By: Matthew Timmins
Background: In separate posts, two individuals take drastically different positions on how to decrease the influence of “anti-vaxxers” on child vaccination rates. Matt Novak discussed the use of shame to influence the anti-vaxxer behavior (http://gizmodo.com/the-anti-vaccine-movement-should-be-ridiculed-because-1683258152). In his blog post, Novak argues that by ridiculing the overall message that vaccines cause more harm than good, the decision not to vaccinate a child will become so socially unacceptable that parents will appropriately vaccinate their children despite personal beliefs. He also stresses that individual anti-vaxxers should not be ridiculed, nor those who chose not to vaccinate their children due to a known allergy. Novak cites examples such as racism and support for non-heterosexual individuals where it is now publically unacceptable to discriminate based on race or sexual orientation. Instead, these remain inner thoughts rather than public behaviors. In response, Jesse Singal argues that the historical use of shame may not be appropriate for converting anti-vaxxers (http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/02/why-shaming-anti-vaxxers-wont-work.html). For one, the anti-vaxxers hold a small niche of society; the majority of the US believes in vaccinations. Another issue is that anti-vaxxers find support in online groups and confirming/biased information on the internet, or the “University of Google” (https://violentmetaphors.com/2013/08/14/the-truth-about-vaccinations-your-physician-knows-more-than-the-university-of-google/). Instead, Signal advocates countering biased media and misinformation with appropriate messages from trusted sources.
It appears that Singal may be on the right track. Clarke and colleagues (2016) examined the use of balancing arguments from both sides, as well as the emphasis of the weight of scientific facts (http://graduatesocialpsych.weebly.com/uploads/1/9/0/7/19075053/clarke_et_al._2016_weight-of-evidence_messages___vaccines.pdf). They hypothesized that the balanced arguments mainstream news media provides for both pro- and anti-vaccination (e.g., providing potential evidence for both sides, allocating equal air-time to both sides) leads individuals to question whether or not there is enough information to make a decision, which in turn causes them to be unsure of the risk, and ultimately question the use of vaccines. Further, Clarke et al. proposed that the emphasis of the strong research supporting the use of vaccines may also play a role. What they found was that participants were more likely to develop more pro-vaccination opinions when the arguments were not delivered in a balanced way (i.e., most of the news provided was spent discussing pro-vaccination views), regardless of the weight placed on science. In other words, simply exposing individuals to more pro-vaccination information and less anti-vaccination support lead to increased support for vaccinations.
To further distance from Novak’s shame-and-ridicule methods, research in persuasion has found six general rules to follow when attempting to persuade individuals: reciprocity, scarcity, authority, consistency, liking, and consensus (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFdCzN7RYbw&feature=youtu.be). As the rule suggests, “liking” requires the individual to have positive feelings towards the persuader. This requires tactics such as giving compliments, a stark contrast to ridicule. Overall, it appears that repeated positive exposure to pro-vaccination information and decreased exposure to anti-vaccination support is key to convincing individuals to have themselves and their children vaccinated. This follows a general idea of information management—briefly, how information is communicated, received, appraised, and acted upon—and is particularly important in health-related fields (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00807.x/pdf). In their article, Brashers, Goldsmith, and Hsieh (2002) review the literature on how information management can have an influence on an individual’s tendency to either seek or avoid medical care. They note that the use of mediating communicators (e.g., television, radio, Internet posts) between healthcare providers and consumers can provide repetitive descriptions of issues and treatments to large numbers of consumers. However, caution should be used by these mediating sources, as consumers often rely on the mediator to indirectly receive medical information rather than directly discussing their concerns with health professionals. Based on the review, the information must be accurate but may be more effective in certain cases if the effects that the medical care has on the individual’s social networks are included (Brashers, Goldsmith, & Hsieh, 2002).
Brashers, D. E., Goldsmith, D. J., & Hsieh, E. (2002). Information seeking and avoiding in health contexts. Human Communication Research, 28(2), 258–271. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468- 2958.2002.tb00807.x
Clarke, C. E., McKeever, B. W., Holton, A., & Dixon, G. N. (2015). The influence of weight-of-evidence mes sages on (vaccine) attitudes: A sequential mediation model. Journal of Health Communication, 20 (11), 1302–1309. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2015.1023959influenceatwork. (n.d.).
Science Of Persuasion. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=cFdCzN7RYbw&feature=youtu.be
Novak, M. (2015, February 6). The Anti-Vaccine Movement Should Be Ridiculed, Because Shame Works. Retrieved from http://gizmodo.com/the-anti-vaccine-movement-should-be-ridiculed-because- 1683258152
Raff, J. (2013, August 15). The truth about vaccinations: Your physician knows more than the University of Google. Retrieved from https://violentmetaphors.com/2013/08/14/the-truth-about-vaccinations-your-physician-knows-more-than-the-university-of-google/
Singal, J. (2015, February 10). Why Shaming Anti-Vaxxers Won’t Work. Retrieved from http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/02/why-shaming-anti-vaxxers-wont-work.html
http://www.anh-usa.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Vaccine-yes_no.jpg
Vaccinations may be controversial to a few. To change their minds, healthcare providers and mainstream news media should focus on repeated exposure to pro-vaccination evidence and limit or completely remove time allotted to misinformation.
Conclusion: There are varying opinions about how to change anti-vaccination supporters’ beliefs, ranging from shaming the belief itself to working against media bias. Considering the current literature on attitude change, particularly related to healthcare and vaccinations, repeated exposure to a positive and accurate pro-vaccination statements should be provided through various media sources. This should also be taken a step further by eliminating the amount of time anti-vaccination views are portrayed, as the misinformation usually provided by anti-vaccination supporters may lead to confusion among those who are debating whether or not to vaccinate themselves and/or their children.