Previous researchers have established the influence of social norms on vaccine behavior. However, little work has been performed contextualizing individuals’ experience with these social factors and how they operate to persuade individuals’ acceptance or refusal of a vaccine. We aimed to determine the mechanisms of familial and societal pressure or expectations that contribute to COVID-19 vaccine decision-making. We conducted four focus groups and eleven individual interviews (total n = 32) with participants from across the U.S. of different vaccination statuses. We identified three emergent themes: (1) Altruistic reasoning was particularly prevalent among initially hesitant late adopters—the desire to protect loved ones and others constituted a dominant motive, more powerful than protecting oneself. Vaccination was also reckoned as part of a joint effort to return to normal life; hence, it invoked a sense of responsibility or “obligation”; (2) expectation often became pressure; although most vaccinated participants stated that they respected others’ choices, late adopters or unvaccinated participants perceived differently and felt rushed or “forced” into choosing, and many resented being “targeted” or “bullied”; (3) vaccination status became a new label, frequently dividing families, thus producing familial mandates, exclusions, or social stratifications. This caused sadness and feelings of isolation, along with the formation of a camaraderie among the excluded unvaccinated. A vaccine decision builds from the complexities of individuals’ experiences and cultures. The vaccinated were not free of hesitancy nor were the unvaccinated all anti-vaxxers. Vigorous vaccine promotion successfully converted some undecided individuals but also fostered distrust of government; alarmingly, the push to receive the COVID-19 vaccine further triggered doubts about established vaccines. Communication strategies need to be developed and implemented carefully so as not to ostracize the unvaccinated community and strengthen their resistance.

Researchers established that parental vaccination status often predicts that of their children, but a limited number of studies have examined factors influencing dyadic concordance or discordance (i.e., same or different vaccination status or intent for both members). We investigated how child versus parent age as well as parents’ perceptions of their respective friends’ immunization behavior impacted un/vaccinated parents’ decisions regarding vaccinating their child. An online survey obtained the COVID-19 vaccination status and views of 762 parents of 5–17-year-old children. More than three-quarters of all dyads were concordant; 24.1% of vaccinated parents would not vaccinate their child, with greater hesitancy for younger children and among younger or less educated parents. Children of vaccinated parents and of parents who thought most of their child’s friends were vaccinated were 4.7 and 1.9 times, respectively, more likely to be vaccinated; unvaccinated parents were 3.2 times more likely to accept the vaccine for their child if they believed most of their friends would vaccinate their children. Further, parents who reported that most of their friends were vaccinated were 1.9 times more likely to have obtained the vaccine themselves, illustrating the influence of social norms. Regardless of their own vaccination status, parents of unvaccinated children were more likely to be politically conservative. If communities or circles of friends could achieve or convey a vaccinated norm, this might persuade undecided or reluctant parents to vaccinate their children. Future research should examine the effects of community behavior and messages highlighting social norms on pediatric vaccine uptake.