IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0158382.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Beliefs about Childhood Vaccination in the United States: Political Ideology, False Consensus, and the Illusion of Uniqueness

Author

Listed:
  • Mitchell Rabinowitz
  • Lauren Latella
  • Chadly Stern
  • John T Jost

Abstract

Several contagious diseases were nearly eradicated through childhood vaccination, but some parents have decided in recent years not to fully vaccinate their children, raising new public health concerns. The question of whether and how beliefs about vaccination are linked to political ideology has been hotly debated. This study investigates the effects of ideology on perceptions of harms and benefits related to vaccination as well as judgments of others’ attitudes. A total of 367 U.S. adults (131 men, 236 women; Mage = 34.92 years, range = 18–72) completed an online survey through Mechanical Turk. Results revealed that liberals were significantly more likely to endorse pro-vaccination statements and to regard them as “facts” (rather than “beliefs”), in comparison with moderates and conservatives. Whereas conservatives overestimated the proportion of like-minded others who agreed with them, liberals underestimated the proportion of others who agreed with them. That is, conservatives exhibited the “truly false consensus effect,” whereas liberals exhibited an “illusion of uniqueness” with respect to beliefs about vaccination. Conservative and moderate parents in this sample were less likely than liberals to report having fully vaccinated their children prior to the age of two. A clear limitation of this study is that the sample is not representative of the U.S. population. Nevertheless, a recognition of ideological sources of potential variability in health-related beliefs and perceptions is a prerequisite for the design of effective forms of public communication.

Suggested Citation

  • Mitchell Rabinowitz & Lauren Latella & Chadly Stern & John T Jost, 2016. "Beliefs about Childhood Vaccination in the United States: Political Ideology, False Consensus, and the Illusion of Uniqueness," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(7), pages 1-19, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0158382
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0158382
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0158382
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0158382&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0158382?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gore, Prasanna & Madhavan, Suresh & Curry, David & McClung, Gordon & Castiglia, Mary & Rosenbluth, Sidney A. & Smego, Raymond A., 1999. "Predictors of childhood immunization completion in a rural population," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 48(8), pages 1011-1027, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jonas Kemeugni Ngandjon & Thomas Ostermann & Virgile Kenmoue & Alfred Laengler, 2022. "Insights into Predictors of Vaccine Hesitancy and Promoting Factors in Childhood Immunization Programs—A Cross-Sectional Survey in Cameroon," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(5), pages 1-12, February.
    2. Lauren E. Latella & Robert J. McAuley & Mitchell Rabinowitz, 2018. "Beliefs about Vaccinations: Comparing a Sample from a Medical School to That from the General Population," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-13, 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:plo:pone00:0158382. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.