The effects of scientific messages and narratives about vaccination.
The effects of scientific messages and narratives about vaccination.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1371/journal.pone.0248328
复制
发表时间：
2021
期刊：
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
Albarracín D
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Kuru O;Stecula D;Lu H;Ophir Y;Chan MS;Winneg K;Hall Jamieson K;Albarracín D
一个根本性的挑战使报道疫苗副作用的新闻决策复杂化：尽管严重的疫苗副作用很少见，但偶尔也会发生不太严重的副作用。该研究旨在测试副作用信息是否会引起疫苗犹豫，以及是否可以通过有关疫苗安全性的支持疫苗信息来对抗。进行了一项大型（N = 2，345）的全国代表性实验，随机将参与者暴露于2019年美国麻疹爆发期间制作的新闻节目中编辑的六个关于麻疹，腮腺炎和风疹（MMR）疫苗的视频之一。该设计是将存在或不存在引起犹豫的叙述信息与支持疫苗的科学支持信息（即，无信息、科学支持专家信息或支持疫苗的叙述性信息），导致总共六种情况。使用一般线性模型评估这些视频对受访者的影响：（1）疫苗风险认知，（2）对疫苗接种的政策观点，（3）鼓励他人为子女接种疫苗的意愿，以及（4）向州代表发送疫苗支持信的意图。研究结果表明，关于疫苗安全性的科学支持专家信息导致了相对于其他条件的更高的亲疫苗评价[例如，B =-0.17，p < .001，与对照组相比，疫苗风险感知降低0.17]。还有暗示性证据表明，引起犹豫的叙述可能会限制科学支持专家信息的有效性，尽管这一发现在不同的结果中并不一致。当单独展示时，引起犹豫的叙述并没有改变观点和意图，但需要更多的研究来确定暴露于这些信息是否会削弱科学支持（专家）的亲疫苗影响。然而，总而言之，很明显，支持科学的信息是有效的，因此在打击疫苗错误信息方面是值得的。
A fundamental challenge complicates news decisions about covering vaccine side effects: although serious vaccine side effects are rare, less severe ones do occur occasionally. The study was designed to test whether a side effect message could induce vaccine hesitancy and whether that could be countered by pro-vaccine messages about vaccine safety. A large (N = 2,345), nationally representative experiment was conducted by randomly exposing participants to one of six videos about the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine edited from news programs produced during the 2019 measles outbreak in the United States. The design was a 2x3 factorial crossing the presence or absence of a hesitancy-inducing narrative message with a pro-vaccine science-supporting message (i.e., no message, science-supporting expert message, or pro-vaccine narrative message), leading to a total of six conditions. A general linear model was used to assess the effects of these videos on respondents’ (1) vaccine risk perceptions, (2) policy views on vaccination, (3) willingness to encourage others to vaccinate their children, and (4) intention to send a pro-vaccine letter to their state representative. Findings indicated that the science-supporting expert message about vaccine safety led to higher pro-vaccine evaluations relative to other conditions [e.g., b = -0.17, p < .001, a reduction in vaccine risk perceptions of 0.17 as compared to the control]. There was also suggestive evidence that the hesitancy-inducing narrative may limit the effectiveness of a science-supporting expert message, although this finding was not consistent across different outcomes. When shown alone the hesitancy-inducing narrative did not shift views and intentions, but more research is needed to ascertain whether exposure to such messages can undercut the pro-vaccine influence of science-supporting (expert) ones. All in all, however, it is clear that science-supporting messages are effective and therefore worthwhile in combating vaccine misinformation.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
4.2
作者：
Betsch, Cornelia;Sachse, Katharina
通讯作者：
Sachse, Katharina
影响因子：
3.4
作者：
Merkley, Eric
通讯作者：
Merkley, Eric
影响因子：
3.6
作者：
Betsch, Cornelia;Ulshoefer, Corina;Betsch, Tilmann
通讯作者：
Betsch, Tilmann
影响因子：
5.4
作者：
Carpiano, Richard M.;Fitz, Nicholas S.
通讯作者：
Fitz, Nicholas S.
影响因子：
3.7
作者：
Jolley D;Douglas KM
通讯作者：
Douglas KM