Treating vaccine scepticism
2020 has been exceptional. Over the past year, the COVID-19 virus has infected over 60 million people and officially killed around 1.5 million people across the globe. The first vaccines have been approved, yet you might know people who are not eager to give them a shot. If you want to have healthier discussions over and after the holiday season, check out this post explaining how to challenge views without heated clashes.
Identifying the motives
Last year, the WHO flagged vaccine hesitancy as one of the top ten threats to global health. This year, 7 out of 10 people would be open to getting a COVID-19 vaccine. Why do some oppose vital treatment?
The list of concerns is long. Bernice L. Hausman lists 20 different reasons for resistance in her book “AntiVax: Reframing the Vaccination Controversy”. Amongst the top 5 are health concerns (such as side effects or preference for “natural” remedies), negative experiences (like behaviour of medical staff, reactions from friends), self-reliance (incl. your freedom as well as the one of children), distrust of mainstream (incl. government and pharmaceutical companies) and religious beliefs. When you face someone opposing vaccines, do not roll your eyes but prick up your ears.
We must not lump sceptics and anti-vaxxers together. Some prefer to wait until the first vaccinations have been distributed. The pandemic has certainly put a lot of pressure on governments and pharmaceutical companies to find a solution quickly. Others are sceptical about vaccines in general because of the reasons mentioned above. The fundamentalists are those who do not delay but deny. We have unfortunately seen made-up theories spread either rejecting the existence of COVID-19 or blaming China, 5G and other culprits. The Centre for Countering Digital Hate also lambasts big tech for having fuelled an anti-vaxx ecosystem, which is worth up to $1 billion per year. Unfortunately, flashing such facts will not change many minds.
Being blunt can boomerang. Two common mistakes are to react immediately with an emotional dismissal or a rational rebuttal. Research recommends a counterintuitive approach instead. People want to be heard and refutation can intensify resistance. Instead of engaging in a verbal game of whack-a-mole, you have better chances if you let the other person explain first. An insightful technique, also used for alcoholics, is Arnaud Gagneur’s motivational interview.
Finding the right frame
Communication pitfalls still await you once you know the reasons for resistance. Trying to circumvent these by remaining silent is as good as trying to ignore a racist uncle’s rants at a family feast. How can you challenge views without adding fuel to the fire?
The answer is framing. Marketeers know that a message is more effective if you appeal to a person’s values and point to an immediate benefit. Building on the responses to the motivational interview, you can dive deeper with the Carnegie Mellon University’s three-step guide. Although it was designed for introspection, you can also use it to get to know other people.
Values guide our decisions. Reframing is the technique that helps you get through by looking at issues from a different perspective. For example, if you believe you are speaking to a liberal, ask them to diversify their news sources or about the impact of vaccines on kick starting the economy. Sceptics who love their family or work with children might not disagree that getting vaccinated saves lives. God-loving folk might not listen to you but the Pope, who said that the vaccine must be for everyone. When you want to have a constructive conversation, just challenge views by asking questions with the right frame.
Highlighting big benefits
When officials get asked about the side effects of vaccines, the answer often sounds similar to this:
““COVID-19 vaccines had to undergo multi-stage testing. Public authorities’ scientists checked the data against quality, safety and efficacy. There is no risk-free all-cure but we are confident.” ”
In the case of measles vaccination, you can also find some numbers: “It can cause local pain or redness in over 10% of cases, fever 5-10% and serious allergic reactions in 3.5 out of 10,000,000 cases.” Statistics hold a lot of value but remember that their persuasive power is limited.
Human beings are risk-averse and do not think rationally. A study from the Texas Tech University even suggests that vaccine sceptics generally “overestimate the likelihood of all kinds of negative events”. Debating probabilities will hence not help you in a lot of conversations. Start from a point of agreement by acknowledging the risks and move on.
The focus should not lie on the vaccine’s minimal perils but its big benefits. This does not mean that you have to become a salesperson for pharmaceuticals. Let sceptics discover what happens on the ground, outside the echo chambers online. In a 2019 experiment conducted by the Brigham Young University in Utah, students interviewed symptomatic patients with preventable diseases. Almost 70 per cent leaned more pro-vaccine afterwards even though they had not received any other information. Real stories achieve real results.
Samy Awwad shows how to scale it. The teenager launched ImmuniGlobal prior to the current pandemic. His non-profit organisation aims to “equip today's youth with the resources and knowledge needed for a disease-free transition into a healthy, long-lived adulthood”. The team educates children and parents in workshops and on their website. When asked by Healthline how he would explain to people why they should get vaccinated, he advised appealing to altruism. Getting vaccinated is about reducing the risk for others catching the virus.
Three tips to treat vaccine scepticism
Identify the reasons for resistance through a motivational interview.
Challenge views through reframing.
Highlight the benefits with stories from workers and patients.
- written by Benjamin Wilhelm, benjamin[at]thedandeliongroup.eu
Learn the techniques. Boost your confidence. Make your point.
Click here to unleash potentials.