Say it right: measuring the impact of different communication strategies on the decision to get vaccinated (original) (raw)
Related papers
The effects of scientific messages and narratives about vaccination
PLOS ONE, 2021
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 r...
Health communication, 2019
The current study examined the effects of framing in promotional health messages on intention to vaccinate against seasonal influenza virus. The findings of an experimental study (N = 86) indicated that exposure to both benefits and side effects of vaccination (gain-framed with risk disclosure message) led to lower intention to receive the flu vaccine. This relationship was mediated by both perceived vaccine efficacy and felt ambivalence in a serial order, revealing the underlying psychological mechanisms important for understanding health-related behaviors. Theoretical implications of constructing sub-framed messages are discussed and the concept of second-order framing is introduced.
Message Framing in Vaccine Communication: A Systematic Review of Published Literature
Health Communication, 2017
Suboptimal vaccination rates are a significant problem in many countries today, in spite of improved access to vaccine services. As a result, there has been a recent expansion of research on how best to communicate about vaccines. The purpose of the present article is to provide an updated review of published, peer-reviewed empirical studies that examined the effectiveness of gain versus loss framing (i.e., goal framing) in the context of vaccine communication. To locate studies, we examined the reference list from the previous meta-analytic review (O'Keefe & Nan, 2012), and we conducted systematic searches across multiple databases. We included 34 studies in the qualitative synthesis. The relative effectiveness of goal-framed vaccine messages was often shown to depend on characteristics of the message recipient, perceived risk, or situational factors, yet most effects were inconsistent across studies, or simply limited by an insufficient number of studies. Methodological characteristics and variations are noted and discussed. The review points to several directions concerning moderators and mediators of framing effects where additional rigorous studies would be needed.
Using Rhetorical Situations to Examine and Improve Vaccination Communication
Opinion polls have documented a considerable public skepticism towards a COVID-19 vaccine. Seeking to address the vaccine skepticism challenge this essay surveys the research on vaccine hesitancy and trust building through the lens of the rhetorical situation and points towards five broad principles for a content strategy for public health communicators in regards to vaccination: 1) vaccine hesitancy is not irrational per se; 2) messages should be tailored to the various hesitancy drivers; 3) what is perceived as trustworthy is situational and constantly negotiated; 4) in areas of uncertainty where no exact knowledge exists, the character of the speaker becomes more important; and 5) the trustworthiness of the speaker can be strengthened through finding some common ground-such as shared feelings or accepted premises-with the audience. Such common insights are on offer in the literature on rhetoric and persuasion and linked here with the research on vaccine communication and trust focusing specifically on the latter and character.
The Influence of Narrative v. Statistical Information on Perceiving Vaccination Risks
Medical Decision Making, 2011
Background. Health-related information found on the Internet is increasing and impacts patient decision making, e.g. regarding vaccination decisions. In addition to statistical information (e.g. incidence rates of vaccine adverse events), narrative information is also widely available such as postings on online bulletin boards. Previous research has shown that narrative information can impact treatment decisions, even when statistical information is presented concurrently. Objectives. As the determinants of this effect are largely unknown, we will vary features of the narratives to identify mechanisms through which narratives impact risk judgments. Methods. An online bulletin board setting provided participants with statistical information and authentic narratives about the occurrence and nonoccurrence of adverse events. Experiment 1 followed a single factorial design with 1, 2, or 4 narratives out of 10 reporting adverse events. Experiment 2
Behavioral Frequency Moderates the Effects of Message Framing on HPV Vaccine Acceptability
Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 2008
Background Research suggests that gain-framed messages are generally more effective than loss-framed messages at promoting preventive health behaviors. Virtually all previous studies, however, have examined prevention behaviors that require regular and repeated action to be effective. Little is known about the utility of message framing for promoting low-frequency prevention behaviors such as vaccination. Moreover, few studies have identified mediators of framing effects. Purpose We investigated whether behavioral frequency (operationalized as the number of shots required) moderated the effect of framed health messages on women's intentions to receive the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine. We also sought to identify mediators of framing effects. Method Undergraduate women (N=237) were randomly assigned to read an HPV vaccination booklet that varied by message frame (gain vs. loss) and behavioral frequency (one shot vs. six shots). Results We observed a frame-by-frequency interaction such that the loss-framed message led to greater vaccination intentions than did the gain-framed message but only among participants in the one-shot condition. Perceived susceptibility to HPV infection mediated the observed framing effects. Conclusions This study provides an important exception to the commonly observed gain-framed advantage for preventive health behaviors. Loss-framed appeals appear to be particularly effective in promoting interest in low-frequency prevention behaviors such as HPV vaccination.