IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2301.03303.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

How effective are covid-19 vaccine health messages in reducing vaccine skepticism? Heterogeneity in messages effectiveness by just world beliefs

Author

Listed:
  • Juliane Wiese
  • Nattavudh Powdthavee

Abstract

To end the COVID-19 pandemic, policymakers have relied on various public health messages to boost vaccine take-up rates amongst people across wide political spectra, backgrounds, and worldviews. However, much less is understood about whether these messages affect different people in the same way. One source of heterogeneity is the belief in a just world (BJW), which is the belief that in general, good things happen to good people, and bad things happen to bad people. This study investigates the effectiveness of two common messages of the COVID-19 pandemic: vaccinate to protect yourself and vaccinate to protect others in your community. We then examine whether BJW moderates the effectiveness of these messages. We hypothesize that just-world believers react negatively to the prosocial pro-vaccine message, as it charges individuals with the responsibility to care for others around them. Using an unvaccinated sample of UK residents before vaccines were made widely available (N=526), we demonstrate that the individual-focused message significantly reduces overall vaccine skepticism, and that this effect is more robust for individuals with a low BJW, whereas the community-focused message does not. Our findings highlight the importance of individual differences in the reception of public health messages to reduce COVID-19 vaccine skepticism.

Suggested Citation

  • Juliane Wiese & Nattavudh Powdthavee, 2023. "How effective are covid-19 vaccine health messages in reducing vaccine skepticism? Heterogeneity in messages effectiveness by just world beliefs," Papers 2301.03303, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2301.03303
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2301.03303
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cornelia Betsch & Robert Böhm & Lars Korn & Cindy Holtmann, 2017. "On the benefits of explaining herd immunity in vaccine advocacy," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 1(3), pages 1-6, March.
    2. Cornelia Betsch & Robert Böhm, 2018. "Moral values do not affect prosocial vaccination," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 2(12), pages 881-882, December.
    3. Daniel Zizzo, 2010. "Experimenter demand effects in economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 13(1), pages 75-98, March.
    4. Feng Jiang & Xiaodong Yue & Su Lu & Guangtao Yu & Fei Zhu, 2016. "How Belief in a Just World Benefits Mental Health: The Effects of Optimism and Gratitude," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 126(1), pages 411-423, March.
    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. Reddinger, J. Lucas & Charness, Gary & Levine, David, 2022. "Prosocial motivation for vaccination," SocArXiv emj6v, Center for Open Science.
    2. Andersson, Ola & Campos-Mercade, Pol & Meier, Armando N. & Wengström, Erik, 2021. "Anticipation of COVID-19 vaccines reduces willingness to socially distance," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    3. Per A. Andersson & Gustav Tinghög & Daniel Västfjäll, 2022. "The effect of herd immunity thresholds on willingness to vaccinate," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-7, December.
    4. 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).
    5. Tasoff, Joshua & Letzler, Robert, 2014. "Everyone believes in redemption: Nudges and overoptimism in costly task completion," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 107(PA), pages 107-122.
    6. Yamada, Katsunori & Sato, Masayuki, 2013. "Another avenue for anatomy of income comparisons: Evidence from hypothetical choice experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 35-57.
    7. Gary Bolton & Eugen Dimant & Ulrich Schmidt, 2018. "When a Nudge Backfires. Using Observation with Social and Economic Incentives to Promote Pro-Social Behavior," PPE Working Papers 0017, Philosophy, Politics and Economics, University of Pennsylvania.
    8. Maja Adena & Julian Harke, 2022. "COVID-19 and pro-sociality: How do donors respond to local pandemic severity, increased salience, and media coverage?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(3), pages 824-844, June.
    9. Linardi, Sera & McConnell, Margaret A., 2011. "No excuses for good behavior: Volunteering and the social environment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(5), pages 445-454.
    10. Kessel, Dany & Mollerstrom, Johanna & van Veldhuizen, Roel, 2021. "Can simple advice eliminate the gender gap in willingness to compete?," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 138, pages 1-1.
    11. Andrea F.M. Martinangeli & Lisa Windsteiger, 2019. "Immigration vs. Poverty: Causal Impact on Demand for Redistribution in a Survey Experiment," Working Papers tax-mpg-rps-2019-13, Max Planck Institute for Tax Law and Public Finance.
    12. Nadine Chlaß & Peter G. Moffatt, 2017. "Giving in Dictator Games - Experimenter Demand Effect or Preference over the Rules of the Game?," Jena Economics Research Papers 2012-044, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    13. Aycinena, Diego & Bogliacino, Francesco & Kimbrough, Erik O., 2024. "Measuring norms: Assessing the threat of social desirability bias to the Bicchieri and Xiao elicitation method," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 222(C), pages 225-239.
    14. Romain Espinosa & Thibaut Arpinon & Paco Maginot & Sébastien Demange & Florimond Peureux, 2024. "Removing barriers to plant-based diets: assisting doctors with vegan patients," Post-Print hal-04479493, HAL.
    15. Anabel Belaus & Cecilia Reyna & Esteban Freidin, 2018. "Testing the effect of cooperative/competitive priming on the Prisoner’s Dilemma. A replication study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-15, December.
    16. Morten Størling Hedegaard & Jean-Robert Tyran, 2018. "The Price of Prejudice," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 10(1), pages 40-63, January.
    17. Barrera, Oscar & Guriev, Sergei & Henry, Emeric & Zhuravskaya, Ekaterina, 2020. "Facts, alternative facts, and fact checking in times of post-truth politics," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    18. Ingar Haaland & Christopher Roth & Johannes Wohlfart, 2023. "Designing Information Provision Experiments," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 61(1), pages 3-40, March.
    19. Aksoy, Billur & Chadd, Ian & Koh, Boon Han, 2023. "Sexual identity, gender, and anticipated discrimination in prosocial behavior," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    20. Simon Gächter & Lingbo Huang & Martin Sefton, 2016. "Combining “real effort” with induced effort costs: the ball-catching task," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 19(4), pages 687-712, December.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:arx:papers:2301.03303. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.