RATIONALE: Childhood vaccination is a safe and effective way of reducing infectious diseases. Yet, public confidence in vaccination is waning, driven in part by the 'manufacture of doubt' by anti-vaccination activists and websites. However, there is little research examining the psychological underpinnings of anti-vaccination rhetoric among parents. OBJECTIVES: Here, we examined the structure and moral roots of anti-vaccination attitudes amongst Australian parents active on social media parenting sites. METHODS: Participants (N = 296) completed questionnaires assessing their vaccination attitudes, behavioural intentions, and moral preferences. RESULTS: Using Latent Profile Analysis, we identified three profiles (i.e., groups), interpretable as vaccine "accepters", "fence sitters", and "rejecters", each characterised by a distinct pattern of vaccination attitudes and moral preferences. Accepters exhibited positive vaccination attitudes and strong intentions to vaccinate; rejecters exhibited the opposite pattern of responses; whilst fence sitters exhibited an intermediate pattern of responses. Compared to accepters, rejecters and fence sitters exhibited a heightened moral preference for liberty (belief in the rights of the individual) and harm (concern about the wellbeing of others). Compared to acceptors and fence sitters, rejecters exhibited a heightened moral preference for purity (an abhorrence for impurity of body), and a diminished moral preference for authority (deference to those in positions of power). CONCLUSION: Given the sensitivity of fence sitters and rejecters to liberty-related moral concerns, our research cautions against the use of adversarial approaches-e.g., No Jab, No Pay legislation-that promote vaccination uptake by restricting parental freedoms, as they may backfire amongst parents ambivalent toward vaccination.
RATIONALE: Childhood vaccination is a safe and effective way of reducing infectious diseases. Yet, public confidence in vaccination is waning, driven in part by the 'manufacture of doubt' by anti-vaccination activists and websites. However, there is little research examining the psychological underpinnings of anti-vaccination rhetoric among parents. OBJECTIVES: Here, we examined the structure and moral roots of anti-vaccination attitudes amongst Australian parents active on social media parenting sites. METHODS:Participants (N = 296) completed questionnaires assessing their vaccination attitudes, behavioural intentions, and moral preferences. RESULTS: Using Latent Profile Analysis, we identified three profiles (i.e., groups), interpretable as vaccine "accepters", "fence sitters", and "rejecters", each characterised by a distinct pattern of vaccination attitudes and moral preferences. Accepters exhibited positive vaccination attitudes and strong intentions to vaccinate; rejecters exhibited the opposite pattern of responses; whilst fence sitters exhibited an intermediate pattern of responses. Compared to accepters, rejecters and fence sitters exhibited a heightened moral preference for liberty (belief in the rights of the individual) and harm (concern about the wellbeing of others). Compared to acceptors and fence sitters, rejecters exhibited a heightened moral preference for purity (an abhorrence for impurity of body), and a diminished moral preference for authority (deference to those in positions of power). CONCLUSION: Given the sensitivity of fence sitters and rejecters to liberty-related moral concerns, our research cautions against the use of adversarial approaches-e.g., No Jab, No Pay legislation-that promote vaccination uptake by restricting parental freedoms, as they may backfire amongst parents ambivalent toward vaccination.
Authors: Megan Arnot; Eva Brandl; O L K Campbell; Yuan Chen; Juan Du; Mark Dyble; Emily H Emmott; Erhao Ge; Luke D W Kretschmer; Ruth Mace; Alberto J C Micheletti; Sarah Nila; Sarah Peacey; Gul Deniz Salali; Hanzhi Zhang Journal: Evol Med Public Health Date: 2020-10-24