IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v291y2021ics0277953621008340.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Labels matter: Use and non-use of ‘anti-vax’ framing in Australian media discourse 2008–2018

Author

Listed:
  • Court, Jay
  • Carter, Stacy M.
  • Attwell, Katie
  • Leask, Julie
  • Wiley, Kerrie

Abstract

Childhood vaccine refusal is a globally contentious topic, with some jurisdictions addressing it with punitive policies. Media discourse influences how solutions are framed by implying blame – a process known as framing. We examined Australian media discourse on vaccine rejection over a period in which mandatory childhood vaccination policies were discussed and introduced, focusing on the common Australian pejorative term ‘anti-vaxxer’. We mapped frequency of use from January 2008 to December 2018. We then searched Factiva for print media articles on childhood vaccination and parents published in that period, searching separately for articles using and not using ‘anti-vaxxer’ and variants. We constructed a set of 85 articles that did, and 85 articles date-matched that did not use the term to make comparisons and conducted a frame analysis of each set. ‘Anti-vaxxer’ was absent in Australian media discourse 2008–2010, rising to a peak of 247 articles using the term at the height of legislative change in 2017. Parents were framed as: 1) deviant “others”; 2) ignorant and in need of informing; 3) vulnerable and in need of protection from anti-vaccination activists; 4) thoughtful, critical, informed, and in need of agency and respect; 5) entitled, privileged and selfish; and finally, 6) lacking access to vaccination, rather than being unwilling. Articles using ‘anti-vax’ terms were more likely to negatively characterise non-vaccinating parents, while articles not including this language were more likely to frame them as thoughtful or lacking access. This study clearly demonstrates strategic use of pejoratives in the Australian mass media around a time of pressure for legislative change and conflation of anti-vaccination activists with non-vaccinating parents. We suggest fundamental changes to how non-vaccination is framed and dealt with in the media to curb polarization and fostering more respectful dialogue, and better social and public health outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Court, Jay & Carter, Stacy M. & Attwell, Katie & Leask, Julie & Wiley, Kerrie, 2021. "Labels matter: Use and non-use of ‘anti-vax’ framing in Australian media discourse 2008–2018," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 291(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:291:y:2021:i:c:s0277953621008340
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114502
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953621008340
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114502?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wiley, Kerrie E. & Leask, Julie & Attwell, Katie & Helps, Catherine & Degeling, Chris & Ward, Paul & Carter, Stacy M., 2020. "Parenting and the vaccine refusal process: A new explanation of the relationship between lifestyle and vaccination trajectories," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 263(C).
    2. Reich, Jennifer A., 2016. "Of natural bodies and antibodies: Parents' vaccine refusal and the dichotomies of natural and artificial," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 103-110.
    3. Leask, Julie & Chapman, Simon, 2002. "'The cold hard facts' immunisation and vaccine preventable diseases in Australia's newsprint media 1993-1998," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 54(3), pages 445-457, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Vanderslott, Samantha & Enria, Luisa & Bowmer, Alex & Kamara, Abass & Lees, Shelley, 2022. "Attributing public ignorance in vaccination narratives," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 307(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sundstrom, Beth & Smith, Ellie & Delay, Cara & Luque, John S. & Davila, Caroline & Feder, Bailey & Paddock, Vincenza & Poudrier, Jessie & Pierce, Jennifer Young & Brandt, Heather M., 2019. "A reproductive justice approach to understanding women's experiences with HPV and cervical cancer prevention," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 232(C), pages 289-297.
    2. Jordan Luttrell-Freeman & Timothy J. Bungum & Jennifer R. Pharr, 2021. "A Systematic Review of the Rationale for Vaccine Hesitancy among American Parents," Global Journal of Health Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 13(8), pages 1-77, August.
    3. Athias, Laure & Macina, Moudo, 2022. "Demand for vaccination in Sub-Saharan Africa: The vertical legacy of the slave trade," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 293(C).
    4. ten Kate, Josje & de Koster, Willem & van der Waal, Jeroen, 2022. "Becoming skeptical towards vaccines: How health views shape the trajectories following health-related events," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 293(C).
    5. Katie Attwell & Samantha B. Meyer & Paul R. Ward, 2018. "The Social Basis of Vaccine Questioning and Refusal: A Qualitative Study Employing Bourdieu’s Concepts of ‘Capitals’ and ‘Habitus’," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-17, May.
    6. Cao, Yu & Li, Heng, 2023. "Everything has a limit: How intellectual humility lowers the preference for naturalness as reflected in drug choice," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 317(C).
    7. Rosenfeld, Daniel L. & Tomiyama, A. Janet, 2022. "Jab my arm, not my morality: Perceived moral reproach as a barrier to COVID-19 vaccine uptake," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 294(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:291:y:2021:i:c:s0277953621008340. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.