How Can Selective Processing of Vaccination Information Be Diminished?

Abstract

Background: Selective processing of attitude-consistent information is a substantial obstacle in convincing vaccine-skeptical people of the benefits of vaccinations. Aims: This study tests (i) which types of information are particularly prone to such selective information processing, and (ii) whether a deliberative (vs. implemental) mindset focusing on potential benefits and harms may diminish its effects. Method: 612 Mturk participants were randomized into an implemental or deliberative mindset and received a flu vaccine-skeptical narrative, a flu vaccination facts box transparently summarizing risks and benefits, and a message by the Center for Disease Prevention and Control (CDC) in favor of the flu vaccine either referring to COVID-19 or not. We tested how these variations affected the acceptance of and the willingness to share each message. Furthermore, we evaluated their impact on flu vaccination attitudes and intentions. Results: The mindset manipulation failed to diminish generally prevalent selective information processing. While vaccine-skeptics did not accept and like the CDC message referring to COVID-19 (particularly in a deliberative mindset), they generally accepted the vaccination facts box more readily compared to both CDC messages. Limitations: Future studies should particularly focus on vaccine-skeptics and experimentally test the effects of facts boxes also on vaccination attitudes and intentions. Conclusion: While mindsets were ineffective, more general and transparent information may be more likely to reach an anti-vaccine audience.