Background

Identification of widespread biases present in reported research findings in many scientific disciplines, including psychology, such as failures to replicate and the likely extensive application of questionable research practices, has raised serious concerns over the reliability and trustworthiness of scientific research. This has led to the development of, and advocacy for, 'open science' practices, including data, materials, analysis, and output sharing, pre-registration of study predictions and analysis plans, and increased access to published research findings. Implementation of such practices has been enthusiastic in some quarters, but literacy in, and adoption of, these practices has lagged behind among many researchers in the scientific community.

Advances

In the current article I propose that researchers adopt an open science 'mindset', a comprehensive approach to open science predicated on researchers' operating under the basic assumption that, wherever possible, open science practices will be a central component of all steps of their research projects. The primary, defining feature of the mindset is a commitment to open science principles in all research projects from inception to dissemination. Other features of the mindset include the assumption that all components of research projects (e.g. pre-registered hypotheses, protocols, materials, analysis plans, data, and output) will be accessible broadly; pro-active selection of open fora to disseminate research components and findings; open and transparent dissemination of reports of the research findings in advance of, and after, formal publication; and active promotion of open science practices through education, modeling, and advocacy.

Conclusion

The open science mindset is a 'farm to fork' approach to open science aimed at promoting comprehensive quality in application of open science, and widening participation in open science practices so that they become the norm in research in health psychology and behavioral medicine going forward.

The common sense model of illness self-regulation outlines the dynamic processes by which individuals perceive, interpret, and respond to health threats and illness-related information. An extended version of the model is proposed, which specifies additional constructs and processes to explain how lay perceptions of health threats impact coping responses and health-related outcomes. The extended model provides detail on: (a) the mediating process by which individuals' illness representations relate to illness outcomes through adoption of coping procedures; (b) how illness representations are activated by presentation of health-threatening stimuli; (c) behavioral and treatment beliefs as determinants of coping procedures and illness outcomes alongside illness representations; and (d) effects of moderators of relations between cognitive representations, coping procedures, and illness outcomes. The extended model sets an agenda for future research that addresses knowledge gaps regarding how individuals represent and cope with health threats, and may inform effective illness-management interventions. We identify the kinds of research required to provide robust evidence for the extended model propositions. We call for research that employs incipient illness samples, utilizes designs that capture dynamic processes in the model such as cross-lagged panel and intervention designs, and adopts illness-specific measures of coping procedures rather than relying on generic instruments.

Achieving broad immunity through vaccination is a cornerstone strategy for long-term management of COVID-19 infections, particularly the prevention of serious cases and hospitalizations. Evidence that vaccine-induced immunity wanes over time points to the need for COVID-19 booster vaccines, and maximum compliance is required to maintain population-level immunity. Little is known of the correlates of intentions to receive booster vaccines among previously vaccinated individuals. The present study applied an integrated model to examine effects of beliefs from multiple social cognition theories alongside sets of generalized, stable beliefs on individuals' booster vaccine intentions. US residents (N = 479) recruited from an online survey panel completed measures of social cognition constructs (attitude, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, and risk perceptions), generalized beliefs (vaccine hesitancy, political orientation, and free will beliefs), and COVID-19 vaccine intentions. Social cognition constructs were related to booster vaccine intentions, with attitude and subjective norms exhibiting the largest effects. Effects of vaccine hesitancy, political orientation, and free will beliefs on intentions were mediated by the social cognition constructs, and only vaccine hesitancy had a small residual effect on intentions. Findings provide preliminary evidence that contributes to an evidence base of potential targets for intervention messages aimed at promoting booster vaccine intentions.