Cargando…
Countering vaccine hesitancy through medical expert endorsement
Scientists and medical experts are among the professionals trusted the most. Are they also the most suitable figures to convince the general public to get vaccinated? In a pre-registered experiment, we tested whether expert endorsement increases the effectiveness of debunking messages about COVID-19...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9217084/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35750542 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2022.06.031 |
_version_ | 1784731567354019840 |
---|---|
author | Ronzani, Piero Panizza, Folco Martini, Carlo Savadori, Lucia Motterlini, Matteo |
author_facet | Ronzani, Piero Panizza, Folco Martini, Carlo Savadori, Lucia Motterlini, Matteo |
author_sort | Ronzani, Piero |
collection | PubMed |
description | Scientists and medical experts are among the professionals trusted the most. Are they also the most suitable figures to convince the general public to get vaccinated? In a pre-registered experiment, we tested whether expert endorsement increases the effectiveness of debunking messages about COVID-19 vaccines. We monitored a sample of 2,277 people in Italy through a longitudinal study along the salient phases of the vaccination campaign. Participants received a series of messages endorsed by either medical researchers (experimental group) or by generic others (control). In order to minimise demand effects, we collected participants’ responses always at ten days from the last debunking message. Whereas we did not find an increase in vaccination behaviour, we found that participants in the experimental group displayed higher intention to vaccinate, as well as more positive beliefs about the protectiveness of vaccines. The more debunking messages the participants received, the greater the increase in vaccination intention in the experimental group compared to control. This suggests that multiple exposure is critical for the effectiveness of expert-endorsed debunking messages. In addition, these effects are significant regardless of participants’ trust toward science. Our results suggest that scientist and medical experts are not simply a generally trustworthy category but also a well suited messenger in contrasting disinformation during vaccination campaigns. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9217084 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-92170842022-06-22 Countering vaccine hesitancy through medical expert endorsement Ronzani, Piero Panizza, Folco Martini, Carlo Savadori, Lucia Motterlini, Matteo Vaccine Article Scientists and medical experts are among the professionals trusted the most. Are they also the most suitable figures to convince the general public to get vaccinated? In a pre-registered experiment, we tested whether expert endorsement increases the effectiveness of debunking messages about COVID-19 vaccines. We monitored a sample of 2,277 people in Italy through a longitudinal study along the salient phases of the vaccination campaign. Participants received a series of messages endorsed by either medical researchers (experimental group) or by generic others (control). In order to minimise demand effects, we collected participants’ responses always at ten days from the last debunking message. Whereas we did not find an increase in vaccination behaviour, we found that participants in the experimental group displayed higher intention to vaccinate, as well as more positive beliefs about the protectiveness of vaccines. The more debunking messages the participants received, the greater the increase in vaccination intention in the experimental group compared to control. This suggests that multiple exposure is critical for the effectiveness of expert-endorsed debunking messages. In addition, these effects are significant regardless of participants’ trust toward science. Our results suggest that scientist and medical experts are not simply a generally trustworthy category but also a well suited messenger in contrasting disinformation during vaccination campaigns. The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. 2022-07-30 2022-06-22 /pmc/articles/PMC9217084/ /pubmed/35750542 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2022.06.031 Text en © 2022 The Authors Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active. |
spellingShingle | Article Ronzani, Piero Panizza, Folco Martini, Carlo Savadori, Lucia Motterlini, Matteo Countering vaccine hesitancy through medical expert endorsement |
title | Countering vaccine hesitancy through medical expert endorsement |
title_full | Countering vaccine hesitancy through medical expert endorsement |
title_fullStr | Countering vaccine hesitancy through medical expert endorsement |
title_full_unstemmed | Countering vaccine hesitancy through medical expert endorsement |
title_short | Countering vaccine hesitancy through medical expert endorsement |
title_sort | countering vaccine hesitancy through medical expert endorsement |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9217084/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35750542 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2022.06.031 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT ronzanipiero counteringvaccinehesitancythroughmedicalexpertendorsement AT panizzafolco counteringvaccinehesitancythroughmedicalexpertendorsement AT martinicarlo counteringvaccinehesitancythroughmedicalexpertendorsement AT savadorilucia counteringvaccinehesitancythroughmedicalexpertendorsement AT motterlinimatteo counteringvaccinehesitancythroughmedicalexpertendorsement |