» Articles » PMID: 39271718

COVID-19 Vaccine Refusal is Driven by Deliberate Ignorance and Cognitive Distortions

Overview
Journal NPJ Vaccines
Date 2024 Sep 13
PMID 39271718
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

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.

References
1.
Marzo R, Ahmad A, Islam M, Essar M, Heidler P, King I . 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. 2022; 16(1):e0010103. PMC: 8797205. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0010103. View

2.
Johnson N, Velasquez N, Restrepo N, Leahy R, Gabriel N, El Oud S . The online competition between pro- and anti-vaccination views. Nature. 2020; 582(7811):230-233. DOI: 10.1038/s41586-020-2281-1. View

3.
WATSON D, Clark L, Tellegen A . Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1988; 54(6):1063-70. DOI: 10.1037//0022-3514.54.6.1063. View

4.
Stockli S, Spalti A, Phillips J, Stoeckel F, Barnfield M, Thompson J . Which vaccine attributes foster vaccine uptake? A cross-country conjoint experiment. PLoS One. 2022; 17(5):e0266003. PMC: 9067644. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0266003. View

5.
Waters E, Weinstein N, Colditz G, Emmons K . Reducing aversion to side effects in preventive medical treatment decisions. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2007; 13(1):11-21. DOI: 10.1037/1076-898X.13.1.11. View