By: Ashley Coleman
Strong Attitudes
One topic that people often have strong opinions about is the argument about whether vaccines (particularly the MMR vaccine) cause autism. Although no valid scientific evidence suggests that the MMR vaccine (or any other vaccine, for that matter) causes autism, the debate rages on. One reason may be that reporters often provide both sides of the autism-vaccine debate, which may resonate uncertainty in an argument that is actually quite certain (Clarke et al., 2016). Indeed, exposure to both sides of the argument decreased parents’ intentions to vaccinate children (Dixon & Clarke, 2013). Clarke and colleagues (2016) suggest providing balanced coverage while emphasizing where the bulk of evidence lies as well as scientific consensus on the issue.
Social Influences
Social influences are particularly apt for influencing behavior. In the social norms model, norms are viewed as internalized standards, and as a result, normative social influence often results in compliance or conformity. In particular, the influence of social norms is stronger for public than private behaviors, though people often do not think that they are influenced by the behavior of others. However, having a strong attitude toward a particular behavior may decrease normative social influence (Schultz, Tabanico, & Rendon, 2008). In addition, attitudes predict behavior when the situation incites action based on attitudes rather than social norms (Fiske, 2014). Given that strong attitudes are protective against conformity, strong attitudes may be more difficult to change.
Effective Persuasion
Effective methods related to persuasion have been identified. For example, someone who is uninvolved with an issue (like the vaccine-autism debate) is more likely to use heuristic processes rather than systematic processes (Fiske, 2014). Examples of these heuristics include that the longer the evidence, the stronger the argument is; that the consensus of the group is likely correct; and expert opinion is valuable and can be trusted. Therefore, someone with a weak attitude about a topic may be more easily persuaded by an argument with the aforementioned factors. On the other hand, someone who is involved with the issue is more likely to use systematic processes, or careful processing of the content of the evidence. However, for someone with a strong attitude about a topic, selection and attention biases may influence which arguments and evidence they are exposed to and consider in their decision-making.
Ineffective Persuasion
Several methods are known to be ineffective for persuading people, and therefore are unlikely to persuade someone that vaccines do not cause autism, as the breadth of available evidence strongly suggests. Although it would seem that inundating people with logic should be effective for persuasion, evidence does not support that claim. One reason is because people selectively seek and attend to evidence that supports their established attitudes (Clarke et al., 2016). Thus, a valid argument that utilizes logic and supporting evidence may fall on deaf ears. Inundating with fear is also not very effective; too much fear in a fear appeal undermines persuasion (Fiske, 2014).
Dissonance
Several research paradigms exist for creating dissonance, or inconsistency between a person’s attitudes and behaviors, which can lead to changes in attitudes or behaviors. In a meta-analysis by Freijy and Kothe (2013), the hypocrisy paradigm was found to be the most commonly used and the most effective paradigm for inducing change for a variety of non-clinical behaviors (e.g., smoking, sexual health behavior). In the hypocrisy paradigm, participants are asked to describe the value of a prosocial behavior, and then they are made aware of the previous times that they have not met the standard of that behavior. This creates dissonance, which promotes attitude or behavior change to achieve consistency again.
Three other research paradigms may be effective for creating dissonance and changing attitudes or behaviors related to vaccination. The belief disconfirmation (i.e., creating dissonance by presenting information inconsistent with existing beliefs) and effort justification (freely engaging in effortful task for little reason) paradigms produced changes in the single studies that used them in Freijy and Kothe’s (2013) meta-analysis, though evidence from only one study for each paradigm is inconclusive. Induced compliance, in which participants act in opposition to an existing attitude, has been effective in treating some clinical behaviors, though Freijy and Kothe (2013) did not find evidence that induced compliance was effective for non-clinical behaviors. Thus, the hypocrisy paradigm may be more effective for changing attitudes about the autism-vaccine debate than other paradigms, particularly induced compliance.
How to Persuade a Supporter of the Autism-Vaccine Debate
Therefore, an effective approach for persuading people who have strong attitudes in favor of the autism-vaccine debate may include presenting information from both sides of the debate, while emphasizing that the bulk of the evidence supports that vaccines do not cause autism and there is scientific expert consensus that vaccines do not cause autism (Clarke et al., 2016). An additional component to persuasion may include drawing upon social norms and shifts in culture, given that people’s behavior is influenced the behavior of others. Lastly, implementing the hypocrisy paradigm may be a potential way to change attitudes about vaccines and autism, given that it has been found to be effective for a variety of other non-clinical behaviors (Freijy & Kothe, 2013). For people with strong attitudes that vaccines cause autism, the hypocrisy paradigm may be to describe a prosocial behavior, like the health of the community, and then compare those attitudes to past behavior of not vaccinating or advocating for not vaccinating children.
References:
- Clarke, C. E., Weberling McKeever, B., Holton, A., & Dixon, G. N. (2015). The Influence of Weight-of-Evidence Messages on (Vaccine) Attitudes: A Sequential Mediation Model. Journal Of Health Communication, 20(11), 1302-1309. doi:10.1080/10810730.2015.1023959
- Dixon, G., & Clarke, C. (2013). The effect of falsely balanced media representations of the autism-vaccine controversy on vaccine safety perceptions and behavior. Health Education Research, 28, 352–359. doi:10.1093=her=cys110
- Freijy, T., & Kothe, E. J. (2013). Dissonance-based interventions for health behaviour change: A systematic review. British Journal Of Health Psychology, 18(2), 310-337.
- Horne, Z., Powell, D., Hummel, J. E., & Holyoak, K. J. (2015). Countering antivaccination attitudes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(33), 10321-10324.
- J Singal. (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
- M Novak. (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
- Nyhan, B., Reifler, J., Richey, S., & Freed, G. L. (2014). Effective messages in vaccine promotion: a randomized trial. Pediatrics, 133(4), e835-e842.
- Schultz, P. W., Tabanico, J. J., & Rendón, T. (2008). Normative beliefs as agents of influence: Basic processes and real-world applications. Attitudes and Attitude Change, 385-409.
- Sheeran, P., Harris, P. R., & Epton, T. (2014). Does heightening risk appraisals change people's intentions and behavior? A meta-analysis of experimental studies. Psychological Bulletin, 140(2), 511-543. doi:10.1037/a0033065