Exploring Source Reliability in Influenza Vaccine Arguments and Inferences: An Experimental Study
Abstract
Publication Date:
2024
abstract:
Background: The study examined associations of source reliability manipulations and individuals’ arguments/inferences after reading texts about the influenza vaccine (Reliable-Text1), side effects (Unreliable-Text2: condition1; Reliable-Text2: condition2), and cost-effectiveness (Reliable-Text3: condition1; Unreliable-Text3: condition2). While controlling past vaccine behaviors and attitudes, we hypothesized a positive correlation between reading Reliable-Text2 and Text2 arguments/inferences (i.e., coverage) for side effects question (Q1) and reading Reliable-Text3 and Text3 coverage for the economic aspect question (Q2), and no correlation between conditions and Reliable-Text1 coverage for Q1 and Q2.
Methods: 130 university students read Reliable-Text1 and were randomly assigned to conditions. Online questionnaires covered vaccine attitudes (unforeseen effects and commercial profits) and past behaviors (premanipulation), with two integrative questions (post-manipulation). Outcome variables included Reliable-Text1
coverage for both questions (T1_Q1Q2), Text2 coverage for Q1 (T2_Q1), and Text3 coverage for Q2 (T3_Q2). Hierarchical multiple regressions addressed hypotheses.
Findings: Participants showed average concern for the vaccine’s unforeseen effects and disagreed on commercial profits; 46% received at least one influenza vaccine dose. In T1_Q1Q2 regression (F(4,129)=2.98, p<.05; R2=9%), past behavior was the sole significant predictor (β=.24; t=2.77, p<.01). For T2_Q1, adding condition made the model significant (F(4,129)=2.82, p<.05; R2=8%), with this variable as the only predictor (β=.19; t=2.20, p<.05). For T3_Q2, despite the model’s non-significance, the only predictor was condition (β=.20; t=2.25, p<.05).
Discussion: Individuals reading texts on topics they have neutral attitudes, like side effects, may rely more on ideas from unreliable sources. In health psychology, understanding how attitudes are linked to source perceptions could help effective vaccination communication strategies
Methods: 130 university students read Reliable-Text1 and were randomly assigned to conditions. Online questionnaires covered vaccine attitudes (unforeseen effects and commercial profits) and past behaviors (premanipulation), with two integrative questions (post-manipulation). Outcome variables included Reliable-Text1
coverage for both questions (T1_Q1Q2), Text2 coverage for Q1 (T2_Q1), and Text3 coverage for Q2 (T3_Q2). Hierarchical multiple regressions addressed hypotheses.
Findings: Participants showed average concern for the vaccine’s unforeseen effects and disagreed on commercial profits; 46% received at least one influenza vaccine dose. In T1_Q1Q2 regression (F(4,129)=2.98, p<.05; R2=9%), past behavior was the sole significant predictor (β=.24; t=2.77, p<.01). For T2_Q1, adding condition made the model significant (F(4,129)=2.82, p<.05; R2=8%), with this variable as the only predictor (β=.19; t=2.20, p<.05). For T3_Q2, despite the model’s non-significance, the only predictor was condition (β=.20; t=2.25, p<.05).
Discussion: Individuals reading texts on topics they have neutral attitudes, like side effects, may rely more on ideas from unreliable sources. In health psychology, understanding how attitudes are linked to source perceptions could help effective vaccination communication strategies
Iris type:
4.2 Abstract in Atti di convegno
List of contributors:
Guidi, Elisa; Casado Ledesma, Lidia; de Diego Cuéllar, Marina; Tarchi, Christian
Book title:
Health Psychology for a Sustainable Future. BOOK OF ABSTRACTS