IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v37y2017i8p860-870.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effects of Anti- Versus Pro-Vaccine Narratives on Responses by Recipients Varying in Numeracy: A Cross-sectional Survey-Based Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Wändi Bruine de Bruin
  • Annika Wallin
  • Andrew M. Parker
  • JoNell Strough
  • Janel Hanmer

Abstract

Background. To inform their health decisions, patients may seek narratives describing other patients’ evaluations of their treatment experiences. Narratives can provide anti-treatment or pro-treatment evaluative meaning that low-numerate patients may especially struggle to derive from statistical information. Here, we examined whether anti-vaccine (v. pro-vaccine) narratives had relatively stronger effects on the perceived informativeness and judged vaccination probabilities reported among recipients with lower (v. higher) numeracy. Methods. Participants ( n = 1,113) from a nationally representative US internet panel were randomly assigned to an anti-vaccine or pro-vaccine narrative, as presented by a patient discussing a personal experience, a physician discussing a patient’s experience, or a physician discussing the experiences of 50 patients. Anti-vaccine narratives described flu experiences of patients who got the flu after getting vaccinated; pro-vaccine narratives described flu experiences of patients who got the flu after not getting vaccinated. Participants indicated their probability of getting vaccinated and rated the informativeness of the narratives. Results. Participants with lower numeracy generally perceived narratives as more informative. By comparison, participants with higher numeracy rated especially anti-vaccine narratives as less informative. Anti-vaccine narratives reduced the judged vaccination probabilities as compared with pro-vaccine narratives, especially among participants with lower numeracy. Mediation analyses suggested that low-numerate individuals’ vaccination probabilities were reduced by anti-vaccine narratives—and, to a lesser extent, boosted by pro-vaccine narratives—because they perceived narratives to be more informative. These findings were similar for narratives provided by patients and physicians. Conclusions. Patients with lower numeracy may rely more on narrative information when making their decisions. These findings have implications for the development of health communications and decision aids.

Suggested Citation

  • Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Annika Wallin & Andrew M. Parker & JoNell Strough & Janel Hanmer, 2017. "Effects of Anti- Versus Pro-Vaccine Narratives on Responses by Recipients Varying in Numeracy: A Cross-sectional Survey-Based Experiment," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(8), pages 860-870, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:37:y:2017:i:8:p:860-870
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X17704858
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X17704858
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X17704858?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. Gidengil, C.A. & Parker, A.M. & Zikmund-Fisher, B.J., 2012. "Trends in risk perceptions and vaccination intentions: A longitudinal study of the first year of the H1N1 pandemic," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 102(4), pages 672-679.
    3. Victoria A. Shaffer & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, 2013. "All Stories Are Not Alike," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(1), pages 4-13, January.
    4. Roger E. Kasperson & Ortwin Renn & Paul Slovic & Halina S. Brown & Jacque Emel & Robert Goble & Jeanne X. Kasperson & Samuel Ratick, 1988. "The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(2), pages 177-187, June.
    5. Nathan F. Dieckmann & Paul Slovic & Ellen M. Peters, 2009. "The Use of Narrative Evidence and Explicit Likelihood by Decisionmakers Varying in Numeracy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(10), pages 1473-1488, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. William J. Burns & Ellen Peters & Paul Slovic, 2012. "Risk Perception and the Economic Crisis: A Longitudinal Study of the Trajectory of Perceived Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(4), pages 659-677, April.
    2. Victoria A. Shaffer & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, 2013. "All Stories Are Not Alike," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(1), pages 4-13, January.
    3. Qin, Hua & Sanders, Christine & Prasetyo, Yanu & Syukron, Muh. & Prentice, Elizabeth, 2021. "Exploring the dynamic relationships between risk perception and behavior in response to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 285(C).
    4. 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.
    5. Roxanne E. Lewis & Michael G. Tyshenko, 2009. "The Impact of Social Amplification and Attenuation of Risk and the Public Reaction to Mad Cow Disease in Canada," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(5), pages 714-728, May.
    6. Loredana Antronico & Roberto Coscarelli & Francesco De Pascale & Giovanni Gull?, 2018. "La comunicazione del rischio e la percezione pubblica dei disastri: il caso studio della frana di Maierato (Calabria, Italia)," PRISMA Economia - Societ? - Lavoro, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2018(3), pages 9-29.
    7. Hung‐Chih Hung & Tzu‐Wen Wang, 2011. "Determinants and Mapping of Collective Perceptions of Technological Risk: The Case of the Second Nuclear Power Plant in Taiwan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 668-683, April.
    8. Robert D. Jagiello & Thomas T. Hills, 2018. "Bad News Has Wings: Dread Risk Mediates Social Amplification in Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(10), pages 2193-2207, October.
    9. Emmanuel Songsore & Michael Buzzelli, 2016. "Ontario’s Experience of Wind Energy Development as Seen through the Lens of Human Health and Environmental Justice," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-18, July.
    10. Sara E. Kuhar & Kate Nierenberg & Barbara Kirkpatrick & Graham A. Tobin, 2009. "Public Perceptions of Florida Red Tide Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(7), pages 963-969, July.
    11. Li Zhao & Shumin Liu & Haiying Gu & David Ahlstrom, 2023. "Risk Amplification, Risk Preference and Acceptance of Transgenic Technology," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-22, September.
    12. Nathan F. Dieckmann & Ellen Peters & Robin Gregory, 2015. "At Home on the Range? Lay Interpretations of Numerical Uncertainty Ranges," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1281-1295, July.
    13. Matteo Iacopini & Carlo R.M.A. Santagiustina, 2021. "Filtering the intensity of public concern from social media count data with jumps," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 184(4), pages 1283-1302, October.
    14. Katherine L. Dickinson & Hannah Brenkert-Smith & Greg Madonia & Nicholas E. Flores, 2020. "Risk interdependency, social norms, and wildfire mitigation: a choice experiment," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 103(1), pages 1327-1354, August.
    15. Ruth E Alcock & Jerry Busby, 2006. "Risk Migration and Scientific Advance: The Case of Flame‐Retardant Compounds," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(2), pages 369-381, April.
    16. Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Ree M. Meertens & Wim F. Passchier & Nanne K. DeVries, 2007. "How Does the General Public Evaluate Risk Information? The Impact of Associations with Other Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 715-727, June.
    17. Agustin Robles Morua & Kathleen E. Halvorsen & Alex S. Mayer, 2011. "Waterborne Disease‐Related Risk Perceptions in the Sonora River Basin, Mexico," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(5), pages 866-878, May.
    18. Rob Goble, 2021. "Through a Glass Darkly: How Natural Science and Technical Communities Looked at Social Science Advances in Understanding Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 414-428, March.
    19. Evangelia Karasmanaki & Evangelos Grigoroudis & Spyridon Galatsidas & Georgios Tsantopoulos, 2023. "Satisfaction with Media Information about Renewable Energy Investments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-15, July.
    20. Yang, Ya Ling, 2020. "Comparison of public perception and risk management decisions of aircraft noise near Taoyuan and Kaohsiung International Airports," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 85(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:sae:medema:v:37:y:2017:i:8:p:860-870. 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.