The Self-Defeating Fight against Vaccination Refusal a Behavioral Science analysis in 5 Points
In reaction to the persisting decrease of vaccination rates in developed countries, public authorities, the media and nonprofits counteract with information campaigns. In my opinion, this approach is self-defeating because it ignores the phenomenon’s behavioral realities.
1. Raising awareness is typical for information campaigns.
Articles with headlines such as Wealthy L.A. Schools' Vaccination Rates Are as Low as South Sudan's are well intended, but ignore the effect of social proof. When unsure what to do, people use others’ behaviors as cues for their own behavior. When faced with information on the increasing number of parents who refuse vaccination, others might interpret the message as: it’s OK not to vaccinate your children since others are doing this.
In many developed countries the overall situation is not as dramatic as some headlines indicate. The ideal vaccination rate is 95%+ which ensures herd immunity. The actual vaccination rates are somewhere in the 80-90% range. Healthcare professionals are worried mainly because of the trend and because of the real danger of losing the herd immunity. As I understand the societal benefits of vaccination are not linear. Simply put, the societal benefit of improving vaccination rates from 80% to 85% is smaller than getting it from 90% to 95% (where herd immunity is achieved).
While from an epidemiological point of view a vaccination rate of 80% is worrisome news, from a behavioral science perspective things aren’t as dramatic. While most news focus on the increasing number of children who are not vaccinated, the upside is that the very large majority of children (in the USA) are vaccinated.
Saying that 20% of children are not vaccinated can be re-framed as 80% are getting vaccines!
In other similar situations, this type of simple re-framing proved extremely effective in achieving behavioral change. Just as an example, many people have no problem buying a ham that is 97% fat free, but they would be very reluctant to purchase ham that is 3% pure fat.
Couple this re-framing with social proof and you have a nice tool for reaching the goal of increasing vaccination rates.
Whereas headlines need to be dramatic in order to get clicks (or sell newspapers), public information campaigns need to be effective in achieving behavioral change – in this case get more children vaccinated.
Instead of relying on alarmist messages, why not simply say that the great majority (80%) of parents (in USA) do vaccinate their children.
Social proof and re-framing of information can be used in even less favorable circumstances. A few months ago, I heard on the radio a commercial aimed at increasing the flu-vaccination rate. Unfortunately, the commercial said something like: If you are one of the 65% of Americans who don’t get the shot, you can get the flu.
Beyond the obvious errors in communication (from a behavioral science perspective), the reality of the numbers seems discouraging. When only (approx.) 35% of people get a vaccine, it is hard to leverage social proof – the great majority of people is not doing what is desired.
There is, however, a silver lining: 35% of the US population (317 million) is roughly 100 million people. Very likely, saying that over 100 million people (fellow Americans) get the flu shot is more convincing than 65% of Americans don’t get the flu shot.
2. Doctors are spokespeople in pro-vaccination campaigns.
The use of medical doctors as authority figures (recommenders) in communication has a long history. Doctors (or actors dressed as doctors) have recommended anything from detergent to cigarettes and from pharmaceutic drugs to diets.
While in many commercials using medical doctors as recommenders proved to increase the communication’s effectiveness, in the case of pro-vaccination (or anti anti-vaccination) campaigns is not exactly appropriate.
Doctors’ presence and messages are reassuring for people who favor vaccination. However, those who are reluctant to vaccination don’t perceive doctors as authority figures, thus the message’s impact is severely diminished.
Simply put, in the eyes of (some) people who refuse vaccination, regular medicine is not trustworthy and so are medical doctors. Maybe herbalists, alternative healers etc. would be more credible.
3. The rational message favoring vaccination is inadequate for tackling highly-emotional (false) concerns.
Strongly related to using medical doctors as advocates for vaccination is the messaging of pro-vaccination endeavors. Doctors dressed in their uniforms speak about the scientifically proven benefits of vaccination and talk about the serious dangers of not using this simple and effective prevention tool.
Although correct, this rational message is highly ineffective for those who oppose vaccination. Many anti-vaccination arguments have a high emotional load. Nobody (falsely) claims vaccines to cause kidney-failure – a serious condition with a low emotional load / fear-factor. Yet, all anti-vaccination advocates mention that vaccines can cause autism – a condition that has a high emotional component or fear-factor. By the way, vaccines don’t cause autism, but at one point someone made a false claim they did and the research has been proven to rely on faked data and the paper was later retracted. Yet, the legacy of fear left by that paper stands.
4. Vaccination’s benefits are Non-Events & the Availability Heuristic
The benefit of vaccination is very difficult to observe because it is a non-event – something that doesn’t happen. We humans are terrible at understanding non-events and in the case of vaccination things are even worse than in other situations.
Taking a step side-ways, I think we can all agree that a fire-fighter who goes into a burning building and saves a person (or cute puppy) is a hero worthy of public praise.
At the same time, the huge majority ignores other people who (indirectly) save many more lives from fires – the fire-safety inspectors: the bureaucrats who come with checklists and regulations, who generally are grumpy and somehow annoying because they keep insisting on even small features of compliance to fire-safety regulations.
These people save lives not by entering burning buildings, but by ensuring the conditions to prevent fires altogether and / or decrease the damage caused by fires.
The vaccination situation is somehow similar. Preventing a disease is not the same as curing one. A doctor who cured a patient with smallpox will receive many thank-you notes and will be held in high regard, but the nurse who gave thousands of anti-smallpox vaccines, thus preventing the disease, is still anonymous.
Earlier I mentioned that the situation is somehow similar. The high effectiveness of mass-vaccination in preventing diseases, in fact, makes it more difficult to see the benefits of vaccination.
Let’s go back to the firefighter – fire-safety inspector illustration. The (paradoxical) reason for complying with fire-safety regulation is that there are enough (?!) fires to make the danger salient in our minds. Either in real life or in movies, fires are frequent enough to remind us that preventive action is needed.
In the case of vaccination things are a bit different. In developed countries recent cases of smallpox, poliomyelitis etc. are extremely rare. Mass vaccination led to having two-three generations free of such diseases and their devastating consequences. While during our (great-) grandparents’ childhood it was common for families to lose one or more children to diseases such as poliomyelitis, nowadays such instances are (almost) nonexistent.
This is when the availability heuristic comes into play and distorts decision making on accepting vaccination.
The availability heuristic means that we judge the probability of an event based on the salience and frequency of memories of that event. We know of a lot of killings by firearms and very few suicides by guns, thus we perceive that there are more killings than suicides by firearms. The reality, however, is different: there are more suicides than killings by guns (at least in the US).
Because instances of terrible diseases that are prevented by vaccines are extremely rare and inconspicuous, we erroneously perceive the risk of not vaccinating a lot smaller than it actually is.
Here’s where movie makers can lend a hand. Instead of (alongside) scaring people with terrorist plots, doomsday scenarios etc. they could include more instances of people suffering and dying from poliomyelitis, smallpox etc.
5. Costs are in the present and benefits are in the future
Most people prefer 100$ now over 110$ in one year from now. This is an illustration of a psychological phenomenon called discounting future outcomes.
Vaccinations’ (non-event) benefits occur in the future (1-20 years) and, subsequently, are discounted in the present. The discomforts of vaccination – parents have to take their child to the clinic to get the shot, normal minor side-effects (fever, local swelling etc.) – are in the present.
The false dangers of vaccination allegedly occur very soon after getting the shot (in the present, not in the distant future).
While it is impossible to change the nature of non-events and to eliminate the discounting of future outcomes, there are a couple of things that can be done.
First, to tackle time discounting we can bring the benefits in the present. Naturally, vaccination’s benefits cannot be brought in the present (more so since they are non-events), but decreasing costs (hassle) in the present could be a great approach. In addition, although it might seem unethical, we could offer incentives in the present for getting vaccinated.
Second, to tackle the issue of non-events, we could try to make the immediate benefit more concrete by offering tangible rewards. As mentioned earlier, we could increase the frequency and salience of the dangers of non-vaccination and movies are the best way (at least in my view).