Literature DB >> 33760856

The effects of scientific messages and narratives about vaccination.

Ozan Kuru1, Dominik Stecula2, Hang Lu3, Yotam Ophir4, Man-Pui Sally Chan5, Ken Winneg6, Kathleen Hall Jamieson6, Dolores Albarracín5,6.   

Abstract

A fundamental challenge complicates news decisions about covering vaccine side effects: although serious vaccine side effects are rare, less severe ones do occur occasionally. The study was designed to test whether a side effect message could induce vaccine hesitancy and whether that could be countered by pro-vaccine messages about vaccine safety. A large (N = 2,345), nationally representative experiment was conducted by randomly exposing participants to one of six videos about the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine edited from news programs produced during the 2019 measles outbreak in the United States. The design was a 2x3 factorial crossing the presence or absence of a hesitancy-inducing narrative message with a pro-vaccine science-supporting message (i.e., no message, science-supporting expert message, or pro-vaccine narrative message), leading to a total of six conditions. A general linear model was used to assess the effects of these videos on respondents' (1) vaccine risk perceptions, (2) policy views on vaccination, (3) willingness to encourage others to vaccinate their children, and (4) intention to send a pro-vaccine letter to their state representative. Findings indicated that the science-supporting expert message about vaccine safety led to higher pro-vaccine evaluations relative to other conditions [e.g., b = -0.17, p < .001, a reduction in vaccine risk perceptions of 0.17 as compared to the control]. There was also suggestive evidence that the hesitancy-inducing narrative may limit the effectiveness of a science-supporting expert message, although this finding was not consistent across different outcomes. When shown alone the hesitancy-inducing narrative did not shift views and intentions, but more research is needed to ascertain whether exposure to such messages can undercut the pro-vaccine influence of science-supporting (expert) ones. All in all, however, it is clear that science-supporting messages are effective and therefore worthwhile in combating vaccine misinformation.

Entities:  

Year:  2021        PMID: 33760856      PMCID: PMC7990169          DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248328

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  PLoS One        ISSN: 1932-6203            Impact factor:   3.240


  24 in total

1.  The influence of vaccine-critical websites on perceiving vaccination risks.

Authors:  Cornelia Betsch; Frank Renkewitz; Tilmann Betsch; Corina Ulshöfer
Journal:  J Health Psychol       Date:  2010-04

2.  An encounter frequency account of how experience affects likelihood estimation.

Authors:  Natalie A Obrecht; Gretchen B Chapman; Rochel Gelman
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2009-07

3.  Influence of evidence type and narrative type on HPV risk perception and intention to obtain the HPV vaccine.

Authors:  Xiaoli Nan; Michael F Dahlstrom; Adam Richards; Sarani Rangarajan
Journal:  Health Commun       Date:  2014-07-25

4.  Reducing the influence of anecdotal reasoning on people's health care decisions: is a picture worth a thousand statistics?

Authors:  Angela Fagerlin; Catharine Wang; Peter A Ubel
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2005 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.583

5.  Debunking: A Meta-Analysis of the Psychological Efficacy of Messages Countering Misinformation.

Authors:  Man-Pui Sally Chan; Christopher R Jones; Kathleen Hall Jamieson; Dolores Albarracín
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2017-09-12

6.  Effective messages in vaccine promotion: a randomized trial.

Authors:  Brendan Nyhan; Jason Reifler; Sean Richey; Gary L Freed
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2014-03-03       Impact factor: 7.124

7.  Countering antivaccination attitudes.

Authors:  Zachary Horne; Derek Powell; John E Hummel; Keith J Holyoak
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2015-08-03       Impact factor: 11.205

8.  The effect of falsely balanced reporting of the autism-vaccine controversy on vaccine safety perceptions and behavioral intentions.

Authors:  Graham Dixon; Christopher Clarke
Journal:  Health Educ Res       Date:  2012-11-27

9.  Neutralizing misinformation through inoculation: Exposing misleading argumentation techniques reduces their influence.

Authors:  John Cook; Stephan Lewandowsky; Ullrich K H Ecker
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-05-05       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  The effects of anti-vaccine conspiracy theories on vaccination intentions.

Authors:  Daniel Jolley; Karen M Douglas
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-02-20       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  5 in total

1.  Content and Dynamics of Websites Shared Over Vaccine-Related Tweets in COVID-19 Conversations: Computational Analysis.

Authors:  Iain Cruickshank; Tamar Ginossar; Jason Sulskis; Elena Zheleva; Tanya Berger-Wolf
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2021-12-03       Impact factor: 5.428

2.  Conspiracy beliefs and distrust of science predicts reluctance of vaccine uptake of politically right-wing citizens.

Authors:  T Winter; B C Riordan; D Scarf; P E Jose
Journal:  Vaccine       Date:  2022-02-18       Impact factor: 4.169

3.  Estimating the size of "anti-vax" and vaccine hesitant populations in the US, UK, and Canada: comparative latent class modeling of vaccine attitudes.

Authors:  Timothy B Gravelle; Joseph B Phillips; Jason Reifler; Thomas J Scotto
Journal:  Hum Vaccin Immunother       Date:  2022-03-29       Impact factor: 4.526

4.  Examining drivers of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine hesitancy among healthcare workers.

Authors:  Mandy C Swann; Jesse Bendetson; Alexis Johnson; Maimuna Jatta; Charles J Schleupner; Anthony Baffoe-Bonnie
Journal:  Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol       Date:  2022-02-14       Impact factor: 6.520

5.  Facts Tell, Stories Sell? Assessing the Availability Heuristic and Resistance as Cognitive Mechanisms Underlying the Persuasive Effects of Vaccination Narratives.

Authors:  Lisa Vandeberg; Corine S Meppelink; José Sanders; Marieke L Fransen
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2022-03-07
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.