Information processing style and institutional trust as factors of COVID vaccine hesitancy

This study investigates the factors contributing to COVID vaccine hesitancy. Vaccine hesitancy has commonly been attributed to susceptibility to misinformation and linked to particular socio-demographic factors and personality traits. We present a new perspective, emphasizing the interplay between individual cognitive styles and perceptions of public health institutions. In January 2020, before the COVID-19 pandemic, 318 participants underwent a comprehensive assessment, including self-report measures of personality and clinical characteristics, as well as a behavioral task that assessed information processing styles. During 2021, attitudes towards vaccines, scientists, and the CDC were measured at three time points (February–October). Panel data analysis and structural equation modeling revealed nuanced relationships between these measures and information processing styles over time. Trust in public health institutions, authoritarian submission, and lower information processing capabilities together contribute to vaccine acceptance. Information processing capacities influenced vaccination decisions independently from the trust level, but their impact was partially mediated by authoritarian tendencies. These findings underscore the multifactorial nature of vaccine hesitancy, which emerges as a product of interactions between individual cognitive styles and perceptions of public health institutions. This novel perspective provides valuable insights into the underlying mechanisms that drive this complex phenomenon.

decisions differently.Obedience helps groups achieve goals during crises (e.g., form herd immunity during the pandemic) 32 , while authoritarian aggression erodes social trust 33 , including trust in public health institutions 34 .
Previous work has generally assumed that individuals kept autonomy over their vaccination decisions and examined how personal preferences are influenced by individual characteristics or circumstances.An alternative framework, drawn from democratic theory and empirical political science [35][36][37] , suggests that individuals in many social scenarios have conflicting preferences regarding retaining autonomy versus delegating decision to institutional authority or independent experts [38][39][40][41] .Despite the effort and depletion involved in the decision process, people often prefer to retain responsibility for choosing, even when they would benefit from others' choice on their behalf [42][43][44] .However, there is also a well-documented reluctance among individuals to make irreversible choices [45][46][47] .Instead of maintaining autonomy over choosing between available options, individuals may prefer to delegate informational, moral, and other burdens to those they perceive as experts or authority figures 48 .
The preference for autonomy versus delegation reflects the interaction between an individual's characteristics and the decision context.Delegation is more likely to occur when informational burden and potential losses are higher 45,48 .Men are more likely to retain decision autonomy than women do 49 , while individuals with higher authoritarian submission are more likely to demonstrate unquestioning obedience, relinquishing their decision to institutional authority 50,51 .As another crucial factor in delegation decisions [52][53][54] , trust increases the likelihood of transferring decision 55 .This effect is more pronounced with increasing technological sophistication, as trust helps offset the rising cost of decision-making 53 .
However, the key reason for delegating is to involve individuals with decision-relevant knowledge [56][57][58] and to reduce the cost and effort required to obtain such expertise 59,60 .Complex decisions generate information processing needs that, at times, may surpass an individual's cognitive capacity, leading to information overload, which can result in lower decision quality and choice avoidance 58,[60][61][62][63][64][65] .Choice avoidance may take the form of delegating decision 66 .Thus, information processing capacities impact the tendency to delegate.It remains unclear whether they also impact individual tendencies to trust those in authority.Unlike other forms of choice avoidance (delaying the choice, making small reversible steps, or choosing randomly), delegation allows transferring responsibility for choice outcome to another party.Thus, people are more likely to delegate to those with the status to assume responsibility, especially in situations in which this accountability manifests in a more careful decision 45,49 .
The decision on COVID-19 vaccination required balancing the risks of illness and vaccine side effects, along with the potential of spreading infection, amidst changing and conflicting information.Consequently, many opted to defer this decision to an expert authority.Institutional authority on vaccination decision during the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S. was assigned to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), who had responsibility to share best available health information and recommendations with clinicians and the general population [67][68][69][70] .The public evaluated this information and made a choice; one option was to simply follow the CDC recommendations.The global scientific community took actions to reassure general public on the robustness of the scientific review and approval of COVID-19 vaccines, supporting authority of the CDC 71,72 .Many others claimed to have an expertise in COVID-19 vaccines, although, not necessarily offering to take responsibility for the choice outcome.A broad range of opinions was promoted, both supporting and challenging the CDC authority 73,74 .Thus, we suggest that the COVID-19 vaccination decision could be modeled as a choice between (1) retaining autonomy over the decision and assessing the available information to determine if vaccination is the best choice for one's personal situation, (2) delegating the decision to CDC and adhering to its recommendation for vaccination, or (3) following recommendations of other authorities (Fig. 1).
In following the first reports of allergic reactions to the vaccine; and (3) September 20th-October 20th, when vaccines were broadly available and often mandated.We aimed to examine the evolution of perceptions regarding vaccine safety and the decision to get vaccinated within the context of our decision model (Fig. 1).Note that our model does not explicitly address the difference between recommendations and mandates from the authorities.Thus, we anticipate that some of the predicted effects (detailed below) may differ in wave 3, when mandates were more common.
Directly assessing whether individuals kept autonomy or delegated their decision, and if so, whose advice they chose to follow, is not feasible using self-reports (e.g., due to reporting bias and the lack of insight).However, our model makes several predictions that can be tested with these data.Given the central role of the CDC in directing public health responses to health crises, we primarily focused on factors that may influence the likelihood of delegating decision to the CDC.The model predicts that higher tendency to trust the CDC and the scientific community, and higher authoritarian submission would positively associate with the likelihood to follow the CDC's recommendations to get vaccinated.Trust in the CDC and science can be assessed by asking participants directly.Authoritarian value orientation is a multidimensional concept that can be assessed using the F-scale 75 .Prior research used several versions of the F-scale [25][26][27][28][29][30][31] .When authoritarian tendencies were not a focus of the investigation but were used as covariates (as we aimed here), some studies used a subset of items from the F-scale to reduce the burden on study participants 33,[76][77][78] .We employ the same approach (details and limitations are discussed in Methods).
The model predicts that lower information processing capabilities will be associated with a tendency to delegate decision, reflecting choice avoidance.Testing this prediction is the key focus of this study.We evaluated participants' information processing styles using a behavioral task, the Perceptual and Value-based Decision Making (PVDM 79 ).Because some information processing may occur outside of awareness 80 , computational modeling of the data from behavioral tasks, such as PVDM, can better quantify variations in information processing than self-reports [81][82][83] or descriptive measures of behavior 84 .The Drift-Diffusion Model of choice (DDM) 85,86 is one robust framework for such modeling.According to DDM, a choice is made only when the evidence favoring one option crosses a critical threshold.Higher decision thresholds lead to more accurate, cautious, and slower decisions, indicating a need for more supporting evidence.Another DDM parameter, the drift rate, reflects the effectiveness of evidence accumulation.It positively correlates with cognitive ability 87 and negatively with doubt and indecisiveness 88 .The drift rate tends to decrease during more difficult decisions 85 , which illustrates that, in contrast to intelligence, it is not just a trait-level characteristic but is influenced by decision context.
The decision threshold and the drift rate characterize individual information processing style.They generally only provide information on how a decision is formed and not on what decision is made.However, our model allows some predictions.For instance, higher decision thresholds may be linked to a tendency to delay the vaccination decision until more information is available.Low drift rates reflect reduced information processing capacity, which we predicted to positively associate with delegating the decision to authority.
Previous studies have shown that heightened levels of anxiety and paranoia can influence perceptions of vaccine safety and decisions regarding vaccination 23,24 .These observed effects may stem from impaired information processing in these conditions 89,90 .The drift rate is reduced in paranoia and anxiety, which may contribute to impairment in such processes 91,92 .However, other factors, such as altered belief updating and negativity bias, also play significant role 15,93,94 .Thus, the impact of reduced drift rates on the tendency to delegate decisions to the CDC may diverge in individuals with elevated levels of paranoia and anxiety.
The PVDM task characterizes individual information processing style in four decision contexts: during perceptual decisions and value-based judgments 79 , both during a neutral condition and following random negative feedback (to induce negative affect [95][96][97] ).One of the four experimental conditions, value-based decision making following random negative feedback, probes how individuals form value-based subjective judgements when influenced by negative emotions.Negative emotions and stress can significantly alter decision making processes 98,99   .Given the increase in negative affect in general public during COVID-19 pandemic 100,101 , we anticipated that information processing style during this condition is predictive of how the participants processed information about COVID-19 vaccine at the peak of the pandemic.
Our model suggests that individuals could choose to follow advice from other individuals and organizations, which might support or oppose the CDC guidance.While trust in CDC and science predict individual tendencies to delegate decision to the CDC, tendency for obedience and lower information processing capacities predict the tendency to relinquish the decision to authority more generally, including to those supporting and opposing the CDC recommendations.This may manifest in elevated noise in how these tendencies are associated with the likelihood of getting vaccinated, reducing sensitivity of our approach.
We tested our predictions in two steps.First, we employed panel data analyses to examine longitudinal influences on perceptions of vaccines' safety and vaccination decision.Second, we employed structural equation modeling to test whether the hypothesized effects of information processing styles on vaccination decisions are independent of or mediated by confidence in the CDC and the scientific community.For this second test, we used data collected between September 20th and October 20th, when access to the vaccine was no longer limiting.We discuss policy implications of our results in the context of promoting positive interactions between individuals and public health institutions.

Results
Descriptive statistics Participant characteristics are reported in Table 1.Bivariate relations among all variables and longitudinal changes in variables assessed at multiple phases of the pandemic are reported in Supplementary Information (SI1).Panel data analyses Not surprisingly, perceptions of vaccine safety were higher, across waves, among individuals who received one or more COVID vaccinations (Cohen's d were 0.61, 0.92, 1.30 for waves 1, 2, and 3, respectively; ps < 0.001).To avoid multicollinearity, we examined longitudinal determinants of perceptions of vaccine safety and the choice to get vaccinated separately (Figure SI2).Model fit indices are provided in Table S2-1 for models with vaccination status as the dependent variable and in Table S2-2 for models with perceived safety as the dependent variable.Because the decision to vaccinate is irreversible, we included the lagged vaccination status as a predictor (see Methods).This allowed us to examine the effects of the remaining variables on the decision to get vaccinated at each time point, independent of prior vaccination status.
Table 2 illustrates that we replicated many previous results (base models).Later stage of the pandemic (September-October 2021), older age, being in low or in high income classes (U-shaped relations with income), state population density, and unemployment because of COVID predicted higher likelihood of getting vaccinated.Higher likelihood of deciding to get vaccinated during later stages of the pandemic may reflect both higher acceptance of the vaccines and impacts of vaccine mandates.Perception of vaccine safety was lower during early stages of the vaccination program (February-March 2021) and in individuals with an authoritarian value orientation.Education level, belief in science competence, and trust in the CDC were positively associated with both perception of vaccine safety and decision to get vaccinated.Black participants viewed the vaccine as less safe (β = − 0.41 p = 0.07) and were less likely to get vaccinated (OR 0.35, p = 0.045).
Our key novel result (models 1-2) is that drift rate (i.e., effectiveness of information processing) during value-based judgements following random negative feedback was associated with lower likelihood of getting vaccinated (β = -0.76p = 0.03).This supports the prediction that individuals with reduced information processing capabilities would delegate decision to the CDC, reflecting choice avoidance.The DDM parameters from the remaining PVDM conditions (perceptual choices and value-based choices without the feedback) did not significantly relate to perceptions of vaccine safety or the decision to get vaccinated (ps > 0.18), confirming that information processing styles are context dependent.
Further analysis (model 2) revealed that the impact of some variables varied across stages of the vaccination program.Belief in science competence impacted perception of vaccine safety more strongly during earlier stages (February-March 2021) and vaccination actions during later stages of the vaccination program (September-October 2021).This may reflect stronger vaccine hesitancy among committed "science deniers." Contrary to prior studies but consistent with predictions of our model, male participants were somewhat less likely to get vaccinated than female participants during earlier stages of the vaccination program (OR 0.44, p = 0.062), consistent with a reduced tendency to delegate decision in men.Consistent with prior studies, an authoritarian value orientation was negatively associated with perceptions of vaccine safety; however, consistent with the predictions of our model, it was positively associated with the likelihood of getting vaccinated early in the vaccination program, perhaps reflecting a tendency to relinquish decision to an institutional authority.
Next, we examined the impact of elevated anxiety and paranoia, which may impact information processing style.This was done using subsample of participants who completed the Brief Symptom Inventory (N = 262).We replicated most relations seen in the full sample (see Table 3) and, additionally, replicated the finding that individuals with elevated paranoia perceived vaccination as less safe.A novel result was that, in individuals with elevated anxiety, lower drift rates were associated with higher perceived safety of the vaccine, while in all other individuals this relationship remained non-significant (see Fig. 2).
Structural equation modeling (SEM) allows including both perception of vaccine safety and the vaccination decision in the same model; it handles the multicollinearity concerns by separating direct effects of predictors of the vaccination decision from the indirect effects of these predictors mediated through perception of vaccine safety.We examined the impact of three groups of factors: (1) factors that associate with trust toward public health institutions during the pandemic, (2) factors that influence information processing style, and (3) sociodemographic factors as control covariates (see Fig. 3).This analysis also allowed testing whether information processing style influenced vaccination decisions independently from or mediated by attitudes toward public health institutions.Significant direct and indirect relations, as well as model fit indices, are reported in Tables 4  and 5.The strongest predictor of the likelihood of getting vaccinated was perception of vaccine safety.Education level and belief in science competence affected vaccination choices only indirectly through positive association with perception of vaccine safety.However, younger age (≤ 35 years) and older age (≥ 60 years) were directly associated with higher likelihood of getting vaccinated.Being Black had a negative effect on the likelihood of getting vaccinated.Trust in the CDC predicted higher likelihood of getting vaccinated both directly and indirectly through higher perceived vaccine safety.Elevated levels of paranoia were indirectly linked to lower perceived vaccine safety (β std = − 0.09, p = 0.05) through reduced trust in the CDC (β std = − 0.14, p = 0.03).
The direct impact of the drift rate from value-based choices following negative feedback on the likelihood of getting vaccinated was negative (β std = − 0.08, p = 0.10), and the total effect was even more negative (β std = − 0.12, p = 0.05).The additional indirect negative premium was most likely driven by the reduced drift rates in individuals with higher scores on F-scale (β std = − 0.14, p = 0.019), who were more likely to comply with the CDC guidance.
Authoritarian value (F-score) had a negative direct effect (β std = − 0.23, p < 0.001) on the perception of vaccine safety but a positive direct effect (β std = 0.09, p = 0.052) on the likelihood of getting vaccinated.All 5 items from the F-scale had high loadings (≥ 0.615) on a single factor (principle axes factoring with Promax rotation with Kaiser normalization 102 ), indicating that together they measure the same construct (SI3, Table S3-1); however, this construct is thought to be multidimensional [25][26][27][28][29][30] .To explore the contributions of different dimensions of authoritarian personality, we ran a second SEM with the F-score broken down into 5 individual items (Table S4); this revealed that different F-scale items related differently to vaccine perceptions and actions.Q2 (superstition) and Q5 (authoritarian aggression) negatively related to vaccination likelihood only through their direct negative effect on the perception of vaccine safety; this clarifies previously reported reduced perception of vaccine safety in these individuals.Q3 (authoritarian submission), on the other hand, directly and positively related to Vol:.( 1234567890 www.nature.com/scientificreports/vaccination likelihood; this was predicted by our model.The negative relationship between the drift rates and the authoritarian tendencies was primarily driven by negative associations with authoritarian submission (probed by Q1 & Q3, see Table S3-2) and authoritarian aggression (probed by Q5).These patterns need to be replicated in studies that use the full F-scale.

Discussion
Using longitudinal data, we examined determinants of perceptions of vaccine safety and the decision to get vaccinated across different stages of the COVID vaccination program (from February to October 2021).Guided by a framework, drawn from democratic theory and empirical political science [35][36][37] , we considered the vaccination decision in the context of conflicting preferences regarding retaining autonomy over individual choices and delegating decision to institutional authority [38][39][40][41] .The Public Health Service Act of 1944 (PHSA) 103 authorizes the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to take regulatory action to prevent the introduction and spread of infectious diseases; this authority has subsequently been delegated to the CDC 104 .This delegation provides the CDC with both robust authority and responsibility to implement science-based public health measures during public health crises.Thus, we specifically focused on factors that may impact the tendency in general public to delegate decision to the CDC and follow their recommendation to get vaccinated.We find that factors that are predicted to associate with a tendency to delegate decision to authority were positively associated with the likelihood of getting vaccinated.These factors include trusting the CDC and scientific community, a tendency toward obedience, and lower information processing capacities in the high stress affective contexts-such as the pandemic.
Higher trust in the CDC and scientific community have been linked to likelihood to get vaccine by many previous studies.The link between reduced drift rates and vaccination decisions shown here is novel; it aligns with theoretical predictions that lower information processing capacities may lead to choice avoidance and manifest as delegating choices to authority.
We find that individuals with pre-pandemic elevated anxiety and less effective information processing tended to see the vaccine as safe, while those with anxiety and more effective information processing viewed the vaccine as less safe.This result may reflect a tendency among individuals with elevated anxiety and high information processing capacities to retain the decision autonomy and at the same time, due to negativity bias 94 , to be more sensitive to negative information about the vaccines.Elevated levels of paranoia did not modulate relations between drift rates and vaccination decisions.As in prior results 15,105,106 it was associated with less positive perception of vaccine safety.This negative impact was fully mediated through reduced trust in the CDC.Paranoia has long been associated with difficulties developing trust that lead to pervasive interpersonal challenges 107 .Our results extend this dynamic to institutions: lack of trust in public institutions may generate additional social challenges for these individuals.
We find that superstition and authoritarian aggression were negatively related to self-reported perception of vaccine safety, while authoritarian submission may be linked to a tendency to relinquish the decision to an institutional authority.The drift rates were negatively associated with authoritarian tendencies, especially the  decision to CDC.Conversely, individuals with higher information processing capacity, especially those with lower obedience, were less likely to delegate decision-making and, possibly, were hesitant getting vaccinated.
Importantly, the impacts of information processing capacities on vaccination decisions were independent from the impacts of trust in public institutions.Thus, preemptively building trust in public health institutions in individuals with higher information processing capacity, including those with lower tendencies toward obedience, could mitigate vaccine hesitancy.Note that, the associations between authoritarian tendencies and perception of vaccine safety and vaccination decisions that we observe were predicted but should nevertheless be treated as preliminary, as we used only a subset of items from the F-scale, rather than the full validated scale.Future investigations should use the full F-scale and test these relationships more robustly.
We replicated prior findings [9][10][11][12][13][14][15]21,22,108 that education, population density, and negative consequence of COVID positively associate with vaccine acceptance, while self-identified as Black was associated with vaccine hesitancy (significantly in the full sample). Some studes revealed important links between racial discrimination in the criminal justice system in vaccine hesitancy in Black individuals 109 , which could have reduced tendency to delegate decisions to government agencies.However, others suggested that access barriers played more important role 110 and racial discrepancies in vaccination rates diminished over time 111 .
We additionally found important temporal dynamics.Perception of COVID vaccine safety improved over time.A positive perception of vaccine safety was increasingly associated over time with the decision to get vaccinated.Older age (a vaccination priority group) and being in later stage of pandemic (September-October 2021) robustly predicted higher vaccination likelihood.These associations were independent of prior vaccination status and are likely to reflect growing vaccine accessibility over time.
Given the complexity of modern medicine, with its ever-more opaque biomedical technologies, it is increasingly difficult to make informed medical decisions 112 .Thus, health decisions may become primarily a decision of whom to trust.We suggest that factors that influence such decisions should become a critical topic for future research on effectiveness of public health institutions.Rapidly developing medical innovations, such as mRNA vaccines, are likely to trigger strong skepticism in some individuals, including those with high authoritarian tendencies.The simple enforcement of mandatory vaccination by government institutions may facilitate compliance Anxiety by drift rate (on value-based decisionmaking following emotional triggers) interaction.The perceived vaccine safety of participants with elevated anxiety were negatively affected by drift rate-higher perceived safety with low drift rate, but with higher drift rate they exhibit similar perceived safety as low-anxiety participants.among these individuals, who exhibit high vaccination likelihood despite low perceived vaccine safety.Since the predisposition towards social conformity leads these individuals to identify with the existing social order 113 , establishing the CDC's authority during times of stability may mitigate negative attitudes toward medical innovations during times of stress.Times of crisis tend to trigger elevated levels of paranoia 15 , which in turn corrode institutional trust (as our data illustrate).We suggest that public health institutions must accumulate enough trust during times of stability, so that people will follow their guidance during times of crisis.
Understanding vaccine hesitancy as a by-product of complex interactions between individual cognitive styles and how individuals relate to public health institutions, rather than viewing it as a "new threat" 114,115 linked to particular socio-demographic groups 116 , can help to clarify mechanisms that underlie the phenomenon.We can adopt more effective policies by recognizing that trust, obedience to authority, and information processing capacity together contribute to vaccine hesitancy, as opposed to viewing the issue as predominantly political 60 .Future research may test whether the same key contributing factors impact the dynamics of public attitudes in other contexts, such as vaccine acceptance among parents of children with autism spectrum disorder 117 .
Limitations Our model did not fully address the role of mandates.We collected data via online self-reports; thus, verifying responses was beyond our control.Approximately 30% of the participants were recruited from Connecticut, and the rest from the Mechanical Turk (MTurk) subject pool, potentially limiting generalizability of our results to the U.S. population more broadly.While the Connecticut subsample was recruited to match the state population in age, gender, education, and income, it was not large enough to be representative of the state population.Combined with the MTurk convenience sample, it may not represent trends in the U.S. population more generally.Our sample primarily consists of participants located in high population density areas (Table 1), which is consistent with the population distribution in the U.S. but limits our ability to examine vaccine hesitancy in rural areas 25,26 .
Our longitudinal data included missing responses (Table S5).To preserve power, these responses were imputed.The PVDM task was completed by study participants in two contexts: 262 individuals completed the online task anonymously, while 56 completed the online task as a part of a larger study, during another phase of which they interacted with researchers in person.We did not see systematic differences in DDM parameters between these two groups (SI6, Figure S6, SI7, Table S7).Measures of paranoia and anxiety were only completed by 262 individuals from the "online only" sample this reduced the sample size for the respective analyses.
We treated the DDM parameters as temporally stable characteristics; while one-week test-retest reliability of these parameters was acceptable (SI8), longer term stability has not been established.To reduce the participants' load, we only included 5 questions from the F-scale during the last wave of data collection, which significantly limits interpretability of our results.This approach of only using a subset of items has been successfully used before [76][77][78] .It resulted in a subscale of high reliability (Cronbach's α = 0.82), and the authoritarian value orientation has been shown to be a temporally stable trait-level characteristic 118 .Despite being a key aspect of vaccine attitude, self-reported perceived safety does not capture every component of vaccine attitudes.We did not ask our participants about their political beliefs to avoid potential reporting biases.A variable state politics was  Our SEM assumed that vaccine perceptions impact vaccine actions; however, the reverse is also possible-an instance of confirmation bias 119 .All participants completed informed consent (online or in person) prior to data collection.All but 10 individuals consented to be re-contacted for future studies; in February 2021, these participants were invited to participate in a longitudinal follow up.
In 2021, 644 participants completed online surveys in three waves: February 20th to March 5th (N = 511), April 20th to May 5th (N = 475), and September 20th to August 15th (N = 502).349 individuals completed all three waves.The final sample included 318 participants who reported vaccination status.In 2019, all 318 participants completed the PVDM task and a survey online; 262 participated anonymously (220 from Mechanical Turk, 42 from local ads) and 56 met researchers in person.For the purpose of the original study, initial assessments for the "online only" and "in person" groups used different instruments.Sample statistics are in Table 1.It should be noted that sampling partially from the local community and partially from the online convenience sample limits the data representativeness in the U.S.

Measures
Sociodemographic measures (Table 1) include gender, race (Black/non-Black), ethnicity (Hispanic/non-Hispanic), age, income group, and level of education reported in 2019.We expected vaccine acceptance to positively associate with education and income, and negatively to being Black, Hispanic, and middle aged.We further expected male participants to be less likely to delegate the decision to CDC.
Participants reported the state of residence in 2021, which allowed us to derive two additional variables: state politics were determined based on 2021 data from the National Conference of State Legislature 104 ; population density was based on 2021 data from U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 120 .Conservative political beliefs were expected to correlate with vaccine hesitancy.We intentionally did not include a question about our participants' personal political beliefs, to avoid potentially being perceived as having a political agenda, which could have increased a reporting bias.Instead, we used the state politics as a very rough proxy.We expected population density to positively correlate with vaccine acceptance.
Negative COVID impact was assessed in each wave by two items: 'Unemployed because of COVID?Yes/ No' , 'Have your family member(s) been infected with COVID?Yes/No/Not sure.' It was expected to positively associate with a likelihood to get vaccinated 9,108 .
Knowledge about COVID was assessed in each wave by two questions from the CDC website 'Frequently Asked Questions about COVID-19 Vaccines' contemporary with each wave (e.g., "Can I get COVID from food?Yes/ No").Responses consistent with those from the CDC were coded as 1 and averaged across 2 questions.Knowledge about COVID could negatively associate with decision to delegate decision, but positively the level of trust in CDC and science, and a tendency to independently decide to get vaccinated.
In each wave of 2021, participants reported their perception of safety of COVID vaccines ("definitely no" = 1 to "definitely yes" = 7), how much science knows about COVID-19 vaccine ("nothing" = 1 to "a lot" = 7), trustworthiness of the CDC ("untrustworthy" = 1 to "trustworthy" = 5), and trustworthiness of social media, which was the average across TikTok, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, and Facebook ("untrustworthy" = 1 to "trustworthy" = 7).Perception of vaccine safety was expected to positively associate with the likelihood of getting vaccinated; higher trust in the CDC and the science message were expected to positively correlate with the tendency to delegate the decision to the CDC; perceived trustworthiness of social media was expected to positively correlate with vaccine hesitancy 121 .
Personality measures were assessed in 2021, during wave 3. Internal (Cronbach's α = 0.67) and external (Cronbach's α = 0.81) locus of control (LOC) was measured with 8 items 77 of the Rotter Locus of Control Scale 122 ("strongly disagree" = 1 to "strongly agree" = 7).Internal locus of control was expected to negatively correlate with tendency to delegate the decision.The authoritarian orientation (Cronbach's α = 0.81) was measured with 5 items from the F-scale 75 .It was expected to negatively correlate with trust in public health institutions, and positively with the tendency to comply with their recommendations.We have opted to use only a subset of questions from these two scales to reduce the subjects' fatigue and to improve the completion rates; the selected items resulted in instruments with acceptable to good reliability.A similar approach was successfully used by prior studies that aimed to use these variables as covariates rather than to characterize nuances of the personality 33,[76][77][78] .We acknowledge, that this limits interpretability of our results.Since the authoritarian orientation style is a multidimensional construct [25][26][27][28][29][30][31] , items were selected to represent different subscales relevant to the focus of the study: Authoritarian Submission (2 items) and Authoritarian Aggression (1 item); additionally, one Anti-interception item and one Superstition item were deemed to be highly relevant (see SI3).Selected items from both scales are reported in Tables S3-2

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.The vaccination decision framework that incorporates an option of delegating the decision rights.

Figure 2 .
Figure 2. Clinical level of anxiety by drift rate interaction.Anxiety by drift rate (on value-based decisionmaking following emotional triggers) interaction.The perceived vaccine safety of participants with elevated anxiety were negatively affected by drift rate-higher perceived safety with low drift rate, but with higher drift rate they exhibit similar perceived safety as low-anxiety participants.

Figure 3 .
Figure 3. Conceptual model of direct and indirect effects tested during SEM analysis.Note: Dotted linescovariances, are reported in Supplementary Materials.Solid lines-direct effects; effects depicted by black solid lines are reported in Table4, effects depicted by the gray solid line are reported in Table5.

Table 1 .
Participant characteristics.Descriptive statistics of study sample, with comparison between demographic information and national median.

Table 2 .
Panel linear model statistic for full sample.Predictors for vaccination status and perceived vaccine safety.Statistics for DV = vaccination were derived from logistic panel regression with random effects; D = safety from panel linear regression with random effects.Results were averaged from 5 imputations.

Table 3 .
Panel linear model statistic for online sub-sample.Predictors of vaccination status and perceived vaccine safety with online subsample, which measures anxiety and paranoia. a

Table 4 ,
effects depicted by the gray solid line are reported in Table5.based on the composition of the state legislature; this rough proxy is less sensitive than more granular measures of political ideology at the individual level.

Participants
All procedures were approved by Yale Institutional Review Board (IRB).Participants were recruited in 2019 for a study validating the PVDM task for online use (in preparation; SI6-SI8) and provided consent in accordance with IRB regulations and guidelines.Two samples were recruited:1.A representative sample of the Connecticut population (N = 143) was recruited in person using flyers and online ads.This sample was age-matched to the state's age distribution, and within three age groups(18-35,  35-55, older than 50), participants were recruited to match race, ethnicity, education, and income distributions.2. A sample (N = 531) recruited anonymously online through Mechanical Turk and local ads.Only participants whose responses to pre-screen questions (e.g., attention check questions, scores on the Lie scale greater than 7) passed rigorous quality control were enrolled.