Why Don't We Get Vaccinated? Some Explanatory Hypotheses of Vaccine Hesitation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18662/po/13.1Sup1/439Keywords:
vaccine hesitation, pandemic, COVID-19, cognitive asymmetry, uncertaintyAbstract
Because inappropriate built-in or managed vaccination campaigns, regardless of the causes of vaccine hesitation, can have side effects, the most important being the opposition to vaccination, the understanding of vaccination hesitation can have an influence on specific public policies. In this article we identify a set of possible explanations for vaccine hesitation, which can be used to assess situations, identify problems and adopt appropriate solutions. We highlight the fact that the vaccination hesitation is not just about vaccination, the approach of identifying explanatory hypotheses involves identifying all relevant frames of reference, all social areas that participate in establishing the appropriate interpretation context. The level of compliance with the rules could be an important explanatory hypothesis for the differences between different states in the share of vaccinated citizens. Other explanatory hypotheses: the structure of epistemic communities, community and individual cognitive resources on strategies facing the uncertainty and risk, distrust. We also assess the limits of using the deficit model. We keep in mind two cognitive asymmetries: inaction is perceived as less risky or responsible than action; the indecision is in a similar situation to the decision. Because the values that people adhere reflect their personal beliefs and convictions, and they guide the way they seek, receive, and interpret information, strategies to reduce vaccine hesitation should be based on verifying the compatibility of the intended outcome with individual values and to continue testing the various solutions to change the beliefs that contribute to the determination of vaccine hesitation or refusal.
References
Attwell, K., Ward, P. R., Meyer, S. B., Rokkas, P.J ., & Leask, J. (2018).“Do-it-yourself”: Vaccine rejection and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Social Science & Medicine, 196, 106-114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.11.022
Attwell, K., & Freeman, M. (2015). I Immunise: An evaluation of a values-based campaign to change attitudes and beliefs. Vaccine, 33(46), 6235-6240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.09.092
Brighton, H., & Gigerenzer, G. (2015). The bias bias. Journal of Business Research, 68(8), 1772-1784. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.01.061
Cassam, Q. (2017). Diagnostic error, overconfidence and self-knowledge. Palgrave
Communications, 3, 17025. https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2017.25
Cassam, Q. (2021). Misunderstanding vaccine hesitancy: A case study in epistemic injustice. Educational Philosophy and Theory [Ahead of print], 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2021.2006055
Danelon, M. (2015). Ignorance Production and Corporate Science [Master Theses submitted to the Department of Philosophy, Queen’s University Kingston, Ontario, Canada]. Qspace. https://qspace.library.queensu.ca/handle/1974/13723
Demichelis, A. (2018). An epistemic approach to vaccine hesitancy [Master’s Thesis, University of Florence]. Preprint. Https://philpharmblog.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/tesi.pdf
Goldenberg, M. (2021). Vaccinebook hesitancy: Public trust, expertise, and the war on science. University of Pittsburgh Press.
Hertwig, R., & Grüne-Yanoff, T. (2017). Nudging and Boosting: Steering or Empowering Good Decisions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(6), 973-986. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617702496
Hinds, P. J. (1999). The curse of expertise: The effects of expertise and debiasing methods on prediction of novice performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 5(2), 205-221. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/1076-898X.5.2.205
Janko, M. (2012) Vaccination: a victim of its own success. Virtual Mentor, 14(1), 3-4. https://doi.org/10.1001/virtualmentor.2012.14.1.fred1-1201
Kennedy, J. (1995). Debiasing the Curse of Knowledge in Audit Judgment. The Accounting Review, 70(2), 249-273. https://www.jstor.org/stable/248305
Kuhn, S. (2009). Prisoner's Dilemma. The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2009/entries/prisoner-dilemma/
MacDonald, N., Comeau, J., Dubé, È., Graham, J., Greenwood, M., Harmon, S., McElhaney, J., McMurty, C. M., Middleton, A., Steenbeek, A., & Taddio, A. (2021). Enhancing COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance in Canada. Royal Society of Canada. https://rsc-src.ca/sites/default/files/VA%20PB_EN_0.pdf
Markon, M. P. L, Crowe, J., & Lemyre, L. (2013) Examining uncertainties in government risk communication: citizens' expectations. Health, Risk & Society, 15(4), 313-332. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698575.2013.796344
Meyer, M., Alfano, M., & Boudewijn, B. (2020). Epistemic Vice Predicts Acceptance of COVID-19 Misinformation. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3644356
Meyer, M., Alfano, M., & Boudewijn, B. (2021) The Development and Validation of the Epistemic Vice Scale. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3766052
McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: the extensions of man. McGraw-Hill.
Navin, M. (2016). Values and vaccine refusal: hard questions in ethics, epistemology, and health care. Routledge.
Nerlich, B. (2017, February 25). Digging for the roots of the deficit model. Univesity of Nottingham. https://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/makingsciencepublic/2017/02/25/digging-for-the-deficit-model/
Nichols, T .M. (2017). The death of expertise: the campaign against established knowledge and why it matters. New York Oxford University Press.
Nyhan, B., Reifler, J., Richey, S, &, Freed, G. L. (2014). Effective messages in vaccine promotion: a randomized trial. Pediatrics, 133(4), 835-842. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2013-2365
Pinker, S. (2021). Rationality: What It Is, Why It Seems Scarce, Why It Matters. Penguin.
Proctor, R. N. (1995). Cancer Wars: How Politics Shapes What We Know and Don’t Know About Cancer. HarperCollins Publishers.
Proctor, R. N., & Schiebinger, L. L. (2008). Agnotology: The Making and Unmaking of Ignorance. Stanford University Press.
Rotilă, V. (2021). The Limits of Knowledge in the COVID-19 Pandemic. Some Prudential Recommendations in Uncertainty Conditions. Postmodern Openings, 12(1), 347-367. https://doi.org/10.18662/po/12.1/265
Rotilă V. (coord.), Lungu, L., Ciobanu, G. (2021a). Impactul vaccinării împotriva SARS-CoV-2/ COVID-19 asupra lucrătorilor din sănătate. Soluţii posibile de optimizare [Impact of vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 / COVID-19 on health workers. Possible optimization solutions]. Sodalitas. https://covid.solidaritatea-sanitara.ro/studiu-vaccinare/
Rotilă, V. (coord.), Lungu, L., Ciobanu, G. (2021b). Centrul de Cercetare şi Dezvoltare Socială „Solidaritatea” [„Solidarity” Research and Social Development Center]. Cognitest.ro. https://cognitest.ro/
Saint-Victor, D. S., & Omer, S. B. (2013). Vaccine refusal and the endgame: walking the last mile first. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 368(1623), 20120148. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0148
Săvulescu, J. (2021). Good reasons to vaccinate: mandatory or payment for risk?. Journal of medical ethics, 47(2), 78-85. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2020-106821
Sunstein, C. R. (2014). Why nudge? The politics of libertarian paternalism. Yale University Press.
Tomori, C. (2021). Scientists: don't feed the doubt machine. Nature, 599(7883), 9. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-02993-7
Wegwarth, O., Wagner, G. G., Spies, C., & Hertwig, R. (2020). Assessment of German Public Attitudes Toward Health Communications with Varying Degrees of Scientific Uncertainty Regarding COVID-19. JAMA Network Open, 3(12), e2032335. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.32335
Wynne, B. (1993). Public uptake of science: a case for institutional reflexivity. Public Understanding of Science, 2(4), 321-337. https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/2/4/003
World Health Organization. (2014). Report of the SAGE Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy. Retrieved December 15, 2021, from http://www.who.int/immunization/sage/meetings/2014/october/SAGE_working_group_revised_report_vaccine_hesitancy.pdf
Zollman, K. J. S. (2007). The Communication Structure of Epistemic Communities. Philosophy of Science, 74(5), 574-587. http://doi.org/10.1086/525605
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 The Authors & LUMEN Publishing House
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant this journal right of first publication, with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work, with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g. post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g. in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as an earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
Postmodern Openings Journal has an Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs
CC BY-NC-ND
