Annenberg Public Policy Center, University of Pennsylvania, 202 South 36th Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA.
Department of Health Policy and Management, Texas A&M University, USA.
Soc Sci Med. 2018 Aug;211:274-281. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.06.032. Epub 2018 Jun 25.
Although the benefits of vaccines are widely recognized by medical experts, public opinion about vaccination policies is mixed. We analyze public opinion about vaccination policies to assess whether Dunning-Kruger effects can help to explain anti-vaccination policy attitudes.
People low in autism awareness - that is, the knowledge of basic facts and dismissal of misinformation about autism - should be the most likely to think that they are better informed than medical experts about the causes of autism (a Dunning-Kruger effect). This "overconfidence" should be associated with decreased support for mandatory vaccination policies and skepticism about the role that medical professionals play in the policymaking process.
In an original survey of U.S. adults (N = 1310), we modeled self-reported overconfidence as a function of responses to a knowledge test about the causes of autism, and the endorsement of misinformation about a link between vaccines and autism. We then modeled anti-vaccination policy support and attitudes toward the role that experts play in the policymaking process as a function of overconfidence and the autism awareness indicators while controlling for potential confounding factors.
More than a third of respondents in our sample thought that they knew as much or more than doctors (36%) and scientists (34%) about the causes of autism. Our analysis indicates that this overconfidence is highest among those with low levels of knowledge about the causes of autism and those with high levels of misinformation endorsement. Further, our results suggest that this overconfidence is associated with opposition to mandatory vaccination policy. Overconfidence is also associated with increased support for the role that non-experts (e.g., celebrities) play in the policymaking process.
Dunning-Kruger effects can help to explain public opposition to vaccination policies and should be carefully considered in future research on anti-vaccine policy attitudes.
尽管疫苗的益处得到了医学专家的广泛认可，但公众对疫苗政策的看法却存在分歧。我们分析公众对疫苗政策的看法，以评估邓宁-克鲁格效应是否有助于解释反疫苗政策态度。
对自闭症认识不足的人——即对自闭症的基本事实的了解和对自闭症错误信息的不屑一顾——应该最有可能认为他们对自闭症的病因比医学专家更了解（邓宁-克鲁格效应）。这种“过度自信”应该与对强制性疫苗接种政策的支持度降低以及对医学专业人士在决策过程中所扮演角色的怀疑态度有关。
在一项针对美国成年人的原始调查（N=1310）中，我们将自我报告的过度自信建模为对自闭症病因知识测试的反应的函数，并将对疫苗与自闭症之间关联的错误信息的认可作为一个函数。然后，我们将对疫苗接种政策的支持以及对专家在决策过程中所扮演角色的态度建模为过度自信和自闭症意识指标的函数，同时控制潜在的混杂因素。
我们样本中的超过三分之一的受访者认为他们对自闭症的病因与医生（36%）和科学家（34%）一样了解或了解更多。我们的分析表明，这种过度自信在自闭症病因知识水平较低和错误信息认可度较高的人群中最高。此外，我们的研究结果表明，这种过度自信与反对强制性疫苗接种政策有关。过度自信也与对非专家（如名人）在决策过程中所扮演角色的支持增加有关。
邓宁-克鲁格效应可以帮助解释公众对疫苗接种政策的反对，在未来关于反疫苗政策态度的研究中应仔细考虑。
