Search

Influenza vaccination uptake among health care workers (HCWs) protects patients and staff. Still, many health institutions' coverage rates are unsatisfactory. We aimed to test the effect of communicating moral appeals in increasing vaccination uptake in a real life setting. In three field experiments among HCWs, a moral appeal highlighting morally relevant consequences of influenza vaccination was manipulated. The outcome variables were vaccination intention right after exposure to the moral appeal (Study 1; N = 569 US and UK HCWs from various institutions) and vaccination uptake in subsequent weeks for those respondents who consented in sharing this data during the survey (Studies 2 and 3, respectively N = 121 and N = 770 Dutch hospital employees). Studies 1 and 3 showed that moral appeal enhanced vaccination intention and uptake (vaccination uptake increased by 11%), due to increased awareness that vaccination is a moral decision. In Study 2, moral appeal had no effect, probably because people with more outspoken vaccination attitudes had responded to the call to fill in the survey. Moreover, moral appeal increased support for an influenza vaccination mandate. Furthermore, the results suggest that moral appeal was especially effective among HCWs with no history of influenza vaccination. These results indicate that moral appeal can be a useful tool for increasing both vaccination uptake and mandate support within health care institutions. • Influenza vaccination coverage rates among health care workers are unsatisfying. • Moral appeal was tested in a field experiment among health care workers (HCWs). • Exposure to a moral appeal increased influenza vaccination uptake with 11%. • Exposure to a moral appeal increased support for an influenza vaccination mandate. • Moral appeal affected HCWs without an influenza vaccination history more strongly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although much research indicates positive safety climate is associated with reduced safety risk, we argue this association is not universal and may even be reversed in some contexts. Specifically, we argue that positive safety climate can be associated with increased safety risk when there is pressure to prioritize production over safety and where workers have some detachment from the consequences of their actions, such as found in engineering design work. We used two indicators of safety risk: use of heuristics at the individual level and design complexity at the design team level. Using experience sampling data (N = 165, 42 design teams, k = 5752 observations), we found design engineers’ perceptions of team positive safety climate were associated with less use of heuristics when engineers were not working to deadlines, but more use of heuristics when engineers were working to deadlines. Independent ratings were obtained of 31 teams’ designs of offshore oil and gas platforms (N = 121). For teams that worked infrequently to deadlines, positive team safety climate was associated with less design complexity. For teams that worked frequently to deadlines, positive team safety climate was associated with more design complexity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]