Source Credibility and the Biasing Effect of Narrative Information on the Perception of Vaccination Risks

Area of Science:

• Health Communication
• Risk Perception
• Vaccination Studies

Background:

• Declining immunization rates globally, partly due to anti-vaccination activism online.
• Narrative information is persuasive in health communication.
• Source credibility influences message reception and persuasion.

Purpose of the Study:

• To investigate how source credibility affects the bias introduced by narrative information on vaccination risk perception.
• To understand the interplay between statistical data, narrative content, and source credibility in shaping vaccine risk beliefs.

Main Methods:

• 265 participants received statistical data (20%) on vaccine adverse events.
• Participants were exposed to 20 personalized narratives from online forums.
• Varied factors included: frequency of adverse event narratives (35% vs. 85%), narrative source credibility (anti-vaccination vs. neutral forum), and statistical data credibility.

Main Results:

• A consistent narrative bias on risk perception was observed, unaffected by credibility cues.
• Narratives originating from an anti-vaccination website generally resulted in lower perceived vaccination risks.
• The persuasive impact of narratives on risk perception remained robust across different credibility conditions.

Conclusions:

• Narrative information exerts a strong, stable influence on vaccine risk perception, independent of source credibility.
• Anti-vaccination narratives can significantly decrease perceived vaccination risks, posing a challenge to public health efforts.
• Health communication strategies must account for the potent effect of narratives and their sources on public opinion regarding vaccines.