FDA Full Approval for COVID-19 Vaccine Increases the Call for Mandates

Culp, Kennith; Corwin, Claudia; Dukes, Kimberly; Sinnwell, Emily

doi:10.1177/21650799211051649

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 3 publications

(3 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Concerns were initially raised about mass resignations following mandate enforcement, and about the legality and ethicality of mandating vaccines that were not yet fully approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (Gur-Arie, Jamrozik, & Kingori, 2021;Rothstein, Parmet, & Reiss, 2021). However, reports that around half of unvaccinated employees would rather leave their job than get a COVID-19 vaccine (Hamel et al, 2021) may have been overstated (Albarracin, Jung, Song, Tan, & Fishman, 2021), and many employers introduced mandates after the FDA granted full approval to the Pfizer vaccine in August 2021 (Culp, Corwin, Dukes, & Sinnwell, 2021).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Using analogy-based messages to influence attitudes toward workplace COVID-19 vaccination mandates

Golos¹,

Buttenheim²,

Chapman

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Workplace mandates are a highly effective strategy for increasing COVID-19 vaccination rates, and their adoption by United States employers grew throughout 2021. Still, public opinion on these mandates has remained starkly polarized. Drawing from the widespread use of analogies in health communication during the pandemic, we investigated whether analogies to widely-accepted workplace safety rules could affect attitudes toward vaccination mandates. In a survey experiment conducted in September-October 2021, 1194 respondents were randomized to one of three messages about workplace COVID-19 vaccination mandates that included (1) no analogy; (2) an analogy to workplace hard hat policies; or (3) an analogy to workplace smoking bans. Only the smoking analogy increased support for (b = 0.41; p < .001) and perceived effectiveness of (b = 0.20; p = .037) workplace vaccination mandates. Moreover, the smoking analogy’s effect on perceived effectiveness was greater for unvaccinated respondents (b = 0.54; p = .015 for interaction) and was mediated via the perceived strength of mandate enforcement (indirect effect = 0.05; 95% confidence interval = [0.01, 0.10]; P = .006). Our results demonstrate that policymakers and administrators may use a simple analogy to boost public opinion on workplace mandates for COVID-19 vaccination.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%