Correcting Misperceptions about the MMR Vaccine: Using Psychological Risk Factors to Inform Targeted Communication Strategies
Correcting Misperceptions about the MMR Vaccine: Using Psychological Risk Factors to Inform Targeted Communication Strategies
复制标题
DOI：
10.1177/1065912920907695
复制
发表时间：
2020-03-23
影响因子：
2.1
通讯作者：
Sylvester, Steven
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Trujillo, Kristin Lunz;Motta, Matthew;Sylvester, Steven
许多美国人支持有关疫苗安全性的错误信息。这是有问题的，因为那些这样做的人更有可能抵制以证据为基础的政策，例如为上学人数强制接种疫苗。尽管许多人试图纠正有关疫苗的错误信息，但很少有成功的尝试。这项研究利用疫苗错误信息接受的心理相关性，通过定制疫苗信息来吸引这些心理特征，开发了一种新的错误信息纠正策略。例如，道德纯度水平较高的人更有可能认为疫苗污染了身体，但通过疫苗接种不足来强调疾病的信息可以利用它们更高的道德纯度来推动他们获得疫苗支持。使用对美国成年人的大型调查实验(N=7,019)和较小的复制实验(N=825)，我们证明了旨在吸引道德纯度和针头敏感度较高的人的干预措施-这两个相对较少被研究的疫苗错误信息支持相关性-也可以有针对性地有效减少疫苗错误信息支持。这项研究更好地理解了错误的政治和政策态度的心理根源，并提出了一种更广泛地打击与政策相关的错误信息的战略，最终提高了对循证政策的支持。
Many Americans endorse misinformation about vaccine safety. This is problematic because those who do are more likely to resist evidence-based policies, such as mandatory vaccination for school attendance. Although many have attempted to correct misinformation about vaccines, few attempts have been successful. This study uses psychological correlates of vaccine misinformation acceptance to develop a novel misinformation correction strategy by tailoring provaccine messages to appeal to these psychological traits. For example, people with higher moral purity levels are more likely to view vaccines as contaminating the body, but messages highlighting disease via under-vaccination can use their higher moral purity to push them toward vaccine support. Using a large survey experiment (N = 7,019) and a smaller replication experiment (N = 825) of American adults, we demonstrate that interventions designed to appeal to people high in moral purity and needle sensitivity-two relatively understudied correlates of vaccine misinformation support-can also be targeted to effectively reduce vaccine misinformation endorsement. This study provides a better understanding of the psychological origins of misinformed political and policy attitudes, and it suggests a strategy for combating policy-related misinformation more generally, ultimately boosting support for evidence-based policies.