IMPLICATIONS OF THE NATURALIST ORIENTATION FOR VACCINE ACCEPTANCE

Purpose: Recent attempts to increase vaccine utilization have been largely unsuccessful, leading experts to wonder what could possibly increase vaccine acceptance. One often-cited reason for rejecting vaccines is that they are unnatural and contain toxins. Research has also shown that preferences for natural medicine are negatively related to vaccine acceptance. If unnaturalness is a central concern about vaccines, perhaps the only way to increase vaccine acceptance is to offer a “natural” option. The purpose of the present research was to test this possibility, and in the process, determine what factors matter to vaccine-hesitant individuals. 

Method: 585 participants completed an online survey (mean age=33, SD=12; range=18-77, 85% white). Participants were randomly assigned to consider either the MMR or flu vaccine. After learning about the standard vaccine, participants stated their intentions to use it. Next, participants were randomly assigned to one of three interventions. In one condition, participants read an article correcting misinformation about vaccines. Two other interventions presented an alternative vaccine: One alternative vaccine was described as being all-natural and contained no toxins. Another alternative vaccine was described as having virtually no side effects. After reading this new information, participants indicated their intentions to use any vaccine option on a 1-7 Likert scale. Preferences for natural medicine were assessed with an 8-item questionnaire (α=.87).

Result: Initial vaccination intentions were higher for MMR (M=6.13, SD=1.39) than for flu (M=5.16, SD=1.98). Across both vaccines, correcting misinformation about vaccines increased vaccination intentions (M_diff=0.11, SD_diff=0.02, p=0.012.  Offering a vaccine with virtually no side effects increased intentions, M_diff=0.46, SD_diff=-0.27, p<0.001. As predicted, individuals preferring natural medicine were less likely to vaccinate (r=-0.28, p<0.001), but surprisingly, offering a natural vaccine did not increase vaccine intentions (M_diff=0.08, SD_diff=-0.01, p=0.929). However, when asked which vaccine they preferred, participants higher in naturalism preferences strongly preferred the natural vaccine over the standard vaccine (r=.523, p<0.001). 

Conclusion:   Offering a natural vaccine did not increase vaccination intentions even though naturalists strongly preferred the natural vaccine over the standard vaccine. By contrast, offering a side effect-free vaccine significantly increased vaccine intentions. This suggests that the issue of toxins in vaccines may not be as central to the concerns of vaccine hesitant individuals as the known side effects.