RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: We aim to identify vaccination invitations that foster trust and improve vaccination uptake overall, especially among ethnic minority groups who are more at risk from coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and less likely to be vaccinated. METHOD: In a preregistered 4 × 4 mixed-design experiment, we manipulated how much risk-benefit information the message included within-subjects and the message source between-subjects (N = 4,038 U.K. and U.S. participants, 50% ethnic minority). Participants read four vaccine invitations that varied in vaccination risk-benefit information (randomized order): control (no information), benefits only, risk and benefit, and risk and benefit that mentions vulnerable groups. The messages were sent by one of four sources (random allocation): control (health institution), medical professional (unnamed), warm and competent medical professional (unnamed), and named warm and competent medical professional (Sanjay/Lamar). Participants assessed how much they trusted the message and how likely they would be to book their vaccination appointment. RESULTS: Information about vaccination benefits and risks increased trust, especially among ethnic minority groups-for whom the effect replicated within each group. Trust also increased when the message was sent by a warm and competent medical professional relative to a health institution, but the importance of the source mattered less when more information was shared. CONCLUSIONS: Our research demonstrates the positive impact of outlining the benefits and disclosing the risks of COVID vaccines in vaccination invitation messages. Having a warm and competent medical professional source can also increase trust, especially where the message is limited in scope. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: During the pandemic healthcare professionals and political leaders routinely used traditional and new media outlets to publicly respond to COVID-19 myths and inaccuracies. We examine how variations in the sources and messaging strategies of these public statements affect respondents' beliefs about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines. METHODS: We analyzed the results of an experiment embedded within a multi-wave survey deployed to US and UK respondents in January-February 2022 to examine these effects. We employ a test-retest between-subjects experimental protocol with a control group. Respondents were randomly assigned to one of four experimental conditions reflecting discrete pairings of message source (political authorities vs. healthcare professionals) and messaging strategy (debunking misinformation vs. discrediting mis-informants) or a control condition. We use linear regression to compare the effects of exposure to treatment conditions on changes in respondent beliefs about the potential risks associated with COVID-19 vaccination. RESULTS: In the UK sample, we observe a statistically significant decrease in beliefs about the risks of COVID-19 vaccines among respondents exposed to debunking messages by healthcare professionals. We observe a similar relationship in the US sample, but the effect was weaker and not significant. Identical messages from political authorities had no effect on respondents' beliefs about vaccine risks in either sample. Discrediting messages critical of mis-informants likewise had no influence on respondent beliefs, regardless of the actor to which they were attributed. Political ideology moderated the influence of debunking statements by healthcare professionals on respondent vaccine attitudes in the US sample, such that the treatment was more effective among liberals and moderates than among conservatives. CONCLUSIONS: Brief exposure to public statements refuting anti-vaccine misinformation can help promote vaccine confidence among some populations. The results underscore the joint importance of message source and messaging strategy in determining the effectiveness of responses to misinformation.