IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v33y2013i1p14-25.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effect of Narrative Reports about Vaccine Adverse Events and Bias-Awareness Disclaimers on Vaccine Decisions

Author

Listed:
  • Cornelia Betsch
  • Frank Renkewitz
  • Niels Haase

Abstract

Background . As the number of individuals who search for health information in interactive online environments is increasing, patient networks deserve more scientific attention. Objective . To quantitatively examine if and how reading statistical and/or narrative information as typically displayed in patient networks (e.g., patientslikeme.com ) affects decisions for pharmaceuticals. Previous work suggests that narrative information (e.g., about vaccine adverse events, VAE) affects risk perceptions and intentions. The authors compare the effect of narrative and statistical information about VAE on vaccination decisions and examine if a disclaimer reduces the narrative bias as well as if low numeracy leads to increased use of the narratives. Method and Design . In an online experiment, 458 participants were randomly assigned to a 3 (relative frequency of vaccine adverse events in 1, 7, or 17 of 20 cases) × 3 (type of information: narratives, summary statistics, or both) × 2 (bias awareness v. control disclaimer) between-subjects design. Measurements . Perceived risk, vaccination intention, and subjective numeracy. Results . A higher relative frequency of cases reporting VAE decreased the intention to get vaccinated. This relation was mediated by increased risk perception. The type of information moderated the contents’ impact: Summary statistics had the smallest impact, whereas narrative information was more influential, and the presence of both types of information had the greatest impact on risk perception. Individuals who received the bias-awareness disclaimer were less influenced by the patient network. Highly numerate individuals were generally more sensitive to the provided information independent of its format. Conclusions . Patient networks can influence vaccination decisions by delivering risk-related information. Disclaimers may help to reduce the influence if desired.

Suggested Citation

  • Cornelia Betsch & Frank Renkewitz & Niels Haase, 2013. "Effect of Narrative Reports about Vaccine Adverse Events and Bias-Awareness Disclaimers on Vaccine Decisions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(1), pages 14-25, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:33:y:2013:i:1:p:14-25
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X12452342
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X12452342
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X12452342?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Winterbottom, Anna & Bekker, Hilary L. & Conner, Mark & Mooney, Andrew, 2008. "Does narrative information bias individual's decision making? A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(12), pages 2079-2088, December.
    2. Mathew P. White & Sabine Pahl & Marc Buehner & Andres Haye, 2003. "Trust in Risky Messages: The Role of Prior Attitudes," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 717-726, August.
    3. Michael Siegrist & George Cvetkovich, 2001. "Better Negative than Positive? Evidence of a Bias for Negative Information about Possible Health Dangers," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(1), pages 199-206, 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. An Nguyen & Daniel Catalan-Matamoros, 2020. "Digital Mis/Disinformation and Public Engagement with Health and Science Controversies: Fresh Perspectives from Covid-19," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(2), pages 323-328.
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:10:y:2015:i:3:p:241-264 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Ian G. J. Dawson, 2018. "Assessing the Effects of Information About Global Population Growth on Risk Perceptions and Support for Mitigation and Prevention Strategies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(10), pages 2222-2241, October.
    4. Milošević Đorđević, J. & Mari, S. & Vdović, M. & Milošević, A., 2021. "Links between conspiracy beliefs, vaccine knowledge, and trust: Anti-vaccine behavior of Serbian adults," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 277(C).
    5. Indrani Saran & Günther Fink & Margaret McConnell, 2018. "How does anonymous online peer communication affect prevention behavior? Evidence from a laboratory experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(11), pages 1-16, November.
    6. Lesley Chiou & Catherine Tucker, 2018. "Fake News and Advertising on Social Media: A Study of the Anti-Vaccination Movement," NBER Working Papers 25223, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Cornelia Betsch & Niels Haase & Frank Renkewitz & Philipp Schmid, 2015. "The narrative bias revisited: What drives the biasing influence of narrative information on risk perceptions?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 10(3), pages 241-264, May.

    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. Roe, Brian & Teisl, Mario F., 2007. "Genetically modified food labeling: The impacts of message and messenger on consumer perceptions of labels and products," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 49-66, February.
    2. Noel T. Brewer & Sarah E. Lillie & William K. Hallman, 2006. "Why People Believe They Were Exposed to Biological or Chemical Warfare: A Survey of Gulf War Veterans," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(2), pages 337-345, April.
    3. Xiaoqin Zhu & Xiaofei Xie, 2015. "Effects of Knowledge on Attitude Formation and Change Toward Genetically Modified Foods," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(5), pages 790-810, May.
    4. Mathew P. White & Branden B. Johnson, 2010. "The Intuitive Detection Theorist (IDT) Model of Trust in Hazard Managers," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(8), pages 1196-1209, August.
    5. Claudia Eitzinger & Peter M. Wiedemann, 2008. "Trust in the Safety of Tourist Destinations: Hard to Gain, Easy to Lose? New Insights on the Asymmetry Principle," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(4), pages 843-853, August.
    6. Yingqi Zhong & Linhai Wu & Xiujuan Chen & Zuhui Huang & Wuyang Hu, 2018. "Effects of Food-Additive-Information on Consumers’ Willingness to Accept Food with Additives," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-17, October.
    7. Stacey M. Conchie & Ian J. Donald, 2006. "The Role of Distrust in Offshore Safety Performance," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(5), pages 1151-1159, October.
    8. Wouter Poortinga & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2004. "Trust, the Asymmetry Principle, and the Role of Prior Beliefs," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(6), pages 1475-1486, December.
    9. Ian G. J. Dawson, 2018. "Assessing the Effects of Information About Global Population Growth on Risk Perceptions and Support for Mitigation and Prevention Strategies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(10), pages 2222-2241, October.
    10. Mathew P. White & J. Richard Eiser, 2005. "Information Specificity and Hazard Risk Potential as Moderators of Trust Asymmetry," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(5), pages 1187-1198, October.
    11. Mathew P. White & J. Christopher Cohrs & Anja S. Göritz, 2011. "Dynamics of Trust in Medical Decision Making," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(5), pages 710-720, September.
    12. Mathew P. White & J. Richard Eiser, 2006. "Marginal Trust in Risk Managers: Building and Losing Trust Following Decisions Under Uncertainty," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(5), pages 1187-1203, October.
    13. T. Terpstra & R. Zaalberg & J. de Boer & W. J. W. Botzen, 2014. "You Have Been Framed! How Antecedents of Information Need Mediate the Effects of Risk Communication Messages," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(8), pages 1506-1520, August.
    14. Anneloes Meijnders & Cees Midden & Anna Olofsson & Susanna Öhman & Jörg Matthes & Olha Bondarenko & Jan Gutteling & Maria Rusanen, 2009. "The Role of Similarity Cues in the Development of Trustin Sources of Information About GM Food," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(8), pages 1116-1128, August.
    15. Stacey M. Conchie & Calvin Burns, 2008. "Trust and Risk Communication in High‐Risk Organizations: A Test of Principles from Social Risk Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(1), pages 141-149, February.
    16. Wouter Poortinga & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2006. "Exploring the Structure of Attitudes Toward Genetically Modified Food," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(6), pages 1707-1719, December.
    17. Angela Bearth & Marie‐Eve Cousin & Michael Siegrist, 2016. "“The Dose Makes the Poison”: Informing Consumers About the Scientific Risk Assessment of Food Additives," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(1), pages 130-144, January.
    18. George Cvetkovich & Michael Siegrist & Rachel Murray & Sarah Tragesser, 2002. "New Information and Social Trust: Asymmetry and Perseverance of Attributions about Hazard Managers," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(2), pages 359-367, April.
    19. Joseph Conti & Terre Satterfield & Barbara Herr Harthorn, 2011. "Vulnerability and Social Justice as Factors in Emergent U.S. Nanotechnology Risk Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(11), pages 1734-1748, November.
    20. Rabl, Vincent A. & Basso, Frédéric, 2021. "When bad becomes worse: unethical corporate behavior may hamper consumer acceptance of cultured meat," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 110789, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.

    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:sae:medema:v:33:y:2013:i:1:p:14-25. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.