Accepters, fence sitters, or rejecters: Moral profiles of vaccination attitudes

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Rationale: Childhood vaccination is a safe and effective way of reducing infectious diseases. Yet, public confidence in vaccination is waning, driven in part by the ‘manufacture of doubt’ by anti-vaccination activists and websites. However, there is little research examining the psychological underpinnings of anti-vaccination rhetoric among parents. Objectives: Here, we examined the structure and moral roots of anti-vaccination attitudes amongst Australian parents active on social media parenting sites. Methods: Participants (N = 296) completed questionnaires assessing their vaccination attitudes, behavioural intentions, and moral preferences. Results: Using Latent Profile Analysis, we identified three profiles (i.e., groups), interpretable as vaccine “accepters”, “fence sitters”, and “rejecters”, each characterised by a distinct pattern of vaccination attitudes and moral preferences. Accepters exhibited positive vaccination attitudes and strong intentions to vaccinate; rejecters exhibited the opposite pattern of responses; whilst fence sitters exhibited an intermediate pattern of responses. Compared to accepters, rejecters and fence sitters exhibited a heightened moral preference for liberty (belief in the rights of the individual) and harm (concern about the wellbeing of others). Compared to acceptors and fence sitters, rejecters exhibited a heightened moral preference for purity (an abhorrence for impurity of body), and a diminished moral preference for authority (deference to those in positions of power). Conclusion: Given the sensitivity of fence sitters and rejecters to liberty-related moral concerns, our research cautions against the use of adversarial approaches—e.g., No Jab, No Pay legislation—that promote vaccination uptake by restricting parental freedoms, as they may backfire amongst parents ambivalent toward vaccination.
LanguageEnglish
Pages23-27
Number of pages5
JournalSocial Science & Medicine
Volume224
Early online date29 Jan 2019
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Mar 2019

Fingerprint

vaccination
Vaccination
parents
Parents
Sitter
Social Media
Parenting
social media
Legislation
Research
contagious disease
Communicable Diseases
website
rhetoric
Vaccines
confidence
childhood
legislation
Psychology
questionnaire

Cite this

@article{6562855188ec4697a87f5bb44c85a608,
title = "Accepters, fence sitters, or rejecters: Moral profiles of vaccination attitudes",
abstract = "Rationale: Childhood vaccination is a safe and effective way of reducing infectious diseases. Yet, public confidence in vaccination is waning, driven in part by the ‘manufacture of doubt’ by anti-vaccination activists and websites. However, there is little research examining the psychological underpinnings of anti-vaccination rhetoric among parents. Objectives: Here, we examined the structure and moral roots of anti-vaccination attitudes amongst Australian parents active on social media parenting sites. Methods: Participants (N = 296) completed questionnaires assessing their vaccination attitudes, behavioural intentions, and moral preferences. Results: Using Latent Profile Analysis, we identified three profiles (i.e., groups), interpretable as vaccine “accepters”, “fence sitters”, and “rejecters”, each characterised by a distinct pattern of vaccination attitudes and moral preferences. Accepters exhibited positive vaccination attitudes and strong intentions to vaccinate; rejecters exhibited the opposite pattern of responses; whilst fence sitters exhibited an intermediate pattern of responses. Compared to accepters, rejecters and fence sitters exhibited a heightened moral preference for liberty (belief in the rights of the individual) and harm (concern about the wellbeing of others). Compared to acceptors and fence sitters, rejecters exhibited a heightened moral preference for purity (an abhorrence for impurity of body), and a diminished moral preference for authority (deference to those in positions of power). Conclusion: Given the sensitivity of fence sitters and rejecters to liberty-related moral concerns, our research cautions against the use of adversarial approaches—e.g., No Jab, No Pay legislation—that promote vaccination uptake by restricting parental freedoms, as they may backfire amongst parents ambivalent toward vaccination.",
author = "Isabel Rossen and Mark Hurlstone and Patrick Dunlop and Carmen Lawrence",
year = "2019",
month = "3",
doi = "10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.01.038",
language = "English",
volume = "224",
pages = "23--27",
journal = "Social Science & Medicine",
issn = "0277-9536",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Accepters, fence sitters, or rejecters

T2 - Social Science & Medicine

AU - Rossen, Isabel

AU - Hurlstone, Mark

AU - Dunlop, Patrick

AU - Lawrence, Carmen

PY - 2019/3

Y1 - 2019/3

N2 - Rationale: Childhood vaccination is a safe and effective way of reducing infectious diseases. Yet, public confidence in vaccination is waning, driven in part by the ‘manufacture of doubt’ by anti-vaccination activists and websites. However, there is little research examining the psychological underpinnings of anti-vaccination rhetoric among parents. Objectives: Here, we examined the structure and moral roots of anti-vaccination attitudes amongst Australian parents active on social media parenting sites. Methods: Participants (N = 296) completed questionnaires assessing their vaccination attitudes, behavioural intentions, and moral preferences. Results: Using Latent Profile Analysis, we identified three profiles (i.e., groups), interpretable as vaccine “accepters”, “fence sitters”, and “rejecters”, each characterised by a distinct pattern of vaccination attitudes and moral preferences. Accepters exhibited positive vaccination attitudes and strong intentions to vaccinate; rejecters exhibited the opposite pattern of responses; whilst fence sitters exhibited an intermediate pattern of responses. Compared to accepters, rejecters and fence sitters exhibited a heightened moral preference for liberty (belief in the rights of the individual) and harm (concern about the wellbeing of others). Compared to acceptors and fence sitters, rejecters exhibited a heightened moral preference for purity (an abhorrence for impurity of body), and a diminished moral preference for authority (deference to those in positions of power). Conclusion: Given the sensitivity of fence sitters and rejecters to liberty-related moral concerns, our research cautions against the use of adversarial approaches—e.g., No Jab, No Pay legislation—that promote vaccination uptake by restricting parental freedoms, as they may backfire amongst parents ambivalent toward vaccination.

AB - Rationale: Childhood vaccination is a safe and effective way of reducing infectious diseases. Yet, public confidence in vaccination is waning, driven in part by the ‘manufacture of doubt’ by anti-vaccination activists and websites. However, there is little research examining the psychological underpinnings of anti-vaccination rhetoric among parents. Objectives: Here, we examined the structure and moral roots of anti-vaccination attitudes amongst Australian parents active on social media parenting sites. Methods: Participants (N = 296) completed questionnaires assessing their vaccination attitudes, behavioural intentions, and moral preferences. Results: Using Latent Profile Analysis, we identified three profiles (i.e., groups), interpretable as vaccine “accepters”, “fence sitters”, and “rejecters”, each characterised by a distinct pattern of vaccination attitudes and moral preferences. Accepters exhibited positive vaccination attitudes and strong intentions to vaccinate; rejecters exhibited the opposite pattern of responses; whilst fence sitters exhibited an intermediate pattern of responses. Compared to accepters, rejecters and fence sitters exhibited a heightened moral preference for liberty (belief in the rights of the individual) and harm (concern about the wellbeing of others). Compared to acceptors and fence sitters, rejecters exhibited a heightened moral preference for purity (an abhorrence for impurity of body), and a diminished moral preference for authority (deference to those in positions of power). Conclusion: Given the sensitivity of fence sitters and rejecters to liberty-related moral concerns, our research cautions against the use of adversarial approaches—e.g., No Jab, No Pay legislation—that promote vaccination uptake by restricting parental freedoms, as they may backfire amongst parents ambivalent toward vaccination.

U2 - 10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.01.038

DO - 10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.01.038

M3 - Article

VL - 224

SP - 23

EP - 27

JO - Social Science & Medicine

JF - Social Science & Medicine

SN - 0277-9536

ER -