How to change an opinion

People choosing not to vaccinate their children is dangerous for the community. Which is why researchers, decided to test four different pro-vaccination messages on a group of parents to see which was most likely to influence them towards vaccinating their kids.

Researchers tested four different messages on parents.

The first message, dubbed “Autism correction,” was a factual, science-heavy correction of false claims that the MMR vaccine causes autism, assuring parents that the vaccine is “safe and effective” and citing multiple studies that disprove claims of an autism link.

The second message, dubbed “Disease risks,” simply listed the many risks of contracting the measles, the mumps, or rubella, describing the nasty complications that can come with these diseases.

The third message, dubbed “Disease narrative,” told a “true story” about a 10-month-old whose temperature shot up to a terrifying 106 degrees after he contracted measles from another child in a pediatrician’s waiting room.

The fourth message was to show parents pictures of children afflicted with the diseases they could get without vaccination.

Both the pictures and the horrible story about measles increased parental fears about vaccinations. Essentially the opposite to the desired result. The less emotive “Disease risks” message didn’t change parents’ minds either way,

While “Autism correction” actually worked to reduce belief in the falsehood that vaccines cause autism, at the same time, the message decreased the percentage of parents who indicated they would vaccinate.

In other words, after learning that they were wrong to believe that vaccines were dangerous, vaccine-hostile parents became even less likely to vaccinate. Rather than re-assess their position based on the new information, they tended to become more stubborn about not vaccinating their kids.

This study has implications for any of us trying to change behaviour and design effective communications strategy. Not only testing the messages that we use are achieving the aims we desire, but also challenging the common strategy that countering misinformation is the most effective strategy.

Communicating in a modern world

It’s never been easier to surround yourself with people who agree with you. To rally and take a ‘side’ in a particular discussion, often involves personal connections and social media camaraderie. To then change that position based on new information, can therefore also risk exclusion and ostracision.

At the very least, defensiveness is a strong emotion that this study shows is difficult to overcome by hitting it head-on…

• I have been at animal welfare seminars where speakers have announced, “I have been an advocate for mandatory desexing for twenty years” – while pounds fill around them, thanks to these badly designed laws driving pets into shelters. No statistic, or case study is likely to change their position because it’s no longer about facts. It’s become a matter of pride.
• Animal welfare love a good, graphic and shaming promotion, in the quest for behavioural change around desexing and breeding of pets. This study suggests that rather than drive people to do as we desire, maybe we are pushing people to become more stubborn and reject our messages entirely.
• When designing promotions to increase pet adoptions, we often see people chastised for choosing an alternative source of pets, like breeders or purebred groups. We’d do well to remember that rather than influence these people, we may be ensuring they are never open to choosing rescue, as we force them into feeling the need to defend their decision.

But all is not lost.

An earlier study on the same topic of increasing vaccination rates amongst parents, showed some success when the message was framed as an active, positive action;

“I wouldn’t put my child into a car without a safety belt or a car seat. I won’t put my child at risk by leaving him/ her without immunizations, either. It’s my responsibility to make sure my child is protected from dangerous illnesses.”

This argument turns the act of passively failing to vaccinate one’s child into a voluntary action, and it convinces two thirds of our survey respondents. Because it frames a simple lack of action as presenting their children with a real threat akin to a car crash, parents can visualize the harm that can result from their unwillingness to act. This is an uncommon strategy, but it has proven to be an effective one.

“Desex your pets for good health and because that’s what responsible owners do”, may be simple, but it may be the strongest message we have in animal welfare today.

We also should be aware of our own personal desire to never have to be ‘wrong’, and always be willing to adjust our position when new, better information comes to light. Regardless of how many ‘friends’ we may lose in the process.