Making Vaccine Messaging Stick: Perceived Causal Instability as a Barrier to Effective Vaccine Messaging

Abstract

Health officials often face challenges in communicating the risks associated with not vaccinating, where persuasive messages can fail to elicit desired responses. However, the mechanisms behind these failures have not been fully ascertained. To address this gap, an experiment (N = 163) tested the differences between loss-framed messages—one emphasizing the consequence of not receiving a flu vaccine; the other emphasizing the consequence of receiving the flu vaccine. Despite an identical consequence (i.e., Guillain–Barre syndrome), the message highlighting the consequence of not receiving the flu vaccine produced lower negative affect scores as compared to the message highlighting the consequence of receiving the flu vaccine. Mediation analyses suggest that one reason for this difference is due to non-vaccination being perceived as temporary and reversible, whereas vaccination is perceived as being permanent. Implications on health communication and future research are discussed.

Notes

¹ The removal of these two participants’ data did not substantially alter the findings. Post-hoc analyses show consistency between findings when including and excluding these participants.

² All t-tests reported in this paper involve two-tailed tests.