Even if a small portion of the population refuses vaccination due to anti-vaccination conspiracy theories or misinformation, this poses a threat to public health. We argue that addressing conspiracy theories with only corrective information is not enough. Instead, considering that they are complex narratives embedded in personal and cultural worldviews, they should be encountered with counternarratives. To identify existing narrative interventions aimed at countering anti-vaccination conspiracy theories and, more generally, map prerequisites for a narrative intervention to be successful, we present a systematic review of experimental effects of exposure to pro-vaccine narratives on a range of vaccination outcomes, based on 17 studies and 97 comparisons. We did not find any narrative interventions aimed directly at conspiracy theories. However, the review allowed us to make evidence-based recommendations for future research and for public communicators. This might help pro-vaccine communication match anti-vaccine communication in its potential to spread and go viral.
BakkerACaiJEnglishLKaiserGMesaVVan DoorenW (2019) Beyond small, medium, or large: Points of consideration when interpreting effect sizes. Educational Studies in Mathematics102(1): 1–8.
4.
BetschCSachseK (2013) Debunking vaccination myths: Strong risk negations can increase perceived vaccination risks. Health Psychology32(2): 146–155.
5.
BetschCHaaseNRenkewitzFSchmidP (2015) The narrative bias revisited: What drives the biasing influence of narrative information on risk perceptions?Judgment and Decision Making10(3): 241–264. Available at: http://journal.sjdm.org/14/141206a/jdm141206a.pdf
6.
BetschCUlshöferCRenkewitzFBetschT (2011) The influence of narrative v. statistical information on perceiving vaccination risks. Medical Decision Making31(5): 742–753.
7.
BiddlestoneMCichockaAŽeželjIBilewiczM (2020) Conspiracy theories and intergroup relations. In: ButterMKnightP (eds) Routledge Handbook of Conspiracy Theories. Routledge, pp. 219–230. DOI: 10.4324/9780429452734-2_6.
8.
BlackmoreS (2000) The Meme Machine. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
9.
BraddockKDillardJP (2016) Meta-analytic evidence for the persuasive effect of narratives on beliefs, attitudes, intentions, and behaviors. Communication Monographs83(4): 446–467.
10.
BrankovićMŽeželjI (2016) Does it take a good argument to be persuaded? How manipulating quality of evidence affects message persuasiveness. Psihologija49(1): 1–18.
11.
BrothertonRFrenchCCPickeringAD (2013) Measuring belief in conspiracy theories: The generic conspiracist beliefs scale. Frontiers in Psychology4: 279.
12.
BurgessDCBurgessMALeaskJ (2006) The MMR vaccination and autism controversy in United Kingdom 1998-2005: Inevitable community outrage or a failure of risk communication?Vaccine24(18): 3921–3928.
13.
CohenGLAronsonJSteeleCM (2000) When beliefs yield to evidence: Reducing biased evaluation by affirming the self. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin26(9): 1151–1164.
14.
CohenJ (1988) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edn.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
15.
CookJLewandowskyS (2011) The Debunking Handbook. St. Lucia, QLD, Australia: University of Queensland. Available at: http://sks.to/debunk
16.
CookJLewandowskySEckerUKH (2017) Neutralizing misinformation through inoculation: Exposing misleading argumentation techniques reduces their influence. PLoS ONE12(5): e0175799.
17.
CraciunCBabanA (2012) “Who will take the blame?” Understanding the reasons why Romanian mothers decline HPV vaccination for their daughters. Vaccine30(48): 6789–6793.
18.
CummingGCalin-JagemanR (2017) Introduction to the New Statistics. New York, NY: Routledge.
19.
DahlstromMFHoSS (2012) Ethical considerations of using narrative to communicate science. Science Communication34(5): 592–617.
20.
DawkinsR (1976) The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
21.
De BruinWWallinAParkerAMStroughJHanmerJ (2017) Effects of anti- versus pro-vaccine narratives on responses by recipients varying in numeracy: A cross-sectional survey-based experiment. Medical Decision Making37(8): 860–870.
22.
De GraafASandersJHoekenH (2016) Characteristics of narrative interventions and health effects: A review of the content, form, and context of narratives in health-related narrative persuasion research. Review of Communication Research4: 81–131.
23.
De WitJBFDasEVetR (2008) What works best: Objective statistics or a personal testimonial? An assessment of the persuasive effects of different types of message evidence on risk perception. Health Psychology27(1): 110–115.
24.
DeanJ (2002) If anything is possible. In: KnightP (ed.) Conspiracy Nation: The Politics of Paranoia in Postwar America. New York, NY: New York University Press, pp. 85–106.
25.
DouglasKMSuttonRM (2011) Does it take one to know one? Endorsement of conspiracy theories is influenced by personal willingness to conspire. British Journal of Social Psychology50(3): 544–552.
26.
DouglasKMUscinskiJESuttonRMCichockaANefesTAngCS, et al. (2019) Understanding conspiracy theories. Political Psychology40(Suppl. 1): 3–35.
27.
DunlopSMKashimaYWakefieldM (2010) Predictors and consequences of conversations about health promoting media messages. Communication Monographs77(4): 518–539.
28.
EckerUKHButlerLHHambyA (2020) You don’t have to tell a story! A registered report testing the effectiveness of narrative versus non-narrative misinformation corrections. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications5(1): 64.
FrewPMKrissJLChamberlainATMalikFChungYCortésM, et al. (2016) A randomized trial of maternal influenza immunization decision-making: A test of persuasive messaging models. Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics12(8): 1989–1996.
32.
FuLYBonhommeLACooperSCJosephJGZimetGD (2014) Educational interventions to increase HPV vaccination acceptance: A systematic review. Vaccine32(17): 1901–1920.
33.
GoertzelT (2010) Conspiracy theories in science. EMBO Reports11: 493–499.
34.
GraesserACOttatiV (1995) Why stories? Some evidence, questions, and challenges. In: WyerRS (ed.) Knowledge and Memory: The Real Story. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 121–132.
35.
GreenMCBrockTC (2000) The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology79(5): 701–721.
36.
HellerJ (2008) The Vaccine Narrative. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
37.
HoekenHHustinxL (2009) When is statistical evidence superior to anecdotal evidence in supporting probability claims? The role of argument type. Human Communication Research35(4): 491–510.
38.
HopferS (2012) Effects of a narrative HPV vaccination intervention aimed at reaching college women: A randomized controlled trial. Prevention Science13(2): 173–182.
39.
HorneZPowellDHummelJEHolyoakKJ (2015) Countering antivaccination attitudes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America112(33): 10321–10324.
40.
JabRef Development Team (2020) JabRef: An open-source, cross-platform citation and reference management software. Available at: https://www.jabref.org
41.
JohnsonDKMelloEJWalkerTDHoodSJJensenJLPooleBD (2019) Combating vaccine hesitancy with vaccine-preventable disease familiarization: An interview and curriculum intervention for college students. Vaccines7(2): 39.
42.
JolleyDDouglasKM (2014) The effects of anti-vaccine conspiracy theories on vaccination intentions. PLoS ONE9(2): e89177.
43.
JolleyDDouglasKM (2017) Prevention is better than cure: Addressing anti-vaccine conspiracy theories. Journal of Applied Social Psychology47(8): 459–469.
44.
KahanD (2010) Fixing the communications failure. Nature463: 296–297.
45.
KahanDMBramanDCohenGLGastilJSlovicP (2010) Who fears the HPV vaccine, who doesn’t, and why? An experimental study of the mechanisms of cultural cognition. Law and Human Behavior34(6): 501–516.
46.
KahanDMBramanDGastilJSlovicPMertzCK (2007) Culture and identity-protective cognition: Explaining the white-male effect in risk perception. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies4(3): 465–505.
47.
KahanDMBramanDSlovicPGastilJCohenG (2009) Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nature Nanotechnology4(2): 87–90.
48.
KepkaDCoronadoGDRodriguezHPThompsonB (2011) Evaluation of a radionovela to promote HPV vaccine awareness and knowledge among Hispanic parents. Journal of Community Health36(6): 957–965.
49.
KimJNanX (2016) Temporal framing effects differ for narrative versus non-narrative messages: The case of promoting HPV vaccination. Communication Research46(Suppl. 3S): 401–417.
LantianAMullerDNurraCDouglasKM (2016) Measuring belief in conspiracy theories: Validation of a French and English single-item scale. International Review of Social Psychology29(1): 1–14.
53.
LeeHKimMCooleyMEKiangPKimDTangS, et al. (2018) Using narrative intervention for HPV vaccine behavior change among Khmer mothers and daughters: A pilot RCT to examine feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary effectiveness. Applied Nursing Research40: 51–60.
54.
LeeHYKoopmeinersJSMcHughJRaveisVHAhluwaliaJS (2016) mHealth pilot study: Text messaging intervention to promote HPV vaccination. American Journal of Health Behavior40(1): 67–76.
55.
LewandowskySEckerUKHSeifertCMSchwarzNCookJ (2012) Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest13(3): 106–131.
56.
LewandowskySGignacGEOberauerK (2013a) The role of conspiracist ideation and worldviews in predicting rejection of science. PLoS ONE8(10): e75637.
57.
LewandowskySOberauerKGignacGE (2013b) NASA faked the Moon landing-therefore, (climate) science is a hoax: An anatomy of the motivated rejection of science. Psychological Science24(5): 622–633.
58.
LiuSYangJZChuH (2019) Now or future? Analyzing the effects of message frame and format in motivating Chinese females to get HPV vaccines for their children. Patient Education and Counseling102(1): 61–67.
59.
LordCGRossLLepperMR (1979) Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology37(11): 2098–2109.
60.
LukićPŽeželjIStankovićB (2019) How (ir)rational is it to believe in contradictory conspiracy theories?Europe’s Journal of Psychology15(1): 94–107.
61.
McGuireWJPapageorgisD (1961) The relative efficacy of various types of prior belief-defense in producing immunity against persuasion. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology62(2): 327–337.
62.
MoherDLiberatiATetzlaffJAltmanDGand the PRISMA Group (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal Medicine151(4): 264–269.
63.
Moyer-GuséE (2008) Toward a theory of entertainment persuasion: Explaining the persuasive effects of entertainment-education messages. Communication Theory18(3): 407–425.
64.
MurphySTFrankLBChatterjeeJSBaezconde-GarbanatiL (2013) Narrative versus nonnarrative: The role of identification, transportation, and emotion in reducing health disparities. Journal of Communication63(1): 116–137.
65.
NanXDahlstromMFRichardsARangarajanS (2015) Influence of evidence type and narrative type on HPV risk perception and intention to obtain the HPV vaccine. Health Communication30(3): 301–308.
66.
NanXFuterfasMMaZ (2016) Role of narrative perspective and modality in the persuasiveness of public service advertisements promoting HPV vaccination. Health Communication32(3): 320–328.
67.
NyhanBReiflerJ (2015) Does correcting myths about the flu vaccine work? An experimental evaluation of the effects of corrective information. Vaccine33(3): 459–464.
68.
NyhanBReiflerJRicheySFreedGL (2014) Effective messages in vaccine promotion: A randomized trial. Pediatrics133(4): e835–e842.
69.
OkuharaTIshikawaHOkadaMKatoMKiuchiT (2018) Persuasiveness of statistics and patients’ and mothers’ narratives in human papillomavirus vaccine recommendation messages: A randomized controlled study in Japan. Frontiers in Public Health6: 105.
70.
OliverJEWoodTJ (2014a) Conspiracy theories and the paranoid style(s) of mass opinion. American Journal of Political Science58(4): 952–966.
71.
OliverJEWoodT (2014b) Medical conspiracy theories and health behaviors in the United States. JAMA Internal Medicine174: 817–818.
72.
OschatzCMarkerC (2020) Long-term persuasive effects in narrative communication research: A meta-analysis. Journal of Communication70(4): 473–496.
73.
PratiGPietrantoniLZaniB (2012) Influenza vaccination: The persuasiveness of messages among people aged 65 years and older. Health Communication27(5): 413–420.
74.
R Core Team (2020) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at: https://www.R-project.org/
75.
RaabMHOrtliebSAAuerNGuthmannKCarbonC-C (2013) Thirty shades of truth: Conspiracy theories as stories of individuation, not of pathological delusion. Frontiers in Psychology4: 406.
76.
RatcliffCLSunY (2020) Overcoming resistance through narratives: Findings from a meta-analytic review. Human Communication Research46: 412–443.
SapountzisACondorS (2013) Conspiracy accounts as intergroup theories: Challenging dominant understandings of social power and political legitimacy. Political Psychology34(5): 731–752.
79.
SchmidPBetschC (2019) Effective strategies for rebutting science denialism in public discussions. Nature Human Behaviour3(9): 931–939.
80.
ShenFSheerVCLiR (2015) Impact of narratives on persuasion in health communication: A meta-analysis. Journal of Advertising44(2): 105–113.
81.
SignorellAAhoKAlfonsAAndereggNAragonTArachchigeC, et al. (2020) DescTools: Tools for Descriptive Statistics. R package version 0.99.38. Available at: https://cran.r-project.org/package=DescTools
SolnickREChaoGRossRDKraft-ToddGTKocherKE (2020) Emergency physicians and personal narratives improve the perceived effectiveness of COVID-19 public health recommendations on social media: A randomized experiment. Academic Emergency Medicine28(2): 172–183.
84.
StojanovA (2015) Reducing conspiracy theory beliefs. Psihologija48(3): 251–266.
85.
SunsteinCRVermeuleA (2009) Conspiracy theories: Causes and cures. Journal of Political Philosophy17(2): 202–227.
86.
SwamiVBarronDWeisLVoracekMStiegerSFurnhamA (2017) An examination of the factorial and convergent validity of four measures of conspiracist ideation, with recommendations for researchers. PLoS ONE12(2): e0172617.
87.
Swire-ThompsonBDeGutisJLazerD (2020) Searching for the backfire effect: Measurement and design considerations. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition9(3): 286–299.
88.
TeovanovićPLukićPZupanZLazićANinkovićMŽeželjI (2020) Irrational beliefs differentially predict adherence to guidelines and pseudoscientific practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Applied Cognitive Psychology35(2): 486–496.
ViechtbauerW (2010) Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software36(3): 1–48. Available at: https://www.jstatsoft.org/v36/i03/
91.
WalterNBrooksJJSaucierCJSureshS (2020) Evaluating the impact of attempts to correct health misinformation on social media: A meta-analysis. Health Communication. Epub ahead of print 6 August 2020. DOI: 10.1080/10410236.2020.1794553.
92.
WalterNMurphySTFrankLBBaezconde-GarbanatiL (2017) Who cares what others think? The role of Latinas’ acculturation in the processing of HPV vaccination narrative messages. International Journal of Communication11: 4946–4964. Available at: https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/6395
93.
WangYMcKeeMTorbicaAStucklerD (2019) Systematic literature review on the spread of health-related misinformation on social media. Social Science and Medicine240: 1125522.
94.
WilsonKMillsEJNormanGTomlinsonG (2005) Changing attitudes towards polio vaccination: A randomized trial of an evidence-based presentation versus a presentation from a polio survivor. Vaccine23(23): 3010–3015.
95.
WinterbottomABekkerHLConnerMMooneyA (2008) Does narrative information bias individual’s decision making? A systematic review. Social Science and Medicine67(12): 2079–2088.
World Health Organization (2018a) 2018 assessment report of the Global Vaccine Action Plan: Strategic advisory group of experts on immunization. Available at: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/276967
WoodMJ (2016) Conspiracy suspicions as a proxy for beliefs in conspiracy theories: Implications for theory and measurement. British Journal of Psychology108(3): 507–527.
101.
WoodMJ (2018) Propagating and debunking conspiracy theories on Twitter during the 2015–2016 Zika virus outbreak. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking21(8): 485–490.
102.
WoodMJDouglasKM (2013) “What about building 7?” A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories. Frontiers in Psychology4: 409.
103.
WoodMJDouglasKMSuttonRM (2012) Dead and alive: Beliefs in contradictory conspiracy theories. Social Psychological and Personality Science3(6): 767–773.
104.
XuZ (2019) Personal stories matter: Topic evolution and popularity among pro- and anti-vaccine online articles. Journal of Computational Social Science2(2): 207–220.
105.
ZebregsSVan den PutteBNeijensPDe GraafA (2015) The differential impact of statistical and narrative evidence on beliefs, attitude, and intention: A meta-analysis. Health Communication30(3): 282–289.
106.
ŽeželjIJovićSMihajlovićBSavićSTadićMVučetićA (2006) Eksperimentalna provera efikasnosti strategija izgradnje otpornosti na ubeđivanje u zavisnosti od kanala prijema poruke [Experimental testing of inoculation strategies’ efficacy through different message channels]. Psihologija39(2): 147–167. Available at: https://scindeks-clanci.ceon.rs/data/pdf/0048-5705/2006/0048-57050602147Z.pdf
