IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/105647.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The alternative fact of “probable vaccine damage”: A typology of vaccination beliefs in 28 European countries

Author

Listed:
  • Vulpe, Simona - Nicoleta
  • Rughinis, Cosima

Abstract

Background: Despite lacking scientific support, vaccine hesitancy is widespread. While “vaccine damage” as a scientific fact is statistically highly uncommon, emerging social and technological forces have converted “probable vaccine damage” into an alternative fact, thus making it a widely shared intersubjective reality. Methods: Using the Eurobarometer 91.2 survey on a statistically representative EU27-UK sample interviewed in March 2019, we documented perceptions of vaccine risks and identified three belief configurations regarding vaccine effectiveness, safety, and usefulness, through exploratory cluster analysis. Results: The public beliefs in vaccine risks are frequent. Approximatively one-tenth of the EU27-UK population consider that vaccines are not rigorously tested before authorization, one-third believe that vaccines can overload or weaken the immune system and that they can cause the disease against which they protect, and almost one-half believe that vaccines can cause serious side effects. We identified three belief configurations: the skeptical, the confident, and the trade-off clusters. The skeptical type (approx. 11% of EU27-UK respondents) is defined by the belief that vaccines are rather ineffective, affected by risks of probable vaccine damage, not well-tested, and useless; the confident type (approx. 59%) is defined by beliefs that vaccines are effective, safe, well-tested, and useful; and the trade-off type (approx. 29%) combines beliefs that vaccines are effective, well-tested and useful, with beliefs of probable vaccine damage. The vaccine-confident and the trade-off types profess having similar vaccination histories, indicating the significant role of other factors besides beliefs in inducing behavior. Conclusions: The high proportion of varying public beliefs in vaccine risks and the presence of a trade-off type of vaccination assessment indicate the social normality of beliefs in probable vaccine damage. Probable vaccine damage presently exists as an alternative fact in the public imagination, perceptively available for wide segments of the public, including those who trust medical science.

Suggested Citation

  • Vulpe, Simona - Nicoleta & Rughinis, Cosima, 2021. "The alternative fact of “probable vaccine damage”: A typology of vaccination beliefs in 28 European countries," MPRA Paper 105647, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:105647
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/105647/1/MPRA_paper_105647.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Baker, J.P., 2008. "Mercury, vaccines, and autism: One controversy, three histories," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 98(2), pages 244-253.
    2. Blume, Stuart, 2006. "Anti-vaccination movements and their interpretations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(3), pages 628-642, February.
    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. Vulpe, Simona - Nicoleta & Rughinis, Cosima, 2021. "Social amplification of risk and “probable vaccine damage”:A typology of vaccination beliefs in 28 European countries," MPRA Paper 105949, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Lara Ferreira Azevedo & Nina Karpova & Bruno Alves Rocha & Fernando Barbosa Junior & Glenda Carolyn Gobe & Maria Fernanda Hornos Carneiro, 2023. "Evidence on Neurotoxicity after Intrauterine and Childhood Exposure to Organomercurials," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(2), pages 1-19, January.
    3. Manca, Terra, 2018. "Fear, rationality, and risky others: A qualitative analysis of physicians' and nurses' accounts of popular vaccine narratives," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 119-125.
    4. Jamison, Amelia M. & Quinn, Sandra Crouse & Freimuth, Vicki S., 2019. "“You don't trust a government vaccine”: Narratives of institutional trust and influenza vaccination among African American and white adults," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 221(C), pages 87-94.
    5. Skea, Zoë C. & Entwistle, Vikki A. & Watt, Ian & Russell, Elizabeth, 2008. "'Avoiding harm to others' considerations in relation to parental measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccination discussions - An analysis of an online chat forum," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(9), pages 1382-1390, November.
    6. Kay Fullenkamp, Natalie, 2021. "Playing Russian roulette with their kids: Experts' construction of ignorance in the California and Ohio measles outbreaks," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 272(C).
    7. Lawrence C. Hamilton & Joel Hartter & Kei Saito, 2015. "Trust in Scientists on Climate Change and Vaccines," SAGE Open, , vol. 5(3), pages 21582440156, August.
    8. Christophe Leveque & Haris Megzari, 2022. "Intensification or Diversification: Responses by Anti Health-Pass Entrepreneurs to French Government Announcements," Working Papers hal-03624964, HAL.
    9. Ohid Yaqub, 2018. "Variation in the dynamics and performance of industrial innovation: what can we learn from vaccines and HIV vaccines?," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 27(1), pages 173-187.
    10. Qian, Mengcen & Chou, Shin-Yi & Lai, Ernest K., 2020. "Confirmatory bias in health decisions: Evidence from the MMR-autism controversy," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    11. Christophe LEVEQUE & Haris MEGZARI, 2022. "Intensification or Diversification: Responses by Anti Health-Pass Entrepreneurs to French Government Announcements," Bordeaux Economics Working Papers 2022-04, Bordeaux School of Economics (BSE).
    12. Anita Lavorgna & Leslie Carr, 2021. "Tweets and Quacks: Network and Content Analyses of Providers of Non-Science-Based Anticancer Treatments and Their Supporters on Twitter," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(1), pages 21582440211, March.
    13. Ormond, Meghann, 2015. "Solidarity by demand? Exit and voice in international medical travel – The case of Indonesia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 305-312.
    14. Makarovs, Kirils & Achterberg, Peter, 2017. "Contextualizing educational differences in “vaccination uptake”: A thirty nation survey," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 188(C), pages 1-10.
    15. Ward, Jeremy K. & Cafiero, Florian & Fretigny, Raphael & Colgrove, James & Seror, Valérie, 2019. "France's citizen consultation on vaccination and the challenges of participatory democracy in health," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 220(C), pages 73-80.
    16. Paul, Katharina T., 2016. "“Saving lives”: Adapting and adopting Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccination in Austria," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 193-200.
    17. Yaqub, Ohid & Castle-Clarke, Sophie & Sevdalis, Nick & Chataway, Joanna, 2014. "Attitudes to vaccination: A critical review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 1-11.
    18. Aniket, Kumar & Chowdhury, Rashedur, 2020. "The Tale of two Crises in the Time of Covid-19," MPRA Paper 106716, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Laurie A. Drapela & Dana Lee Baker, 2014. "Policy Awareness, Financial Hardship, and Work Impact," SAGE Open, , vol. 4(3), pages 21582440145, September.
    20. Mühlhoff, Katharina, 2022. "Convincing the “Herd” of immunity: Lessons from smallpox vaccination in 19th century Germany," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 47(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Vaccine hesitancy; vaccine damage; typology; Eurobarometer; belief configurations;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I12 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Health Behavior

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:pra:mprapa:105647. 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: Joachim Winter (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.html .

    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.