Pluviano Sara, Watt Caroline, Ragazzini Giovanni, Della Sala Sergio
Department of Psychology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Suor Orsola Benincasa University, Naples, Italy.
Cogn Process. 2019 Aug;20(3):325-331. doi: 10.1007/s10339-019-00919-w. Epub 2019 Apr 8.
The main objective of this study was to determine whether one of the most commonly employed pro-vaccination strategies based on the "myths vs. facts" format can be considered an effective tool to counter vaccines misinformation. Sixty parents were randomly presented with either a control message or a booklet confronting some common myths about vaccines with a number of facts. Beliefs in the autism/vaccines link and in vaccines side effects, along with intention to vaccinate one's child, were evaluated both immediately after the intervention and after a 7-day delay to reveal possible backfire effects. Data provided support for the existence of backfire effects associated with the use of the myths vs. facts format, with parents in this condition having stronger vaccine misconceptions over time compared with participants in the control condition. The myths vs. facts strategy proved to be ineffective. Efforts to counter vaccine misinformation should take into account the many variables that affect the parents' decision-making.
本研究的主要目的是确定基于“神话与事实”形式的最常用的支持疫苗接种策略之一是否可被视为对抗疫苗错误信息的有效工具。60名家长被随机呈现一条对照信息或一本小册子，该小册子用一些事实来反驳关于疫苗的一些常见误解。在干预后立即以及延迟7天后，对自闭症与疫苗之间的关联、疫苗副作用的信念以及给孩子接种疫苗的意愿进行了评估，以揭示可能的适得其反的效果。数据支持了与使用“神话与事实”形式相关的适得其反效果的存在，随着时间的推移，处于这种情况下的家长比对照组的参与者对疫苗有更强的误解。“神话与事实”策略被证明是无效的。对抗疫苗错误信息的努力应考虑到影响家长决策的诸多变量。
