IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v14y2024i3p21582440241275654.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A COVID-19 Paradox of Communication, Ignorance, and Vaccination Intention

Author

Listed:
  • Narae Kim
  • Jeong-Nam Kim

Abstract

This study focused on the role of Americans’ communication about COVID-19 vaccines, and its potential associations with two significant vaccine determinants. Two studies informed by the Situational Theory of Problem Solving (STOPS) were conducted. In the first, the researchers incorporated the intention to receive vaccination against the COVID-19 pandemic and vaccine-specific knowledge into STOPS to examine the associations among these three key variables. The second study introduced a new variable, trust in science/scientists, as a potential conceptual variable that functions together with vaccine knowledge to explain why Americans’ intentions to receive COVID-19 vaccines increased despite their imperfect knowledge about them. Two online surveys were distributed using Amazon Mechanical Turk (Study 1) and Qualtrics (Study 2). The first was administered from December 18 through 22 of 2020, and the second from December 18 through 29 of 2020. An enhanced level of communicative action with respect to COVID-19 vaccines decreased the accuracy of knowledge about the vaccines, which increased the intention to receive these vaccines (Study 1). A significant interaction was also found between COVID-19 vaccine knowledge and participants’ levels of trust in science/scientists on study participants’ future intention to receive COVID-19 vaccines (Study 2). Contrary to previous findings, Americans’ increased activeness in COVID-19 vaccine-specific communication was associated negatively with vaccine knowledge, which in turn, increased COVID-19 vaccination intentions. This negative association reflects the complex and unique nature of information environments with respect to COVID-19 vaccines. Trust in science/scientists served as a significant missing conceptual variable that shed light on the paradoxical finding.

Suggested Citation

  • Narae Kim & Jeong-Nam Kim, 2024. "A COVID-19 Paradox of Communication, Ignorance, and Vaccination Intention," SAGE Open, , vol. 14(3), pages 21582440241, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:14:y:2024:i:3:p:21582440241275654
    DOI: 10.1177/21582440241275654
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21582440241275654
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/21582440241275654?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. Kontos, E.Z. & Emmons, K.M. & Puleo, E. & Viswanath, K., 2012. "Contribution of communication inequalities to disparities in human papillomavirus vaccine awareness and knowledge," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 102(10), pages 1911-1920.
    2. Matthew Motta, 2018. "The enduring effect of scientific interest on trust in climate scientists in the United States," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 8(6), pages 485-488, June.
    3. Sahil Loomba & Alexandre Figueiredo & Simon J. Piatek & Kristen Graaf & Heidi J. Larson, 2021. "Measuring the impact of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation on vaccination intent in the UK and USA," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 5(3), pages 337-348, March.
    4. John T. Lang & William K. Hallman, 2005. "Who Does the Public Trust? The Case of Genetically Modified Food in the United States," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(5), pages 1241-1252, October.
    5. Patrick Sturgis & Ian Brunton-Smith & Jonathan Jackson, 2021. "Trust in science, social consensus and vaccine confidence," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 5(11), pages 1528-1534, November.
    6. Michael Siegrist, 2000. "The Influence of Trust and Perceptions of Risks and Benefits on the Acceptance of Gene Technology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(2), pages 195-204, April.
    7. Boas, Taylor C. & Christenson, Dino P. & Glick, David M., 2020. "Recruiting large online samples in the United States and India: Facebook, Mechanical Turk, and Qualtrics," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(2), pages 232-250, April.
    8. Peiran Ma, 2023. "The Impact of Political Polarization on the COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in the United States: A Qualitative Study," Journal of Politics and Law, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 16(2), pages 1-37, May.
    9. Friederike Hendriks & Dorothe Kienhues & Rainer Bromme, 2016. "Trust in Science and the Science of Trust," Progress in IS, in: Bernd Blöbaum (ed.), Trust and Communication in a Digitized World, edition 1, pages 143-159, Springer.
    10. Berinsky, Adam J. & Huber, Gregory A. & Lenz, Gabriel S., 2012. "Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 351-368, July.
    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. Barton, Jared & Pan, Xiaofei, 2022. "Movin’ on up? A survey experiment on mobility enhancing policies," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    2. Angerer, Silvia & Glätzle-Rützler, Daniela & Lergetporer, Philipp & Rittmannsberger, Thomas, 2023. "How does the vaccine approval procedure affect COVID-19 vaccination intentions?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    3. Tianjun Feng & L. Robin Keller & Liangyan Wang & Yitong Wang, 2010. "Product Quality Risk Perceptions and Decisions: Contaminated Pet Food and Lead‐Painted Toys," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(10), pages 1572-1589, October.
    4. Timothy C. Earle, 2010. "Trust in Risk Management: A Model‐Based Review of Empirical Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(4), pages 541-574, April.
    5. Hu, R. & Deng, H., 2018. "A Crisis of Consumers’ Trust in Scientists and Influence on Consumer Attitude," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 276047, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. Andrew Knight, 2007. "Intervening Effects of Knowledge, Morality, Trust, and Benefits on Support for Animal and Plant Biotechnology Applications," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(6), pages 1553-1563, December.
    7. Kaitlynn Sandstrom‐Mistry & Frank Lupi & Hyunjung Kim & Joseph A. Herriges, 2023. "Comparing water quality valuation across probability and non‐probability samples," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(2), pages 744-761, June.
    8. Dilshani Sarathchandra & Aaron M. McCright, 2017. "The Effects of Media Coverage of Scientific Retractions on Risk Perceptions," SAGE Open, , vol. 7(2), pages 21582440177, May.
    9. Janneke De Jonge & Hans Van Trijp & Reint Jan Renes & Lynn Frewer, 2007. "Understanding Consumer Confidence in the Safety of Food: Its Two‐Dimensional Structure and Determinants," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 729-740, June.
    10. Leong, Ching Ching & Jarvis, Darryl & Howlett, Michael & Migone, Andrea, 2011. "Controversial science-based technology public attitude formation and regulation in comparative perspective: The state construction of policy alternatives in Asia," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 128-136.
    11. Petit, Joshua D. & Needham, Mark D. & Howe, Glenn T., 2021. "Cognitive and demographic drivers of attitudes toward using genetic engineering to restore American chestnut trees," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    12. Brad Love & Michael Mackert & Kami Silk, 2013. "Consumer Trust in Information Sources," SAGE Open, , vol. 3(2), pages 21582440134, June.
    13. Justin Sulik & Ophelia Deroy & Guillaume Dezecache & Martha Newson & Yi Zhao & Marwa El Zein & Bahar Tunçgenç, 2021. "Facing the pandemic with trust in science," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-10, December.
    14. Gordon Pennycook & David G. Rand, 2022. "Accuracy prompts are a replicable and generalizable approach for reducing the spread of misinformation," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-12, December.
    15. Yuan, Xiaotong & Zhang, Yu Yvette & Palma, Marco A. & Ribera, Luis A., 2018. "Understanding Consumer response to GMO Information," 2018 Annual Meeting, February 2-6, 2018, Jacksonville, Florida 266720, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    16. Longji Hu & Rongjin Liu & Wei Zhang & Tian Zhang, 2020. "The Effects of Epistemic Trust and Social Trust on Public Acceptance of Genetically Modified Food: An Empirical Study from China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(20), pages 1-20, October.
    17. Giulietti, Corrado & Vlassopoulos, Michael & Zenou, Yves, 2021. "When Reality Bites: Local Deaths and Vaccine Take-Up," GLO Discussion Paper Series 999, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    18. Robbett, Andrea & Matthews, Peter Hans, 2018. "Partisan bias and expressive voting," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 107-120.
    19. Kang, Min Jung & Park, Heejun, 2011. "Impact of experience on government policy toward acceptance of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3465-3475, June.
    20. Karavolias, Joanna & House, Lisa A., "undated". "Impact of Producer and Use of Biotechnology on Consumer Willingness to Pay: Discounts Required for Oranges Produced with Biotechnology," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 259981, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    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:sae:sagope:v:14:y:2024:i:3:p:21582440241275654. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.