View More View Less
  • 1 Eötvös Loránd Kutatási Hálózat, Természettudományi Kutatóközpont, Agyi Képalkotó Központ, , Budapest, Magyarország; ELKH RCNS, Brain Imaging Centre, , Budapest, Hungary
Open access

Összefoglaló. A humán kutatások eredményeit bemutató közlemények számos adattal szolgálnak a megismerni kívánt jelenségre vonatkozóan. Általánosan elfogadott elvárás a vonatkozó etikai szabályok szigorú betartása, az előírt vizsgálati protokollok betartása. Az emberekkel végzett vizsgálatoknak azonban van egy olyan dimenziója, amelyre az etikai szabályok nem térnek ki, s amelyek a vizsgálati eredményeket, illetve azok reprezentativitását is befolyásolják. Ezek mindegyike a pszichológia vizsgálódási területéhez tartozik, legyen szó a pszichológiai kutatások etikai kérdéseiről, vagy az orvosbiológiai kutatások, orvosi beavatkozások, illetve azok elfogadásának pszichológiai aspektusairól. A tanulmány a pszichológia megváltozott etikai felfogásának rövid bemutatását követően a genetikai kutatások pszichológiai aspektusait és az egészség-magatartás kritikus kérdéseit elemzi. Az utóbbiak esetében a kockázatészlelés, valamint a bizalom, megbízhatóság pszichológiai modelljeiből kiindulva mutatja be az oltási hajlandóság és az oltásellenesség ismert pszichológiai faktorait.

Summary. Publications presenting the results of human research provide a wealth of data on the phenomenon to be explored. It is a generally accepted expectation to adhere strictly to the relevant ethical rules and to the required protocols. However, studies in humans have a dimension that is not fully covered by ethical rules and that also affects the studies’ results and their representativeness. All of these belong to the field of research in psychology, be it the ethical issues of psychological research or the psychological aspects of biomedical research, medical interventions, and their acceptance. Researchers of these and other scientific areas widely believe that science is morally neutral, that is, its task is the discovery of facts, the further development of the investigations’ tools and methods to perform correct analysis and draw reliable conclusions. However, research and development are characterized by a kind of moral neutrality, the essence of which is that the researcher not participating in the decisions on applications is neutral in general. This means that the curiosity driven research should not pay attention to risks associated with the use of results. However, many recent concerns related to the long-term effects of broadly applied inventions speaks for the need on consensus how the consequences could or should be forecasted.

Following a brief presentation of the changed ethical perception of psychology, I give some examples on the psychological aspects of genetic research and that of the critical issues in health behavior. Concerns psychological in nature have been articulated in the last decade and it became increasingly clear that genetic testing can also have psychological factors that must be considered. Moreover, the recent focus on psychological aspects of human research shed light on the complexity of health behavior, and questions have been raised about the known psychological factors of the human reactions to suggested therapies, especially those of the vaccination propensity, rejection, and anti-vaccination movements. Although there are only a few systematic studies on this issue, the proper solutions of the Covid-19 should consider the psychological aspects of the acceptance and rejection of vaccination. We may consider that the first waves of the Covid-19 epidemic created situations requiring altered psychological coping, to which psychological research responded primarily by examining the epidemiological situation, illness, and the resulting psychological aspects of lifestyle (treatment of social isolation, stress management, anxiety, depression). Therefore, scientific data on risk perception and psychological factors of vaccine acceptance may contribute to preparedness for globally predicted epidemics and decision-making processes.

  • 1

    Borgida, E., & Nisbett, R. E. (1977) The differential impact of abstract vs. concrete information on decisions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 7. No. 3. pp. 258–271.

  • 2

    Brewer, N. T., Chapman, G. B., Rothman, A. J., Leask, J., & Kempe, A. (2017) Increasing Vaccination: Putting Psychological Science Into Action. Psychological Science, Vol. 18. No. 3. pp. 149–207.

  • 3

    Cameron L. D., & Muller C. (2009) Psychosocial aspects of genetic testing. Current Opinion in Psychiatry Vol. 22. No. 2. pp. 218–223.

  • 4

    Chapman, G. B., & Coups, E. J. (2006) Emotions and preventive health behavior: Worry, regret, and influenza vaccination. Health Psychology, Vol. 25. No. 1. pp. 82–90.

  • 5

    Colgrove, J., Abiola, S., & Mello, M. M. (2010) HPV vaccination mandates—Lawmaking amid political and scientific controversy. New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 363. No. 8. pp. 785–791.

  • 6

    Downs, J. S., de Bruin, W. B., & Fischhoff, B. (2008) Parents’ vaccination comprehension and decisions. Vaccine, Vol. 26. No. 12. pp. 1595–1607.

  • 7

    Ferrer, R. A., Klein, W. M. P., Persoskie, A., Avishai-Yitshak, A., & Sheeran, P. (2016) The tripartite model of risk perception (TRIRISK): Distinguishing deliberative, affective, and experiential components of perceived risk. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, Vol. 50. No. 5. pp. 653–663.

  • 8

    Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010) Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. New York, Taylor & Francis

  • 9

    Gangarosa, E. J., Galazka, A. M., Wolfe, C. R., Phillips, L. M., Gangarosa, R. E., Miller, E., & Chen, R. T. (1998) Impact of anti-vaccine movements on pertussis control: The untold story. The Lancet, Vol. 351. No. 9099. pp. 356–361.

  • 10

    Gee, J., Weinbaum, C., Sukumaran, L., & Markowitz, L. E. (2016) Quadrivalent HPV vaccine safety review and safety monitoring plans for nine-valent HPV vaccine in the United States. Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics, Vol. 12. No. 6. pp. 1406–1417.

  • 11

    Heshka J. T., Palleschi C., Howley H., Wilson B., & Wells P. S. (2008) A systematic review of perceived risks, psychological and behavioral impacts of genetic testing. Genetic Medicine, Vol. 10. No. pp. 19–32.

  • 12

    Hobson-West, P. (2007) “Trusting blindly can be the biggest risk of all”: Organised resistance to childhood vaccination in the UK. Sociology of Health and Illness, Vol. 29. No. 2. pp. 198–215.

  • 13

    Hollands, G. J., French, D. P., Griffin, S. J., Prevost, A. T., Sutton, S., King, S., & Marteau, T. M. (2016) The impact of communicating genetic risks of disease on risk-reducing health behaviour: Systematic review with meta-analysis. BMJ, 352.

  • 14

    Janz, N. K., & Becker, M. H. (1984) The Health Belief Model: A decade later. Health Education Quarterly, Vol. 11. No. 1. pp. 1–47.

  • 15

    Kata, A. (2010) A postmodern Pandora’s box: Anti-vaccination misinformation on the Internet. Vaccine, Vol. 28. No. 7. pp. 1709–1716.

  • 16

    Kogut, T., & Ritov, I. (2005) The “identified victim” effect: An identified group, or just a single individual? Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, Vol. 18. No. 3. pp. 157–167.

  • 17

    Leask, J. A., & Chapman, S. (1998) An attempt to swindle nature: Press anti-immunisation reportage 1993-1997. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, Vol. 22. No. pp. 17–26.

  • 18

    Leask, J., Chapman, S., & Cooper Robbins, S. C. (2010) “All manner of ills”: The features of serious diseases attributed to vaccination. Vaccine, Vol. 28. No. 17. pp. 3066–3070.

  • 19

    Loewenstein, G. F., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K., & Welch, N. (2001) Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 127. No. 2. pp. 267–286.

  • 20

    Maglione, M. A., Das, L., Raaen, L., Smith, A., Chari, R., Newberry, S. … Gidengil, C. (2014) Safety of vaccines used for routine immunization of US children: A systematic review. Pediatrics, Vol. 134. No. 2. pp. 325–337.

  • 21

    McRee, A-L., Reiter, P. L., & Brewer, N. T. (2010) Vaccinating adolescent girls against human papillomavirus—Who decides? Preventive Medicine, Vol. 50. No. 4. pp. 213–214.

  • 22

    Middlemist, R., Knowles, E., & Matter, C. (1976) Personal space invasions in the lavatory: Suggestive evidence for arousal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 33. No. 5. pp. 541–546.

  • 23

    Milgram, S. (1963) Behavioral Study of Obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 67. No. 4. pp. 371–378.

  • 24

    Oliveri, S., Ferrari, F., Manfrinati, A., & Pravettoni, G. (2018) A Systematic Review of the Psychological Implications of Genetic Testing: A Comparative Analysis Among Cardiovascular, Neurodegenerative and Cancer Diseases. Frontiers in Genetics, Vol. 9. 624.

  • 25

    Oliveri S., Howard H. C., Renzi C., Hansson M. G., & Pravettoni G. (2016) Anxiety delivered direct-to-consumer: are we asking the right questions about the impacts of DTC genetic testing? Journal of Medical. Genetics, Vol. 53. No. 12. pp. 798–799.

  • 26

    Poland, G. A., & Jacobson, R. M. (2001) Understanding those who do not understand: A brief review of the anti-vaccine movement. Vaccine, Vol. 19. No. 17–19. pp. 2440–2445.

  • 27

    Reyna, V. F. (2012) Risk perception and communication in vaccination decisions: A fuzzy-trace theory approach. Vaccine, Vol. 30. No. 25. 3790–3797.

  • 28

    Wade, C. H., Shiloh, S., Woolford, S. W., Roberts, J. S., Alford, S. H., Marteau, T. M., & Biesecker, B. B. (2012) Modelling decisions to undergo genetic testing for susceptibility to common health conditions: an ancillary study of the Multiplex Initiative. Psychological Health Vol. 27. No. 4. pp. 430–444.

  • 29

    Wang, C., O’Neill, S. M., Rothrock, N., Gramling, R., Sen, A., Acheson, L. S. … Ruffin, M. T. (2009) Comparison of risk perceptions and beliefs across common chronic diseases. PrevMed, Vol. 48. No. 2. pp. 197–202.

  • 30

    Weinstein, N. D., Kwitel, A., McCaul, K. D., Magnan, R. E., Gerrard, M., & Gibbons, F. X. (2007) Risk perceptions: Assessment and relationship to influenza vaccination. Health Psychology, Vol. 26. No. 2. 146–151.

  • 31

    Wheelock, A., Miraldo, M., Thomson, A., Vincent, C., & Sevdalis, N. (2017) Evaluating the importance of policy amenable factors in explaining influenza vaccination: A cross-sectional multinational study. BMJ Open, Vol. 7. No. 7. Article e014668.

  • 32

    Wolfe, R. M., & Sharp, L. K. (2002). Anti-vaccinationists past and present. British Medical Journal, Vol. 325. No. 7361. pp. 430–432.

The author instructions are available in separate PDFs.
Please, download the Hungarian version from HERE, the English version from HERE.
The Submissions templates are available in MS Word.
For articles in Hungarian, please download it from HERE and for articles in English from HERE.
 

Ministry of Interior
Science Strategy and Coordination Department
Address: H-2090 Remeteszőlős, Nagykovácsi út 3.
Phone: (+36 26) 795 906
E-mail: scietsec@bm.gov.hu

2020  
CrossRef Documents 13
CrossRef Cites 0
CrossRef H-index 0
Days from submission to acceptance 247
Days from acceptance to publication 229
Acceptance Rate 36%

Publication Model Gold Open Access
Submission Fee none
Article Processing Charge none

Scientia et Securitas
Language Hungarian
English
Size A4
Year of
Foundation
2020
Publication
Programme
2020 Volume 1
Volumes
per Year
1
Issues
per Year
4
Founder Academic Council of Home Affairs and
Association of Hungarian PhD and DLA Candidates
Founder's
Address
H-2090 Remeteszőlős, Hungary, Nagykovácsi út 3.
H-1055 Budapest, Hungary Falk Miksa utca 1.
Publisher Akadémiai Kiadó
Publisher's
Address
H-1117 Budapest, Hungary 1516 Budapest, PO Box 245.
Responsible
Publisher
Chief Executive Officer, Akadémiai Kiadó
ISSN ISSN 2732-2688

Editor-in-Chief:

  • Tamás NÉMETH 
    (Institute for Soil Sciences and Agricultural Chemistry, Centre for Agricultural Research
    Budapest, Hungary)

Managing Editor:

  • István SABJANICS (Ministry of Interior, Budapest, Hungary)

Editorial Board:

  • Melinda KOVÁCS (Szent István University Kaposvár Campus)Á
  • Miklós MARÓTH (Eötvös Loránd Research Network)
  • Charaf HASSAN (Budapest University of Technology and Economics)
  • Zoltán GYŐRI (Hungaricum Committee)
  • József HALLER (University of Public Service)
  • Attila ASZÓDI (Budapest University of Technology and Economics)
  • Zoltán BIRKNER (National Research, Development and Innovation Office)
  • Tamás DEZSŐ (Migration Research Institute)
  • Imre DOBÁK (University of Public Service)
  • András KOLTAY (University of Public Service)
  • Gábor KOVÁCS (University of Public Service)
  • József PALLO (University of Public Service)
  • Marcell Gyula GÁSPÁR (University of Miskolc)
  • Judit MÓGOR (Ministry of Interior National Directorate General for Disaster Management)
  • István SABJANICS (Ministry of Interior)
  • Péter SZABÓ (Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences (MATE))
  • Miklós SZÓCSKA (Semmelweis University)
  • János JÓZSA (Budapest University of Technology and Economics)
  • Valéria CSÉPE (Research Centre for Natural Sciences, Brain Imaging Centre)