TY - JOUR
T1 - Psychological reactance, misinformation, and distrust
T2 - A mixed methods analysis of COVID-19 vaccine uptake
AU - Huang, Lily
AU - Huschka, Todd R.
AU - Barwise, Amelia K.
AU - Allen, Jay Sheree P.
AU - Wolfersteig, Wendy
AU - Hamm, Kathryn
AU - Cardenas, Lilliana D.
AU - Phelan, Sean M.
AU - Allyse, Megan A.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Association for Clinical and Translational Science.
PY - 2024/1/30
Y1 - 2024/1/30
N2 - Background: Assessing perceptions of the COVID-19 vaccines is essential for understanding vaccine hesitancy and for improving uptake during public health emergencies. In the complicated landscape of COVID-19 vaccine mandates and rampant misinformation, many individuals faced challenges during vaccination decision-making. The purpose of our mixed methods study is to elucidate factors affecting vaccine decision-making and to highlight the discourse surrounding the COVID-19 vaccines in diverse and underserved communities. Methods: This mixed methods study was conducted in Arizona, Florida, Minnesota, and Wisconsin between March and November 2021, combining a cross-sectional survey (n = 3593) and focus groups (n = 47). Results: The groups least likely to report receiving a vaccination were non-Hispanic Whites, Indigenous people, males, and those with moderate socioeconomic status (SES). Those indicating high and low SES reported similar vaccination uptake. Focus group data highlighted resistance to mandates, distrust, misinformation, and concerns about the rapid development surrounding the COVID-19 vaccines. Psychological reactance theory posits that strongly persuasive messaging and social pressure can be perceived as a threat to freedom, encouraging an individual to take action to restore that freedom. Conclusion: Our findings indicate that a subsection of participants felt pressured to get the vaccine, which led to weaker intentions to vaccinate. These results suggest that vaccine rollout strategies should be reevaluated to improve and facilitate informed decision-making.
AB - Background: Assessing perceptions of the COVID-19 vaccines is essential for understanding vaccine hesitancy and for improving uptake during public health emergencies. In the complicated landscape of COVID-19 vaccine mandates and rampant misinformation, many individuals faced challenges during vaccination decision-making. The purpose of our mixed methods study is to elucidate factors affecting vaccine decision-making and to highlight the discourse surrounding the COVID-19 vaccines in diverse and underserved communities. Methods: This mixed methods study was conducted in Arizona, Florida, Minnesota, and Wisconsin between March and November 2021, combining a cross-sectional survey (n = 3593) and focus groups (n = 47). Results: The groups least likely to report receiving a vaccination were non-Hispanic Whites, Indigenous people, males, and those with moderate socioeconomic status (SES). Those indicating high and low SES reported similar vaccination uptake. Focus group data highlighted resistance to mandates, distrust, misinformation, and concerns about the rapid development surrounding the COVID-19 vaccines. Psychological reactance theory posits that strongly persuasive messaging and social pressure can be perceived as a threat to freedom, encouraging an individual to take action to restore that freedom. Conclusion: Our findings indicate that a subsection of participants felt pressured to get the vaccine, which led to weaker intentions to vaccinate. These results suggest that vaccine rollout strategies should be reevaluated to improve and facilitate informed decision-making.
KW - COVID-19
KW - mixed methods
KW - psychological resistance
KW - social determinants of health
KW - vaccination
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85188319634&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85188319634&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1017/cts.2024.15
DO - 10.1017/cts.2024.15
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85188319634
SN - 2059-8661
VL - 8
JO - Journal of Clinical and Translational Science
JF - Journal of Clinical and Translational Science
IS - 1
M1 - e48
ER -