Parents’ beliefs in misinformation about vaccines are strengthened by pro-vaccine campaigns
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.
KeywordsVaccine misinformation Myths vs. facts format Backfire effects Parents’ decision-making
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- Cook J, Lewandowsky S (2011) The debunking handbook. University of Queensland, St. LuciaGoogle Scholar
- Cook J, Ecker U, Lewandowsky S (2015) Misinformation and how to correct it. In: Scott RA, Kosslyn SM (eds) Emerging trends in the social and behavioral sciences: an interdisciplinary, searchable, and linkable resource. Wiley, New York, pp 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118900772.etrds0222 Google Scholar
- Editorial (2018) Laws are not the only way to boost immunization. Nature 553:249–250Google Scholar
- Festinger L (1957) A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press, StanfordGoogle Scholar
- Kendeou P, O’Brien EJ (2014) The knowledge revision components (KReC) framework: processes and mechanisms. In: Rapp R, Braasch J (eds) Processing inaccurate information: theoretical and applied perspectives from cognitive science and the educational sciences. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 353–377Google Scholar
- Nyhan B, Reifler J (2012) Misinformation and fact-checking: research findings from social science. New America Foundation, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- Stadtler M, Scharrer L, Brummernhenrich B, Bromme R (2013) Dealing with uncertainty: readers’ memory for and use of conflicting information from science texts as function of presentation format and source expertise. Cogn Instr 31:130–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2013.769996 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- WHO (2017) Vaccination and trust. How concerns arise and the role of communication in mitigating crises. http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/disease-prevention/vaccines-and-immunization/publications/2017/vaccination-and-trust-2017. Accessed 30 July 2017
- WHO (2018a) Immunization coverage—fact sheet no. 378. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs378/en/. Accessed 23 July 2018
- WHO (2018b) Europe observes a 4-fold increase in measles cases in 2017 compared to previous year. http://www.euro.who.int/en/media-centre/sections/press-releases/2018/europe-observes-a-4-fold-increase-in-measles-cases-in-2017-compared-to-previous-year. Accessed 23 July 2018