Cultural Worldview and Preference for Childhood Vaccination Policy

Abstract

In the face of the reemerging threat of preventable diseases and the simultaneous vaccine risk controversy, what explains variations in Americans' policy preferences regarding childhood vaccinations? Using original data from a recent nationwide Internet survey of 1,213 American adults, this research seeks to explain differing public opinions on childhood vaccination policies and related issues of governance. As Mary Douglas and Aaron Wildavsky's grid-group cultural theory of policy preference formation suggests, cultural biases have a significant impact on the formation of preferences toward various vaccination policies. Hierarchs are in support of mandatory vaccination, oppose religious and philosophical exemption, and believe the government should preside over vaccinationrelated decisions. Fatalists strike a bold contrast in their opposition to mandatory vaccination policy and support for religious and philosophical exemptions and the role of parents in deciding on vaccinations. Falling between hierarchs and fatalists, egalitarian support for vaccinations is stronger than individualists'.

Understanding Local Policy Elites’ Perceptions on the Benefits and Risks Associated with High‐Voltage Power Line Installations in the State of Arkansas

“…The implications of this research are broad and varied, not only contributing to an understanding of how local policy elites in Arkansas form perceptions with regard to HVPLs, but also rendering promising evidence for the existence of an underlying causal mechanism at work in the process of risk perception formation that may be applicable to other controversial domains. When explaining individual‐level risk perception, much previous research focuses either on affect or emotional dimension of personal risk assessment or value‐driven risk judgment . Grounded in the dual process model of judgment, this research synthesizes both traditions of risk perception literature and deliberately and systematically analyzes original data to provide compelling evidence demonstrating how affect and more intrinsic values work in tandem to shape individual risk perception.…”

“…Another interesting aspect of the relationship between affect and judgment is revealed as even the most prevalent emotions of fear and anger have been found to have less pronounced influence in collectivist cultures when compared to individualistic cultures . While affective feelings must be considered, previous studies seem to suggest that a cultural foundation is at least partially responsible for the relationships between affect and perceptions of risk and benefit . As such, we utilize grid‐group cultural theory to explore the triadic relationship between value predispositions, affect, and HVPL benefit‐risk perceptions among Arkansas local policy elites.…”

“…Grid‐group cultural theory (CT) of risk perception is based on the original work of Mary Douglas, a social anthropologist who studied culture by analyzing social choices surrounding social conflict and public debate . Related to its beginnings in anthropology, the idea of social constructions has been applied to explaining individual variation in perceptions of various risks . CT suggests that cultural values or “cultural biases” are shared through “social relations” to support socially constructed systems or “ways of life” that reflect general attitudes and worldviews .…”

“…These cultural theory measures were used in various previous studies, including Ripberger, Song, Nowlin, Jones, and Jenkins‐Smith, Song, Silva, and Jenkins‐Smith, Song, and Jones and Song …”

Fracking Bad Guys: The Role of Narrative Character Affect in Shaping Hydraulic Fracturing Policy Preferences

“…In order to address the problem of narrative relativity (Jones, ), we leverage Cultural Theory (CT) to populate our narratives with generalizable symbols, wording, and content. CT is an approach originally developed by Mary Douglas () and then further formalized to include grid/group dimensions of sociality, where group denotes the extent to which individuals prefer and associate in groups while grid denotes the extent to which those groups prescribe and constrain preferences and behavior (e.g., Moyer & Song, ; Ripberger, Song, Nowlin, Jones, & Jenkins‐Smith, ; Song, ; Song, Silva, & Jenkins‐Smith, ; Thompson, Ellis, & Wildavsky, ; Tumlison, Moyer, & Song, ). By intersecting the dimensions of grid and group, CT can be used to conceptually classify individuals as one of four cultural types: egalitarian (low grid/high group), hierarch (high grid/high group), individualist (low grid/low group), and fatalist (high grid/low group).…”