The Effect of Frames on COVID-19 Vaccine Resistance

Abstract

In order to control the spread of infectious diseases such as COVID-19, it will be important to develop a communication strategy to counteract “vaccine resistance”, that is, the refusal to take the COVID-19 vaccine even when available. This paper reports the results of a survey experiment testing the impacts of several types of message content: the safety and efficacy of the vaccine itself, the likelihood that others will take the vaccine, and the possible role of politics in driving resistance to the vaccine. In an original survey of 1,123 American M-Turk respondents conducted in the summer of 2020, we provided six different information conditions suggesting the safety and efficacy of the vaccine, the lack of safety/efficacy of the vaccine, the suggestion that most others would take the vaccine, the suggestion that most others would not take the vaccine, the suggestion that the vaccine is being promoted by liberals to gain greater control over individual freedom, and the suggestion that its approval is being by President Trump rushed for political motivations. We compared the responses for those in the treatment groups with a control group who received no additional information. In comparison to the control group, those who received information about the safety/efficacy of the vaccine were more likely to report that they would take the vaccine, those who received information that others were reluctant to take the vaccine were more likely to report that they themselves would not take it, and those who received information about political influences on vaccine development expressed resistance to taking it. Communication of effective messages about the vaccine will be essential for public health agencies that seek to promote vaccine uptake.

Politicization and COVID-19 vaccine resistance in the U.S.

“…Political conflict and coverage surrounding the nature and risk of the virus set the stage for segments of the public to be relatively more receptive to misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines. 34 Attitudes toward receiving a vaccine can be “understood as a continuum ranging from outright refusal to active demand for immediate uptake.” 35 (p1), 36 , 37 Since the beginning stages of testing for COVID-19 vaccines, polls indicated that a sizeable percentage of people in the United States were vaccine resistant , defined as unwilling to get vaccinated once one became available. 38 Many people were also vaccine hesitant , defined as a preference to wait for others have been vaccinated before deciding for themselves.…”

“…In addition, messages that suggested the vaccine was being rushed for approval prior to the Presidential election decreased reported intentions to get vaccinated. 35 …”

Persuasive Messages Will Not Increase COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance: Evidence from a Nationwide Online Experiment

“…We are aware of but a few experimental studies addressing hesitancy to vaccinate against COVID-19. In Palm et al [17], a convenience sample of US-based Amazon MTurk workers was targeted in August 2020. Compared with the control group receiving no additional information, those who received a message about the safety and efficacy of the vaccine were more likely to say they would take it (and, of less practical importance, some manipulations decreased the willingness to be vaccinated).…”

Negativity in online news coverage of vaccination rates in Serbia: A content analysis

“…Many intervention studies have shown that describing positive behaviors as typical has the potential to introduce social change in a variety of domains (e.g., Behavioural Insights Team, 2012;Gerber & Rogers, 2009;Goldstein et al, 2008). Some studies have shown the same effect in the domain of vaccination: participants reported greater vaccination intentions when presented with a higher vaccination rate among their peers (Belle & Cantarelli, 2021;Hershey et al, 1994;Palm et al, 2021;Romley et al, 2016). This finding, however, was not corroborated in several other experiments (Clayton et al, 2021;Sinclair & Agerström, 2021;Xiao & Borah, 2020).…”