Source Credibility and the Biasing Effect of Narrative Information on the Perception of Vaccination Risks

Abstract

Immunization rates are below the Global Immunization Vision and Strategy established by the World Health Organization. One reason for this are anti-vaccination activists, who use the Internet to disseminate their agenda, frequently by publishing narrative reports about alleged vaccine adverse events. In health communication, the use of narrative information has been shown to be effectively persuasive. Furthermore, persuasion research indicates that the credibility of an information source may serve as a cue to discount or augment the communicated message. Thus, the present study investigated the effect of source credibility on the biasing effect of narrative information regarding the perception of vaccination risks. 265 participants were provided with statistical information (20%) regarding the occurrence of vaccine adverse events after vaccination against a fictitious disease. This was followed by 20 personalized narratives from an online forum on vaccination experiences. The authors varied the relative frequency of narratives reporting vaccine adverse events (35% vs. 85%), narrative source credibility (anti-vaccination website vs. neutral health forum), and the credibility of the statistical information (reliable data vs. unreliable data vs. control) in a between-subjects design. Results showed a stable narrative bias on risk perception that was not affected by credibility cues. However, narratives from an anti-vaccination website generally led to lower perceptions of vaccination risks.