Department of Communications and New Media, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Department of Political Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, United States of America.
PLoS One. 2021 Mar 24;16(3):e0248328. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248328. eCollection 2021.
A fundamental challenge complicates news decisions about covering vaccine side effects: although serious vaccine side effects are rare, less severe ones do occur occasionally. The study was designed to test whether a side effect message could induce vaccine hesitancy and whether that could be countered by pro-vaccine messages about vaccine safety. A large (N = 2,345), nationally representative experiment was conducted by randomly exposing participants to one of six videos about the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine edited from news programs produced during the 2019 measles outbreak in the United States. The design was a 2x3 factorial crossing the presence or absence of a hesitancy-inducing narrative message with a pro-vaccine science-supporting message (i.e., no message, science-supporting expert message, or pro-vaccine narrative message), leading to a total of six conditions. A general linear model was used to assess the effects of these videos on respondents' (1) vaccine risk perceptions, (2) policy views on vaccination, (3) willingness to encourage others to vaccinate their children, and (4) intention to send a pro-vaccine letter to their state representative. Findings indicated that the science-supporting expert message about vaccine safety led to higher pro-vaccine evaluations relative to other conditions [e.g., b = -0.17, p < .001, a reduction in vaccine risk perceptions of 0.17 as compared to the control]. There was also suggestive evidence that the hesitancy-inducing narrative may limit the effectiveness of a science-supporting expert message, although this finding was not consistent across different outcomes. When shown alone the hesitancy-inducing narrative did not shift views and intentions, but more research is needed to ascertain whether exposure to such messages can undercut the pro-vaccine influence of science-supporting (expert) ones. All in all, however, it is clear that science-supporting messages are effective and therefore worthwhile in combating vaccine misinformation.
尽管严重的疫苗副作用很少见,但偶尔也会出现不太严重的副作用。该研究旨在测试副作用信息是否会引起疫苗犹豫,以及关于疫苗安全性的疫苗赞成信息是否可以抵消这种影响。一项大规模(N=2345)、具有全国代表性的实验是通过随机向参与者展示六个关于麻疹、腮腺炎和风疹(MMR)疫苗的视频片段来进行的,这些视频片段是从美国 2019 年麻疹爆发期间制作的新闻节目中编辑而来的。设计是一个 2x3 的因子交叉,即存在或不存在引起犹豫的叙述信息与支持疫苗的科学信息(即无信息、支持科学的专家信息或赞成疫苗的叙述信息),总共产生了六种情况。使用一般线性模型来评估这些视频对受访者的影响:(1)疫苗风险感知;(2)疫苗接种政策观点;(3)鼓励他人为子女接种疫苗的意愿;(4)向州代表发送赞成疫苗的信件的意图。研究结果表明,关于疫苗安全性的支持科学的专家信息导致了更高的赞成疫苗评价,相对于其他情况[例如,b=-0.17,p<.001,与对照相比,疫苗风险感知降低了 0.17]。也有迹象表明,引起犹豫的叙述可能会限制支持科学的专家信息的有效性,尽管这一发现在不同的结果中并不一致。当单独展示引起犹豫的叙述时,它不会改变观点和意图,但需要更多的研究来确定接触此类信息是否会削弱支持科学的(专家)信息对疫苗的赞成影响。然而,总的来说,支持科学的信息是有效的,因此在对抗疫苗错误信息方面是值得的。