Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
J Health Soc Behav. 2021 Mar;62(1):85-99. doi: 10.1177/0022146520986118. Epub 2021 Feb 3.
This study aims to understand vaccine skepticism among a population where it is remarkably prevalent-more-educated Dutch parents-through 31 in-depth interviews. Whereas all respondents ascribe a central role to the individual in obtaining knowledge (i.e., individualist epistemology), this is expressed in two repertoires. A neoromantic one focuses on deriving truth through intuition and following a "natural" path and informs a risk typology: embracing (refusing) "natural" ("unnatural") risks such as "childhood diseases" ("pharmaceutical substances"). A critical-reflexive repertoire centers on scientific methods but is skeptical about the scientific consensus and informs a risk calculation: opting for the choice perceived to bear the smallest risk. Thus, the same vaccine can be rejected because of its perceived harm to natural processes (neoromantic repertoire) or because its scientific basis is deemed insufficient (critical-reflexive repertoire). Moreover, these opposing repertoires are likely to inspire different responses to the same health-related information.
本研究旨在通过 31 个深入访谈，了解在一个疫苗怀疑论现象显著的人群（受教育程度较高的荷兰父母）中，疫苗怀疑论的情况。尽管所有受访者都赋予了个体获取知识的核心作用（即个体主义认识论），但这种作用表现为两种模式。一种新浪漫主义模式侧重于通过直觉和遵循“自然”路径来得出真理，并形成了一种风险分类：接受（拒绝）“自然”（“非自然”）风险，如“儿童疾病”（“药物物质”）。批判性反思模式则以科学方法为中心，但对科学共识持怀疑态度，并进行风险计算：选择被认为风险最小的选择。因此，同样的疫苗可能会因为被认为对自然过程有危害（新浪漫主义模式），或者因为其科学基础被认为不足（批判性反思模式）而被拒绝。此外，这些对立的模式可能会激发对相同健康相关信息的不同反应。
