IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nat/nathum/v1y2017i12d10.1038_s41562-017-0256-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Association of moral values with vaccine hesitancy

Author

Listed:
  • Avnika B. Amin

    (Emory University)

  • Robert A. Bednarczyk

    (Emory University
    Emory University)

  • Cara E. Ray

    (Loyola University Chicago)

  • Kala J. Melchiori

    (James Madison University)

  • Jesse Graham

    (University of Utah)

  • Jeffrey R. Huntsinger

    (Loyola University Chicago)

  • Saad B. Omer

    (Emory University
    Emory University
    Emory Vaccine Center
    Emory University)

Abstract

Clusters of unvaccinated children are particularly susceptible to outbreaks of vaccine-preventable disease 1,2 . Existing messaging interventions demonstrate short-term success, but some may backfire and worsen vaccine hesitancy 3 . Values-based messages appeal to core morality, which influences the attitudes individuals then have on topics like vaccination 4–7 . We must understand how underlying morals, not just attitudes, differ by hesitancy type to develop interventions that work with individual values. Here, we show in two correlational studies that harm and fairness foundations are not significantly associated with vaccine hesitancy, but purity and liberty foundations are. We found that medium-hesitancy parents were twice as likely as low-hesitancy parents to highly emphasize purity (adjusted odds ratio: 2.08; 95% confidence interval: 1.27–3.40). High-hesitancy respondents were twice as likely to strongly emphasize purity (adjusted odds ratio: 2.15; 95% confidence interval: 1.39–3.31) and liberty (adjusted odds ratio: 2.19; 95% confidence interval: 1.50–3.21). Our results demonstrate that endorsement of harm and fairness—ideas often emphasized in traditional vaccine-focused messages—are not predictive of vaccine hesitancy. This, combined with significant associations of purity and liberty with hesitancy, indicates a need for inclusion of broader themes in vaccine discussions. These findings have the potential for application to other health decisions and communications as well.

Suggested Citation

  • Avnika B. Amin & Robert A. Bednarczyk & Cara E. Ray & Kala J. Melchiori & Jesse Graham & Jeffrey R. Huntsinger & Saad B. Omer, 2017. "Association of moral values with vaccine hesitancy," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 1(12), pages 873-880, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:nat:nathum:v:1:y:2017:i:12:d:10.1038_s41562-017-0256-5
    DOI: 10.1038/s41562-017-0256-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-017-0256-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1038/s41562-017-0256-5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jordan Luttrell-Freeman & Timothy J. Bungum & Jennifer R. Pharr, 2021. "A Systematic Review of the Rationale for Vaccine Hesitancy among American Parents," Global Journal of Health Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 13(8), pages 1-77, August.
    2. Valerio Capraro & Roberto Di Paolo & Matjaz Perc & Veronica Pizziol, 2024. "Language-based game theory in the age of artificial intelligence," Papers 2403.08944, arXiv.org.
    3. Brent Mills & Alex Wilner, 2023. "The science behind “values”: Applying moral foundations theory to strategic foresight," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(1), March.
    4. Schmidtke, Kelly Ann & Kudrna, Laura & Noufaily, Angela & Stallard, Nigel & Skrybant, Magdalena & Russell, Samantha & Clarke, Aileen, 2022. "Evaluating the relationship between moral values and vaccine hesitancy in Great Britain during the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional survey," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 308(C).
    5. Amanda Hudson & William J. Montelpare, 2021. "Predictors of Vaccine Hesitancy: Implications for COVID-19 Public Health Messaging," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(15), pages 1-14, July.
    6. O'Marr, Jamieson M. & Raoul, Akila & James, Erin K. & Winters, Maike & Amin, Avnika B. & Bednarczyk, Robert A. & Graham, Jesse & Huntsinger, Jeffrey R. & Omer, Saad B., 2023. "Moral foundations and HPV vaccine acceptance in the United States: State, parental, and individual factors," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 336(C).
    7. Buckman, Cierra & Liu, Indran C. & Cortright, Lindsay & Tumin, Dmitry & Syed, Salma, 2020. "The influence of local political trends on childhood vaccine completion in North Carolina," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 260(C).
    8. Reddinger, J. Lucas & Charness, Gary & Levine, David, 2022. "Prosocial motivation for vaccination," SocArXiv emj6v, Center for Open Science.
    9. Daphne Bussink-Voorend & Jeannine L. A. Hautvast & Lisa Vandeberg & Olga Visser & Marlies E. J. L. Hulscher, 2022. "A systematic literature review to clarify the concept of vaccine hesitancy," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 6(12), pages 1634-1648, December.
    10. Tobia Spampatti & Ulf J. J. Hahnel & Evelina Trutnevyte & Tobias Brosch, 2024. "Psychological inoculation strategies to fight climate disinformation across 12 countries," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 8(2), pages 380-398, February.
    11. Mulder, Laetitia B. & Lokate, Mariëtte, 2022. "The effect of moral appeals on influenza vaccination uptake and support for a vaccination mandate among health care workers," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 312(C).
    12. Hirani, Jonas Cuzulan & Wüst, Miriam, 2022. "Nurses and infant vaccination coverage," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 402-428.
    13. Katie Attwell & Samantha B. Meyer & Paul R. Ward, 2018. "The Social Basis of Vaccine Questioning and Refusal: A Qualitative Study Employing Bourdieu’s Concepts of ‘Capitals’ and ‘Habitus’," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-17, May.
    14. Claudy, Marius C. & Parkinson, Mary & Aquino, Karl, 2024. "Why should innovators care about morality? Political ideology, moral foundations, and the acceptance of technological innovations," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    15. Motta, Matt & Callaghan, Timothy & Trujillo, Kristin Lunz & Lockman, Alee, 2022. "Erroneous Consonance. How Inaccurate Beliefs about Physician Opinion Influence COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy," SocArXiv 8hnxd, Center for Open Science.
    16. DeDominicis, Kali & Buttenheim, Alison M. & Howa, Amanda C. & Delamater, Paul L. & Salmon, Daniel & Omer, Saad B. & Klein, Nicola P., 2020. "Shouting at each other into the void: A linguistic network analysis of vaccine hesitance and support in online discourse regarding California law SB277," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 266(C).
    17. Callaghan, Timothy & Motta, Matthew & Sylvester, Steven & Lunz Trujillo, Kristin & Blackburn, Christine Crudo, 2019. "Parent psychology and the decision to delay childhood vaccination," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 238(C), pages 1-1.
    18. Trisha Harjani & Hongwei He & Melody Manchi Chao, 2024. "The Moral Foundations of Vaccine Passports," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 190(1), pages 93-121, February.
    19. Rozbroj, Tomas & Haas, Romi & O'Connor, Denise & Carter, Stacy M. & McCaffery, Kirsten & Thomas, Rae & Donovan, Jan & Buchbinder, Rachelle, 2021. "How do people understand overtesting and overdiagnosis? Systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative research," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 285(C).
    20. Anita Lavorgna & Leslie Carr, 2021. "Tweets and Quacks: Network and Content Analyses of Providers of Non-Science-Based Anticancer Treatments and Their Supporters on Twitter," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(1), pages 21582440211, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nat:nathum:v:1:y:2017:i:12:d:10.1038_s41562-017-0256-5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.nature.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.