Countering antivaccination attitudes

Zachary Horne; Derek Powell; John E. Hummel; Keith J. Holyoak

doi:10.1073/pnas.1504019112

New Research In

Edited by Susan Gelman, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, and approved June 11, 2015 (received for review February 26, 2015)

This article has a Letter. Please see:

Don’t try to convert the antivaccinators, instead target the fence-sitters - November 23, 2015

See related content:

Vaccine attitude change: What works, what doesn't
- Nov 23, 2015

Significance

Myths about the safety of vaccinations have led to a decline in vaccination rates and the reemergence of measles in the United States, calling for effective provaccine messages to curb this dangerous trend. Prior research on vaccine attitude change suggests that it is difficult to persuade vaccination skeptics and that direct attempts to do so can even backfire. Here, we successfully countered people’s antivaccination attitudes by making them appreciate the consequences of failing to vaccinate their children (using information provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). This intervention outperformed another that aimed to undermine widespread vaccination myths.

Abstract

Three times as many cases of measles were reported in the United States in 2014 as in 2013. The reemergence of measles has been linked to a dangerous trend: parents refusing vaccinations for their children. Efforts have been made to counter people’s antivaccination attitudes by providing scientific evidence refuting vaccination myths, but these interventions have proven ineffective. This study shows that highlighting factual information about the dangers of communicable diseases can positively impact people’s attitudes to vaccination. This method outperformed alternative interventions aimed at undercutting vaccination myths.

Footnotes

↵¹Z.H. and D.P. contributed equally to this work.
↵²To whom correspondence should be addressed. Email: horne2{at}illinois.edu.

Author contributions: Z.H., D.P., J.E.H., and K.J.H. designed research; Z.H. and D.P. performed research; Z.H. and D.P. analyzed data; and Z.H., D.P., J.E.H., and K.J.H. wrote the paper.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.
This article contains supporting information online at www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1504019112/-/DCSupplemental.

View Full Text