Cargando…

Social nudges for vaccination: How communicating herd behaviour influences vaccination intentions

OBJECTIVES: This Registered Report attempted to conceptually replicate the finding that communicating herd immunity increases vaccination intentions (Betsch, et al., 2017, Nat. Hum. Behav., 0056). An additional objective was to explore the roles of descriptive social norms (vaccination behaviour of...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lazić, Aleksandra, Kalinova, Kalina Nikolova, Packer, Jali, Pae, Riinu, Petrović, Marija B., Popović, Dora, Sievert, D. Elisabeth C., Stafford‐Johnson, Natalie
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8646271/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34495566
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12556
_version_ 1784610483616088064
author Lazić, Aleksandra
Kalinova, Kalina Nikolova
Packer, Jali
Pae, Riinu
Petrović, Marija B.
Popović, Dora
Sievert, D. Elisabeth C.
Stafford‐Johnson, Natalie
author_facet Lazić, Aleksandra
Kalinova, Kalina Nikolova
Packer, Jali
Pae, Riinu
Petrović, Marija B.
Popović, Dora
Sievert, D. Elisabeth C.
Stafford‐Johnson, Natalie
author_sort Lazić, Aleksandra
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: This Registered Report attempted to conceptually replicate the finding that communicating herd immunity increases vaccination intentions (Betsch, et al., 2017, Nat. Hum. Behav., 0056). An additional objective was to explore the roles of descriptive social norms (vaccination behaviour of others) and the herd‐immunity threshold (coverage needed to stop disease transmission). DESIGN: An online experiment with a 2 (herd‐immunity explanation: present vs. absent) × 3 (descriptive norm: high vs. low vs. absent) × 2 (herd‐immunity threshold: present vs. absent) between‐subjects fractional design. METHODS: Sample consisted of 543 people (aged 18–64) residing in the United Kingdom. Participants first received an explanation of herd immunity emphasising social benefits (protecting others) in both textual and animated‐infographic form. Next, they were faced with fictitious information about the disease, the vaccine, their country’s vaccination coverage (80% or 20%), and the herd‐immunity threshold (90%). Vaccination intention was self‐rated. RESULTS: Compared to the control, communicating social benefits of herd immunity was effective in increasing vaccination intentions (F(1,541) = 6.97, p = .009, Partial Eta‐Squared = 0.013). Communicating the descriptive norm or the herd‐immunity threshold alongside the herd‐immunity explanation demonstrated no observable effect. CONCLUSION: Communicating social benefits of herd immunity increased self‐reported vaccination intentions against a fictitious disease, replicating previous findings. Although this result is positive, the practical relevance may be limited. Further research into the effect of social nudges to motivate vaccination is required, particularly with respect to the recent pandemic context and varying levels of vaccine hesitancy.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8646271
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-86462712021-12-06 Social nudges for vaccination: How communicating herd behaviour influences vaccination intentions Lazić, Aleksandra Kalinova, Kalina Nikolova Packer, Jali Pae, Riinu Petrović, Marija B. Popović, Dora Sievert, D. Elisabeth C. Stafford‐Johnson, Natalie Br J Health Psychol Registered Reports OBJECTIVES: This Registered Report attempted to conceptually replicate the finding that communicating herd immunity increases vaccination intentions (Betsch, et al., 2017, Nat. Hum. Behav., 0056). An additional objective was to explore the roles of descriptive social norms (vaccination behaviour of others) and the herd‐immunity threshold (coverage needed to stop disease transmission). DESIGN: An online experiment with a 2 (herd‐immunity explanation: present vs. absent) × 3 (descriptive norm: high vs. low vs. absent) × 2 (herd‐immunity threshold: present vs. absent) between‐subjects fractional design. METHODS: Sample consisted of 543 people (aged 18–64) residing in the United Kingdom. Participants first received an explanation of herd immunity emphasising social benefits (protecting others) in both textual and animated‐infographic form. Next, they were faced with fictitious information about the disease, the vaccine, their country’s vaccination coverage (80% or 20%), and the herd‐immunity threshold (90%). Vaccination intention was self‐rated. RESULTS: Compared to the control, communicating social benefits of herd immunity was effective in increasing vaccination intentions (F(1,541) = 6.97, p = .009, Partial Eta‐Squared = 0.013). Communicating the descriptive norm or the herd‐immunity threshold alongside the herd‐immunity explanation demonstrated no observable effect. CONCLUSION: Communicating social benefits of herd immunity increased self‐reported vaccination intentions against a fictitious disease, replicating previous findings. Although this result is positive, the practical relevance may be limited. Further research into the effect of social nudges to motivate vaccination is required, particularly with respect to the recent pandemic context and varying levels of vaccine hesitancy. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021-09-08 2021-11 /pmc/articles/PMC8646271/ /pubmed/34495566 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12556 Text en © 2021 The Authors. British Journal of Health Psychology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Psychological Society https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Registered Reports
Lazić, Aleksandra
Kalinova, Kalina Nikolova
Packer, Jali
Pae, Riinu
Petrović, Marija B.
Popović, Dora
Sievert, D. Elisabeth C.
Stafford‐Johnson, Natalie
Social nudges for vaccination: How communicating herd behaviour influences vaccination intentions
title Social nudges for vaccination: How communicating herd behaviour influences vaccination intentions
title_full Social nudges for vaccination: How communicating herd behaviour influences vaccination intentions
title_fullStr Social nudges for vaccination: How communicating herd behaviour influences vaccination intentions
title_full_unstemmed Social nudges for vaccination: How communicating herd behaviour influences vaccination intentions
title_short Social nudges for vaccination: How communicating herd behaviour influences vaccination intentions
title_sort social nudges for vaccination: how communicating herd behaviour influences vaccination intentions
topic Registered Reports
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8646271/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34495566
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12556
work_keys_str_mv AT lazicaleksandra socialnudgesforvaccinationhowcommunicatingherdbehaviourinfluencesvaccinationintentions
AT kalinovakalinanikolova socialnudgesforvaccinationhowcommunicatingherdbehaviourinfluencesvaccinationintentions
AT packerjali socialnudgesforvaccinationhowcommunicatingherdbehaviourinfluencesvaccinationintentions
AT paeriinu socialnudgesforvaccinationhowcommunicatingherdbehaviourinfluencesvaccinationintentions
AT petrovicmarijab socialnudgesforvaccinationhowcommunicatingherdbehaviourinfluencesvaccinationintentions
AT popovicdora socialnudgesforvaccinationhowcommunicatingherdbehaviourinfluencesvaccinationintentions
AT sievertdelisabethc socialnudgesforvaccinationhowcommunicatingherdbehaviourinfluencesvaccinationintentions
AT staffordjohnsonnatalie socialnudgesforvaccinationhowcommunicatingherdbehaviourinfluencesvaccinationintentions