COVID-19 vaccine refusal is driven by deliberate ignorance and cognitive distortions.
Journal
NPJ vaccines
ISSN: 2059-0105
Titre abrégé: NPJ Vaccines
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101699863
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
14 Sep 2024
14 Sep 2024
Historique:
received:
11
12
2023
accepted:
14
08
2024
medline:
14
9
2024
pubmed:
14
9
2024
entrez:
13
9
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Vaccine hesitancy was a major challenge during the COVID-19 pandemic. A common but sometimes ineffective intervention to reduce vaccine hesitancy involves providing information on vaccine effectiveness, side effects, and related probabilities. Could biased processing of this information contribute to vaccine refusal? We examined the information inspection of 1200 U.S. participants with anti-vaccination, neutral, or pro-vaccination attitudes before they stated their willingness to accept eight different COVID-19 vaccines. All participants-particularly those who were anti-vaccination-frequently ignored some of the information. This deliberate ignorance, especially toward probabilities of extreme side effects, was a stronger predictor of vaccine refusal than typically investigated demographic variables. Computational modeling suggested that vaccine refusals among anti-vaccination participants were driven by ignoring even inspected information. In the neutral and pro-vaccination groups, vaccine refusal was driven by distorted processing of side effects and their probabilities. Our findings highlight the necessity for interventions tailored to individual information-processing tendencies.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39271718
doi: 10.1038/s41541-024-00951-8
pii: 10.1038/s41541-024-00951-8
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
167Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
World Health Organization. Ten Threats to Global Health in 2019. https://www.who.int/news-room/spotlight/ten-threats-to-global-health-in-2019 (2019).
Dubé, E. et al. Vaccine hesitancy: an overview. Hum. Vaccin. Immunother. 9, 1763–1773 (2013).
pubmed: 23584253
pmcid: 3906279
doi: 10.4161/hv.24657
Aw, J., Seng, J. J. B., Seah, S. S. Y. & Low, L. L. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy—a scoping review of literature in high-income countries. Vaccines 9, 900 (2021).
pubmed: 34452026
pmcid: 8402587
doi: 10.3390/vaccines9080900
Solís Arce, J. S. et al. COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy in low- and middle-income countries. Nat. Med. 27, 1385–1394 (2021).
pubmed: 34272499
pmcid: 8363502
doi: 10.1038/s41591-021-01454-y
World Health Organization. Vaccination and Trust: How Concerns Arise and the Role of Communication in Mitigating Crises. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/343299 (2017).
Lewandowsky, S. et al. The COVID-19 Vaccine Communication Handbook. A Practical Guide for Improving Vaccine Communication and Fighting Misinformation. https://www.movementdisorders.org/MDS-Files1/The_COVID-19_Vaccine_Communication_Handbook.pdf (2022).
Brick, C., McDowell, M. & Freeman, A. L. Risk communication in tables versus text: a registered report randomized trial on ‘fact boxes’. R. Soc. Open Sci. 7, 190876 (2020).
pubmed: 32269779
pmcid: 7137953
doi: 10.1098/rsos.190876
Charles, N. Suspicion: Vaccines, Hesitancy, and the Affective Politics of Protection in Barbados (Duke Univ. Press, 2021).
Hausman, B. L. Anti/Vax: Reframing the Vaccination Controversy (ILR Press, 2019).
Kreps, S., Dasgupta, N., Brownstein, J. S., Hswen, Y. & Kriner, D. L. Public attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccination: the role of vaccine attributes, incentives, and misinformation. NPJ Vaccines 6, 73 (2021).
pubmed: 33990614
pmcid: 8121853
doi: 10.1038/s41541-021-00335-2
Stöckli, S. et al. Which vaccine attributes foster vaccine uptake? a cross-country conjoint experiment. PLoS ONE 17, e0266003 (2022).
pubmed: 35507554
pmcid: 9067644
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0266003
Freeman, D. et al. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the UK: the Oxford coronavirus explanations, attitudes, and narratives survey (OCEANS) II. Psychol. Med. 52, 3127–3141 (2022).
pubmed: 33305716
doi: 10.1017/S0033291720005188
Marzo, R. R. et al. Perceived COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness, acceptance, and drivers of vaccination decision-making among the general adult population: a global survey of 20 countries. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 16, e0010103 (2022).
pubmed: 35089917
pmcid: 8797205
doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0010103
Prosser, L. A. et al. A discrete choice analysis comparing COVID-19 vaccination decisions for children and adults. JAMA Netw. Open 6, e2253582 (2023).
pubmed: 36716030
pmcid: 9887501
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.53582
Cerda, A. A. & García, L. Y. Hesitation and refusal factors in individuals’ decision-making processes regarding a coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination. Front. Public Health 9, 626852 (2021).
pubmed: 33968880
pmcid: 8096991
doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.626852
Kaplan, R. M. & Milstein, A. Influence of a COVID-19 vaccine’s effectiveness and safety profile on vaccination acceptance. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2021726118 (2021).
pubmed: 33619178
pmcid: 7958192
doi: 10.1073/pnas.2021726118
Liu, H. et al. How information processing and risk/benefit perception affect COVID-19 vaccination intention of users in online health communities. Front. Public Health 11, 1043485 (2023).
pubmed: 36895686
pmcid: 9989022
doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1043485
Strickland, J. C. et al. Behavioral economic methods to inform infectious disease response: prevention, testing, and vaccination in the COVID-19 pandemic. PLoS ONE 17, e0258828 (2022).
pubmed: 35045071
pmcid: 8769299
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258828
Toro-Ascuy, D. et al. Factors influencing the acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines in a country with a high vaccination rate. Vaccines 10, 681 (2022).
pubmed: 35632437
pmcid: 9145438
doi: 10.3390/vaccines10050681
Hertwig, R. & Engel, C. Homo ignorans: deliberately choosing not to know. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 11, 359–372 (2016).
pubmed: 27217249
doi: 10.1177/1745691616635594
Jennings, W. et al. Lack of trust, conspiracy beliefs, and social media use predict COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Vaccines 9, 593 (2021).
pubmed: 34204971
pmcid: 8226842
doi: 10.3390/vaccines9060593
Robertson, E. et al. Predictors of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the UK household longitudinal study. Brain Behav. Immun. 94, 41–50 (2021).
pubmed: 33713824
pmcid: 7946541
doi: 10.1016/j.bbi.2021.03.008
Sunstein, C. R. Probability neglect: emotions, worst cases, and law. Yale Law J. 112, 61–107 (2002).
doi: 10.2307/1562234
Sunstein, C. R. & Zeckhauser, R. Overreaction to fearsome risks. Environ. Resour. Econ. 48, 435–449 (2011).
doi: 10.1007/s10640-010-9449-3
Pachur, T., Hertwig, R. & Wolkewitz, R. The affect gap in risky choice: affect-rich outcomes attenuate attention to probability information. Decision 1, 64–78 (2014).
doi: 10.1037/dec0000006
Pachur, T., Suter, R. S. & Hertwig, R. How the twain can meet: prospect theory and models of heuristics in risky choice. Cogn. Psychol. 93, 44–73 (2017).
pubmed: 28189037
doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2017.01.001
Suter, R. S., Pachur, T., Hertwig, R., Endestad, T. & Biele, G. The neural basis of risky choice with affective outcomes. PLoS ONE 10, e0122475 (2015).
pubmed: 25830918
pmcid: 4382171
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0122475
Lejarraga, T., Pachur, T., Frey, R. & Hertwig, R. Decisions from experience: from monetary to medical gambles. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 29, 67–77 (2016).
doi: 10.1002/bdm.1877
Suter, R. S., Pachur, T. & Hertwig, R. How affect shapes risky choice: distorted probability weighting versus probability neglect. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 29, 437–449 (2016).
doi: 10.1002/bdm.1888
Mousavi, S. & Gigerenzer, G. Risk, uncertainty, and heuristics. J. Bus. Res. 67, 1671–1678 (2014).
doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.02.013
Reyna, V. F., Broniatowski, D. A. & Edelson, S. M. Viruses, vaccines, and COVID-19: explaining and improving risky decision-making. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 10, 491–509 (2021).
pubmed: 34926135
pmcid: 8668030
doi: 10.1016/j.jarmac.2021.08.004
Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. J. Risk Uncertain. 5, 297–323 (1992).
doi: 10.1007/BF00122574
Waters, E. A., Weinstein, N. D., Colditz, G. A. & Emmons, K. M. Aversion to side effects in preventive medical treatment decisions. Br. J. Health Psychol. 12, 383–401 (2007).
pubmed: 17640453
doi: 10.1348/135910706X115209
Waters, E. A., Weinstein, N. D., Colditz, G. A. & Emmons, K. M. Reducing aversion to side effects in preventive medical treatment decisions. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 13, 11 (2007).
pubmed: 17385998
doi: 10.1037/1076-898X.13.1.11
Waters, E. A., Weinstein, N. D., Colditz, G. A. & Emmons, K. Explanations for side effect aversion in preventive medical treatment decisions. Health Psychol. 28, 201 (2009).
pubmed: 19290712
pmcid: 2657933
doi: 10.1037/a0013608
Loewenstein, G. Hot–cold empathy gaps and medical decision making. Health Psychol. 24, S49–S56 (2005).
pubmed: 16045419
doi: 10.1037/0278-6133.24.4.S49
Izadi, S., Pachur, T., Wheeler, C., McGuire, J. & Waters, E. A. Spontaneous mental associations with the words “side effect”: implications for informed and shared decision making. Patient Educ. Couns. 100, 1928–1933 (2017).
pubmed: 28583721
pmcid: 5573624
doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2017.05.029
Waters, E. A., Pachur, T. & Colditz, G. A. Side effect perceptions and their impact on treatment decisions in women. Med. Decis. Mak. 37, 193–203 (2017).
doi: 10.1177/0272989X16650664
Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R. & Johnson, E. J. The Adaptive Decision Maker (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1993).
Fuławka, K. & Pachur, T. An affective probability weighting function for risky choice with nonmonetary outcomes. In Proc. Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Vol. 44 (eds Culbertson, J. et al.) 1025–1032. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5bg7f816 (2022).
Blastland, M., Freeman, A. L., van der Linden, S., Marteau, T. M. & Spiegelhalter, D. Five rules for evidence communication. Nature 587, 362–364 (2020).
pubmed: 33208954
doi: 10.1038/d41586-020-03189-1
Lindholt, M. F., Jørgensen, F., Bor, A. & Petersen, M. B. Public acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines: cross-national evidence on levels and individual-level predictors using observational data. BMJ Open 11, e048172 (2021).
pubmed: 34130963
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-048172
Viskupič, F., Wiltse, D. L. & Meyer, B. A. Trust in physicians and trust in government predict COVID-19 vaccine uptake. Soc. Sci. Q. 103, 509–520 (2022).
pubmed: 35600052
pmcid: 9115527
doi: 10.1111/ssqu.13147
Johnson, N. F. et al. The online competition between pro-and anti-vaccination views. Nature 582, 230–233 (2020).
pubmed: 32499650
doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2281-1
Betsch, C. et al. A call for immediate action to increase COVID-19 vaccination uptake to prepare for the third pandemic winter. Nat. Commun. 13, 7511 (2022).
pubmed: 36473855
pmcid: 9726862
doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-34995-y
Wegwarth, O., Wagner, G. G., Spies, C. & Hertwig, R. Assessment of German public attitudes toward health communications with varying degrees of scientific uncertainty regarding COVID-19. JAMA Netw. Open 3, e2032335 (2020).
pubmed: 33301021
pmcid: 7729432
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.32335
Petersen, M. B., Bor, A., Jørgensen, F. & Lindholt, M. F. Transparent communication about negative features of COVID-19 vaccines decreases acceptance but increases trust. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2024597118 (2021).
pubmed: 34292869
pmcid: 8307373
doi: 10.1073/pnas.2024597118
Wegwarth, O. et al. Vaccination intention following receipt of vaccine information through interactive simulation vs text among COVID-19 vaccine-hesitant adults during the omicron wave in Germany. JAMA Netw. Open 6, e2256208 (2023).
pubmed: 36795411
pmcid: 9936332
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.56208
Wang, K. et al. A multi-country test of brief reappraisal interventions on emotions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Nat. Hum. Behav. 5, 1089–1110 (2021).
pubmed: 34341554
pmcid: 8742248
doi: 10.1038/s41562-021-01173-x
Douglas, B. D., Ewell, P. J. & Brauer, M. Data quality in online human-subjects research: comparisons between MTurk, Prolific, CloudResearch, Qualtrics, and SONA. PLoS ONE 18, e0279720 (2023).
pubmed: 36917576
pmcid: 10013894
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0279720
Peer, E., Rothschild, D., Gordon, A., Evernden, Z. & Damer, E. Data quality of platforms and panels for online behavioral research. Behav. Res. Methods 54, 1643–1662 (2022).
Kunda, Z. The case for motivated reasoning. Psychol. Bull. 108, 480 (1990).
pubmed: 2270237
doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480
Hertwig, R. & Engel, C. Deliberate Ignorance: Choosing Not to Know, Vol. 29 (MIT Press, 2021).
Watson, D., Clark, L. A. & Tellegen, A. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 54, 1063–1070 (1988).
pubmed: 3397865
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063
Willemsen, M. C. & Johnson, E. J. Visiting the Decision Factory: Observing Cognition with MouselabWEB and Other Information Acquisition Methods, 21–42 (Psychology Press, 2011).
Bürkner, P.-C. brms: an R package for Bayesian multilevel models using stan. J. Stat. Softw. 80, 1–28 (2017).
doi: 10.18637/jss.v080.i01
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/ (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2021).
Bürkner, P.-C. & Vuorre, M. Ordinal regression models in psychology: a tutorial. Adv. Methods Pract. Psychol. Sci. 2, 77–101 (2019).
doi: 10.1177/2515245918823199
Gabry, J., Simpson, D., Vehtari, A., Betancourt, M. & Gelman, A. Visualization in Bayesian workflow. J. R. Stat. Soc. A Stat. Soc. 182, 389–402 (2019).
doi: 10.1111/rssa.12378
Carpenter, B. et al. Stan: a probabilistic programming language. J. Stat. Softw. 76, 1–32 (2017).
pubmed: 36568334
pmcid: 9788645
doi: 10.18637/jss.v076.i01
Stan Development Team. RStan: The R Interface to Stan. R package version 2.21.7. https://mc-stan.org/ (2022).
Prelec, D. The probability weighting function. Econometrica 66, 497–527 (1998).
doi: 10.2307/2998573
Van Houtven, G., Johnson, F. R., Kilambi, V. & Hauber, A. B. Eliciting benefit–risk preferences and probability-weighted utility using choice-format conjoint analysis. Med. Decis. Mak. 31, 469–480 (2011).
doi: 10.1177/0272989X10386116