Association of moral values with vaccine hesitancy
Association of moral values with vaccine hesitancy
复制标题
DOI：
10.1038/s41562-017-0256-5
复制
发表时间：
2017-12-01
影响因子：
29.9
通讯作者：
Omer, Saad B.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Amin, Avnika B.;Bednarczyk, Robert A.;Omer, Saad B.
成群的未接种疫苗的儿童特别容易爆发疫苗可预防的疾病1，2现有的信息干预措施证明短期内取得了成功，但有些可能适得其反，加剧了疫苗的滞后性3。基于价值观的信息吸引核心道德，这会影响个人对疫苗等话题的态度。我们必须了解潜在的道德，而不仅仅是态度，在制定与个人价值观相适应的干预措施时，犹豫不决的类型是如何不同的。在这里，我们在两个相关的研究中表明，伤害和公平基础与疫苗迟疑没有显著关联，但纯度和自由基础与之相关。我们发现，中等犹豫不决的父母高度强调纯洁的可能性是低犹豫父母的两倍(调整后的优势比：2.08；95%可信区间：1.27-3.40)。犹豫不决的受访者强烈强调纯洁(调整后的优势比：2.15；95%可信区间：1.39-3.31)和自由(调整后的优势比：2.19；95%的可信区间：1.50-3.21)的可能性是前者的两倍。我们的结果表明，对伤害和公平的认可--在传统的以疫苗为重点的信息中经常强调的理念--并不预示着疫苗的迟疑。这一点，再加上纯度和自由与犹豫不决的重大关联，表明有必要在疫苗讨论中纳入更广泛的主题。这些发现也有可能应用于其他健康决策和沟通。
Clusters of unvaccinated children are particularly susceptible to outbreaks of vaccine-preventable disease1,2. Existing messaging interventions demonstrate short-term success, but some may backfire and worsen vaccine hesitancy3. Values-based messages appeal to core morality, which influences the attitudes individuals then have on topics like vaccination. We must understand how underlying morals, not just attitudes, differ by hesitancy type to develop interventions that work with individual values. Here, we show in two correlational studies that harm and fairness foundations are not significantly associated with vaccine hesitancy, but purity and liberty foundations are. We found that medium-hesitancy parents were twice as likely as low-hesitancy parents to highly emphasize purity (adjusted odds ratio: 2.08; 95% confidence interval: 1.27-3.40). High-hesitancy respondents were twice as likely to strongly emphasize purity (adjusted odds ratio: 2.15; 95% confidence interval: 1.39-3.31) and liberty (adjusted odds ratio: 2.19; 95% confidence interval: 1.50-3.21). Our results demonstrate that endorsement of harm and fairness-ideas often emphasized in traditional vaccine-focused messages-are not predictive of vaccine hesitancy. This, combined with significant associations of purity and liberty with hesitancy, indicates a need for inclusion of broader themes in vaccine discussions. These findings have the potential for application to other health decisions and communications as well.