Vandeberg Lisa, Meppelink Corine S, Sanders José, Fransen Marieke L
Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Centre for Language Studies, Radboud University, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Front Psychol. 2022 Mar 7;13:837346. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.837346. eCollection 2022.
Online vaccine-critical sentiments are often expressed in appealing personal narratives, whereas vaccine-supporting information is often presented in a non-narrative, expository mode describing scientific facts. In two experiments, we empirically test whether and how these different formats impact the way in which readers process and retrieve information about childhood vaccination, and how this may impact their perceptions regarding vaccination. We assess two psychological mechanisms that are hypothesized to underlie the persuasive nature of vaccination narratives: the availability heuristic (experiment 1, N = 418) and cognitive resistance (experiment 2, = 403). The results of experiment 1 showed no empirical evidence for the availability heuristic, but exploratory analyses did indicate that an anti-vaccination narrative (vs. expository) might reduce cognitive resistance, decrease vaccination attitudes and reduce attitude certainty in a generally pro-vaccination sample, especially for those who were more vaccine hesitant. Preregistered experiment 2 formally tested this and showed that not narrative format, but prior vaccine hesitancy predicts cognitive resistance and post-reading attitudes. Hesitant participants showed less resistance toward an anti-vaccine text than vaccine-supporting participants, as well as less positive post-reading attitudes and attitude certainty. These findings demonstrate belief consistency effects rather than narrative persuasion, which has implications for scientific research as well as public health policy.
网上关于疫苗的负面情绪往往以吸引人的个人叙事方式表达,而支持疫苗的信息通常以非叙事性的说明模式呈现,描述科学事实。在两项实验中,我们通过实证检验这些不同的形式是否以及如何影响读者处理和检索有关儿童疫苗接种信息的方式,以及这可能如何影响他们对疫苗接种的看法。我们评估了两种心理机制,假设它们是疫苗接种叙事具有说服力的基础:可得性启发式(实验1,N = 418)和认知抵抗(实验2,N = 403)。实验1的结果没有为可得性启发式提供实证证据,但探索性分析确实表明,在一个总体上支持疫苗接种的样本中,尤其是对于那些对疫苗接种更为犹豫的人,反疫苗叙事(与说明性文本相比)可能会降低认知抵抗、减少疫苗接种态度并降低态度确定性。预先注册的实验2对此进行了正式测试,结果表明,不是叙事形式,而是先前的疫苗犹豫预测了认知抵抗和阅读后的态度。与支持疫苗接种的参与者相比,犹豫的参与者对反疫苗文本的抵抗较小,阅读后的态度和态度确定性也较低。这些发现证明了信念一致性效应而非叙事说服力,这对科学研究以及公共卫生政策都有影响。