if they seem to reach the appropriate conclusion.
They frame here "discrimination" against the unvaxxed as a behavioural and psychological construct of individual persons and tested their hypothesis whether the unjabbed's grievances were fake news.
While there certainly was some bigotry at the individual level from family/friends/co-workers/etc, framing and testing "discrimination" against the unjabbed as a phenomenon between two individuals ignores the greater objective reality of true systemic discrimination where the State capriciously robbed individuals of their rights to work, to cross borders, to travel, to conduct commerce, to enter premises, to experience entertainment, etc.
Oh it is undoubtedly quite artificial and individual how they looked at it, 100%. However, I don't see a good way that they can test for it otherwise. But then I also don't see that the state level systemic stuff needs much testing when you can just examine policy. You want to examine its effects sure, but it's certain that it exists. This is new then, whereas the evidence for the state level stuff just needs cataloguing. So this is my view in many ways even more useful because now we can show evidence for all levels of discrimination, at the system state level and personal. Any state policies or advertisements that help promote it as an identity can in fact now even be tied to causing personal level grief also.
They were wrong to ignore the state discrimination (and to propose more of it even in the discussion), but we've at least got some interesting data here.
I think it's the condescending and smarmy way that they presented this part of their experiment.
They framed it where if their stupid construct didn't detect measurable interpersonal bias, that all the bitching about gross rights violations was misinformation.
Yeah you've got a good point here and it shows how bias can find its way in. You're right, not finding measurable interpersonal bias wouldn't prove the null, it would simply fail to prove the alternative in that experiment, they should know better and phrase it that way. That they didn't is revealing
I agree with your concerns there too, the authors are far from perfect in that regard, but still maintain that this is rather useful and interesting data. They had to begrudgingly admit we are right on this. The fact that even through their bias and awful recommendations this shows we are right is itself interesting.