Stories Versus Facts On Pro-Vaccination Websites: An Analysis of Interviews With Vaccine-Refuser Mothers

Theoretical Background and research questions/hypothesis:  The Internet has messages from both pro- and anti-vaccine advocates, and mothers may be left confused as to which side has the right answer. The anti-vaccine side often uses stories to convince people not to get vaccinated by profiling children who are presented as sickened by a vaccine. Conversely, government communications on vaccination tend to use fact-based messages to persuade their audiences. Storytelling can be an effective persuasion technique to reach parents that are making health care decisions for their children. Though government communicators primarily use facts in their communications efforts, this technique may not be enough to dissuade the public from more powerful rhetoric. How extensively are mothers using pro-vaccination messages from the Internet? Why do mothers say that pro-vaccination messages are persuasive (or not)? What anti-vaccination messages are mothers getting from anti-vaccination sources?

Methods:  This study interviews vaccine-refuser mothers to determine their thoughts and feelings about the persuasiveness of facts and stories in online pro-vaccination messages. In-depth interviews were conducted with vaccine-refuser mothers. They were shown multiple online vaccine campaigns, from both pro- and anti-vaccine advocates. Mothers of children between the ages of 2 and 6 were recruited, based on the more intense schedule of vaccines that children are recommended to receive at these ages.

Results:  Participants thought that pro-vaccination story-based messages left out important information and that the information in story- and fact-based websites was inaccurate or underwhelming; for example, diseases mentioned in the messages that can be vaccinated against, such measles, are not very serious and can even build up the immune system. Other participants felt the messages were patronizing, top-down messages from the government. Participants said they needed information from both sides to persuade them to act.

Conclusions:  This study found that mothers sought information about vaccination from a broad range of websites, and they did not automatically accept it wholesale; instead, they assessed the information, decided whether they could trust its source, and then determined how much of it to use. They felt so strongly about the dangers of vaccination that they were not persuaded or receptive to either message form. However, when researching whether to vaccinate their children, most of the participants said they read stories in which children were sickened or even died after receiving a vaccine. Additionally, the mothers did not seek out pro-vaccination sources of information, so they self-selected the anti-vaccination messages they receive online. When presented with a story-based pro-vaccination message, participants said that the stories left out important information, and that they would need information from both sides to act.

Implications for research and/or practice:  Mothers who do not vaccinate often feel very opposed to vaccination, and are not open to the possibility of vaccinating their children in the future.  Thus, it may be more difficult than previously considered to persuade vaccine-refuser mothers to vaccinate their children. A more feasible objective may be to encourage such mothers to question their current beliefs. To do so, it is important to research what sites these mothers look at, and to acknowledge and counter any misinformation from anti-vaccination web sites.