Fact or fiction: An experiment on how information sources and message framing influence vaccine risk perception

Author:

Catalán-Matamoros Daniel1ORCID,Prada Enrique2ORCID,Langbecker Andrea1ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Universidad Carlos III de Madrid

2. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona

Abstract

In view of the growing disinformation about vaccines on social media since the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, effective communication strategies encouraging vaccine uptake are needed. We conducted an experiment through an online, preregistered survey to explore which types of information sources are more trusted by the population regarding the risks of the Covid-19 booster, and which types of message frames are more effective in influencing the perception of risks for children. We surveyed a representative sample composed of 1,800 Spaniards in June 2022. The two dependent variables were respondents’ perceptions of (1) the Covid-19 booster vaccine effectiveness and (2) the safety of the Covid-19 vaccine for children. Participants were randomly exposed to different messaging regarding these vaccines, with different sources of information (scientific consensus, scientific dissensus, governmental, influencers and medical doctors), and different message framing (pro- and anti-vaccine storytelling and pro- and anti-vaccine scientific data). Additionally, some respondents who did not receive any messaging formed a control group. Our findings suggest that different information sources and frames can influence people’s risk perception of vaccines. The source ‘medical doctors’ had a positive effect on risk perception of the Covid-19 booster vaccine (p < 0.05), and pro-vaccine messages, in the form of both storytelling and scientific expository frames, had a positive effect on respondents’ risk perception of the vaccine for children (p < 0.1 and p < 0.05, respectively). On the one hand, male and older respondents rated booster vaccines as more effective than female and younger respondents. On the other hand, right-wing respondents believed vaccines are somewhat less safe for children than left-wing respondents. These findings might support the development of strategic communication in vaccination programmes by public health departments to improve immunization rates in the general population. The practical and theoretical implications are discussed.

Publisher

Ediciones Profesionales de la Informacion SL

Subject

Library and Information Sciences,Information Systems,Communication,General Medicine

Reference47 articles.

1. AAFP (2021). Four reasons for Covid-19 vaccine hesitancy among health care workers, and ways to counter them. American Academy of Family Physicians. https://www.aafp.org/pubs/fpm/blogs/inpractice/entry/countering_vaccine_hesitancy.html

2. AEP (2022). “Evolución de la vacunación frente a la Covid de niños y adolescentes en España”. Comité Asesor de Vacunas de la Asociación Española de Pediatría, 2 mayo. https://vacunasaep.org/print/profesionales/noticias/covid-19-estado-vacunacion-ninos-y-adolescentes6-29abr2022

3. Al-Daghastani, Tamara; Tadros, Odate; Arabiyat, Shereen; Jaber, Deema; AlSalamat, Husam (2021). “Pharmacists’ perception of the coronavirus pandemic (Covid-19) in Jordan: a cross-sectional study”. International journal of environmental research and public health, v. 18, n. 21, 11541. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182111541

4. Allington, Daniel; McAndrew, Siobhan; Moxham-Hall, Vivienne; Duffy, Bobby (2023). “Coronavirus conspiracy suspicions, general vaccine attitudes, trust and coronavirus information source as predictors of vaccine hesitancy among UK residents during the Covid-19 pandemic”. Psychological medicine, v. 53, n. 1, pp. 236-247. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291721001434

5. Baig, Mukhtiar; Jameel, Tahir; Alzahrani, Sami; Mirza, Ahmad A.; Gazzaz, Zohair H.; Ahmad, Tauseef; Baig, Fizzah; Almurashi, Saleh H. (2020). “Predictors of misconceptions, knowledge, attitudes, and practices of Covid-19 pandemic among a sample of Saudi population”. Plos one, v. 15, n. 12, p. e0243526. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243526

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3