IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v43y2023i7-8p835-849.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Should Doctors Frame the Risk of a Vaccine’s Adverse Side Effects? It Depends on How Trustworthy They Are

Author

Listed:
  • Marie Juanchich

    (Department of Psychology, University of Essex, Essex, UK)

  • Miroslav Sirota

    (Department of Psychology, University of Essex, Essex, UK)

  • Dawn Liu Holford

    (Department of Psychology, University of Essex, Essex, UK
    School of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK)

Abstract

Background How health workers frame their communication about vaccines’ probability of adverse side effects could play an important role in people’s intentions to be vaccinated (e.g., positive frame: side effects are unlikely v. negative frame: there is a chance of side effects). Based on the pragmatic account of framing as implicit advice, we expected that participants would report greater vaccination intentions when a trustworthy physician framed the risks positively (v. negatively), but we expected this effect would be reduced or reversed when the physician was untrustworthy. Design In 4 online experiments ( n  = 191, snowball sampling and n  = 453, 451, and 464 UK residents via Prolific; M age ≈ 34 y, 70% women, 84% White British), we manipulated the trustworthiness of a physician and how they framed the risk of adverse side effects in a scenario (i.e., a chance v. unlikely adverse side effects). Participants reported their vaccination intention, their level of distrust in health care systems, and COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs. Results Physicians who were trustworthy (v. untrustworthy) consistently led to an increase in vaccination intention, but the way they described adverse side effects mattered too. A positive framing of the risks given by a trustworthy physician consistently led to increased vaccination intention relative to a negative framing, but framing had no effect or the opposite effect when given by an untrustworthy physician. The exception to this trend occurred in unvaccinated individuals in experiment 3, following serious concerns about one of the COVID vaccines. In that study, unvaccinated participants responded more favorably to the negative framing of the trustworthy physician. Conclusions Trusted sources should use positive framing to foster vaccination acceptance. However, in a situation of heightened fears, a negative framing—attracting more attention to the risks—might be more effective. Highlights How health workers frame their communication about a vaccine’s probability of adverse side effects plays an important role in people’s intentions to be vaccinated. In 4 experiments, we manipulated the trustworthiness of a physician and how the physician framed the risk of adverse side effects of a COVID vaccine. Positive framing given by a trustworthy physician promoted vaccination intention but had null effect or did backfire when given by an untrustworthy physician. The effect occurred over and above participants’ attitude toward the health care system, risk perceptions, and beliefs in COVID misinformation.

Suggested Citation

  • Marie Juanchich & Miroslav Sirota & Dawn Liu Holford, 2023. "How Should Doctors Frame the Risk of a Vaccine’s Adverse Side Effects? It Depends on How Trustworthy They Are," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(7-8), pages 835-849, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:43:y:2023:i:7-8:p:835-849
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X231197646
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X231197646
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X231197646?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. Teigen, Karl Halvor & Brun, Wibecke, 1999. "The Directionality of Verbal Probability Expressions: Effects on Decisions, Predictions, and Probabilistic Reasoning, , , ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 80(2), pages 155-190, November.
    2. Levin, Irwin P. & Schneider, Sandra L. & Gaeth, Gary J., 1998. "All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 149-188, November.
    3. Levin, Irwin P & Gaeth, Gary J, 1988. "How Consumers Are Affected by the Framing of Attribute Information before and after Consuming the Product," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 15(3), pages 374-378, December.
    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. repec:cup:judgdm:v:9:y:2014:i:5:p:445-464 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Saiwing Yeung, 2014. "Framing effect in evaluation of others' predictions," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(5), pages 445-464, September.
    3. Jain, Gaurav & Gaeth, Gary J. & Nayakankuppam, Dhananjay & Levin, Irwin P., 2020. "Revisiting attribute framing: The impact of number roundedness on framing," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 109-119.
    4. Van de Velde, Liesbeth & Verbeke, Wim & Popp, Michael & Van Huylenbroeck, Guido, 2010. "The importance of message framing for providing information about sustainability and environmental aspects of energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(10), pages 5541-5549, October.
    5. Yang Li & Dandan Yang & Yingying Liu, 2021. "The Effect of Message Framing on Consumers’ Intentions to Purchase Recycling-Aiding Products in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-17, June.
    6. Freling, Traci H. & Vincent, Leslie H. & Henard, David H., 2014. "When not to accentuate the positive: Re-examining valence effects in attribute framing," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 124(2), pages 95-109.
    7. Idris Adjerid & Alessandro Acquisti & George Loewenstein, 2019. "Choice Architecture, Framing, and Cascaded Privacy Choices," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(5), pages 2267-2290, May.
    8. Katharina Dowling & Daniel Guhl & Daniel Klapper & Martin Spann & Lucas Stich & Narine Yegoryan, 2020. "Behavioral biases in marketing," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 449-477, May.
    9. Wong, Kin Fai Ellick & Kwong, Jessica Y.Y., 2005. "Comparing two tiny giants or two huge dwarfs? Preference reversals owing to number size framing," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 98(1), pages 54-65, September.
    10. Eyal Gamliel & Hamutal Kreiner, 2013. "Is a picture worth a thousand words? The interaction of visual display and attribute representation in attenuating framing bias}," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 8(4), pages 482-491, July.
    11. Yi-Fen Chen & Shi-Han Chang, 2016. "The online framing effect: the moderating role of warning, brand familiarity, and product type," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 355-374, September.
    12. Robert C. Bird & Vivek Soundararajan, 2020. "The Role of Precontractual Signals in Creating Sustainable Global Supply Chains," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 164(1), pages 81-94, June.
    13. Martin Baekgaard & Nicola Belle & Søren Serritzlew & Mariafrancesca Sicilia & Ileana Steccolini, 2019. "Performance information in politics: How framing, format, and rhetoric matter to politicians’ preferences," Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, Center for Experimental and Behavioral Public Administration, vol. 2(2).
    14. van Buiten, Marc & Keren, Gideon, 2009. "Speaker-listener incompatibility: Joint and separate processing in risky choice framing," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 108(1), pages 106-115, January.
    15. Mark J Hurlstone & Stephan Lewandowsky & Ben R Newell & Brittany Sewell, 2014. "The Effect of Framing and Normative Messages in Building Support for Climate Policies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(12), pages 1-19, December.
    16. Á. Ní Choisdealbha & P. D. Lunn, 2020. "Green and Simple: Disclosures on Eco-labels Interact with Situational Constraints in Consumer Choice," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 43(4), pages 699-722, December.
    17. Brzozowicz Magdalena, 2018. "Hypothetical bias and framing effect in the valuation of private consumer goods," Central European Economic Journal, Sciendo, vol. 5(52), pages 260-269, January.
    18. repec:cup:judgdm:v:4:y:2009:i:1:p:51-63 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Kim, Jungkeun & Kim, Jae-Eun & Marshall, Roger, 2014. "Search for the underlying mechanism of framing effects in multi-alternative and multi-attribute decision situations," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 378-385.
    20. Xiao Wu, Dong & Yao, Xiao & Luan Guo, Jian, 2021. "Is Textual Tone Informative or Inflated for Firm’s Future Value? Evidence from Chinese Listed Firms," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 513-525.
    21. Vithala R. Rao & Gary J. Russell & Hemant Bhargava & Alan Cooke & Tim Derdenger & Hwang Kim & Nanda Kumar & Irwin Levin & Yu Ma & Nitin Mehta & John Pracejus & R. Venkatesh, 2018. "Emerging Trends in Product Bundling: Investigating Consumer Choice and Firm Behavior," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 5(1), pages 107-120, March.
    22. Delgado, Laura & Shealy, Tripp, 2018. "Opportunities for greater energy efficiency in government facilities by aligning decision structures with advances in behavioral science," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 82(P3), pages 3952-3961.

    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:43:y:2023:i:7-8:p:835-849. 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.