The Effect of Frames on COVID-19 Vaccine Resistance

  1. Risa Palm
  2. Toby Bolsen
  3. Justin T. Kingsland

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

In order to control the spread of infectious diseases such as COVID-19, it will be important to develop a communication strategy to counteract “vaccine resistance”, that is, the refusal to take the COVID-19 vaccine even when available. This paper reports the results of a survey experiment testing the impacts of several types of message content: the safety and efficacy of the vaccine itself, the likelihood that others will take the vaccine, and the possible role of politics in driving resistance to the vaccine. In an original survey of 1,123 American M-Turk respondents conducted in the summer of 2020, we provided six different information conditions suggesting the safety and efficacy of the vaccine, the lack of safety/efficacy of the vaccine, the suggestion that most others would take the vaccine, the suggestion that most others would not take the vaccine, the suggestion that the vaccine is being promoted by liberals to gain greater control over individual freedom, and the suggestion that its approval is being by President Trump rushed for political motivations. We compared the responses for those in the treatment groups with a control group who received no additional information. In comparison to the control group, those who received information about the safety/efficacy of the vaccine were more likely to report that they would take the vaccine, those who received information that others were reluctant to take the vaccine were more likely to report that they themselves would not take it, and those who received information about political influences on vaccine development expressed resistance to taking it. Communication of effective messages about the vaccine will be essential for public health agencies that seek to promote vaccine uptake.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.3389/fpos.2021.661257
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.01.04.21249241: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.01.04.21249241v1 on medRxiv