The emergence of COVID-19 spurred the fastest development of a vaccine in history. Yet, a large proportion of Americans remain hesitant to receive it. Our paper investigates how the social networks we inhabit might explain persistent vaccine hesitancy. We argue that the COVID-19 vaccination status of respondents’ closest associates inhibits or motivates their decision to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. To test our argument, we conduct an original survey asking respondents a battery of questions about the people with whom individuals most frequently discuss vaccines and COVID-19. Our survey reports that individuals’ discussion networks are polarized by vaccination status. Concurrently, there is a strong association between the social network’s vaccination status and the respondent’s vaccination status. This association is so robust that partisanship does not moderate the association between discussants’ vaccination status and respondents’ vaccination status. Together, our results imply that unvaccinated individuals remain hesitant because they face reinforcing social pressure from their closest associates. The unique timing of our survey, during an unprecedented vaccination campaign against a novel disease, offers a snapshot of how relationships may affect attitudes.
AbramowitzA. I.SaundersK. L. (2008). Is polarization a myth?The Journal of Politics, 70(2), 542–555.
2.
AhnT. K.BarryJ. R. (2015). The overvaluing of expertise in discussion partner choice. Journal of Tropical Pediatrics, 27(3), 380–400. https://doi.org/10.1177/0951629814531672
AllcottH.BoxellL.ConwayJ.GentzkowM.ThalerM.YangD. (2020). Polarization and public health: Partisan differences in social distancing during the coronavirus pandemic. Journal of Public Economics, 191, 104254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2020.104254.
5.
Argote TironiPa.BarhamE.Zuckerman DalyS.GerezJ. E.MarshallJ.PocasangreO.PocasangreO. (2021). Messages that increase COVID-19 vaccine acceptance: Evidence from online experiments in six Latin American countries. Plos One, 16(10), Article e0259059. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0259059
6.
AronowP. M.KallaJ.OrrL.TernovskiJ. (2020). Evidence of rising rates of inattentiveness on Lucid in 2020. Preprint. SocArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/8sbe4.
7.
BartelsL. M. (2002). Beyond the running tally: Partisan bias in political perceptions. Political Behavior, 24(2), 117–150. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021226224601
8.
BerelsonB. R.LazarsfeldP. F.McPheeW. N. (1954a). Voting: A study of opinion formation in a presidential campaign. University of Chicago Press.
9.
BerelsonB.PaulL.McpheeW. (1954b). Democratic practice and democratic theory. In BachrachP. (Ed), Political elites in a democracy (pp. 27–48). Routledge.
10.
BicchieriC. (2016). Norms in the wild: How to diagnose, measure, and change social norms. Oxford University Press.
11.
BicchieriC.DimantE.GächterS.NosenzoD. (2022). Social proximity and the erosion of norm compliance. Games and Economic Behavior, 132, 59–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geb.2021.11.012.
12.
ButtersR.HareC. (2020). Polarized networks? New evidence on American voters’ political discussion networks. Political Behavior, 44(3), 1079–1103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-020-09647-w
13.
CampbellA.University of Michigan Survey Research CenterConverseP. E.MillerW. E.StokesD. E. (1960). The American voter. University of Chicago Press.
14.
CentolaD. (2011). An experimental study of homophily in the adoption of health behavior. Science, 334(6060), 1269–1272. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1207055
15.
ChristakisN. A.FowlerJ. H. (2007). The spread of obesity in a large social network over 32 years. New England Journal of Medicine, 357(4), 370–379. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa066082
16.
ChristakisN. A.FowlerJ. H. (2008). The collective dynamics of smoking in a large social network. New England Journal of Medicine, 358(21), 2249–2258. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa0706154
17.
ChristensenP. N.RothgerberH.WoodW.MatzD. C. (2004). Social norms and identity relevance: A motivational approach to normative behavior. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(10), 1295–1309. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204264480
18.
CialdiniR. B. (2007). Descriptive social norms as underappreciated sources of social control. Psychometrika, 72(2), 263–268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-006-1560-6
19.
CinelliCarlosChadHazlett (2020). Making Sense of Sensitivity: Extending Omitted Variable Bias. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), 82(1), 39–67. https://doi.org/10.1111/rssb.12348.
20.
CortopassiA. C.DriverREatonL. A.KalichmanS. C.KalichmanS. C. (2019). A new era of HIV risk: It’s not what you know, it’s who you know (and how infectious). Annual Review of Psychology, 70(1), 673–701. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102927
21.
DjupeP.ScottM.Edward SokheyA. (2018). The political consequences of gender in social networks. British Journal of Political Science, 48(3), 637–658. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123416000156
22.
DjupeP. A.SokheyA. E. (2014). The distribution and determinants of socially supplied political expertise. American Politics Research, 42(2), 199–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x13486924
23.
DruckmanJ. N.PetersonE.SlothuusR. (2013). How elite partisan polarization affects public opinion formation. American Political Science Review, 107(1), 57–79. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055412000500
24.
DunbarR.SpoorsM. (1995). Social networks, support cliques, and kinship. Human Nature (Hawthorne, N.Y.), 6(3), 273–290. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02734142
25.
EdgeR.HeathJ.RowlingsonB.KeeganT. J.IsbaR. (2015). Seasonal influenza vaccination amongst medical students: A social network analysis based on a cross-sectional study” edited by N. Masuda. Plos One, 10(10), Article e0140085. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0140085
26.
EdgeR.KeeganT.IsbaR.PeterD. (2019). Observational study to assess the effects of social networks on the seasonal influenza vaccine uptake by early career doctors. BMJ Open, 9(8), Article e026997. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026997
27.
EvelandW. P.HutchensM. J.MoreyA. C. (2013). Political network size and its antecedents and consequences. Political Communication, 30(3), 371–394. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2012.737433
28.
EvelandW. P.JrAppiahO.BeckP. A. (2018). Americans are more exposed to difference than we think: Capturing hidden exposure to political and racial difference. Social Networks, 52, 192–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2017.08.002
FishbeinM.IcekA. (2011). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. Psychology press.
31.
FridmanA.GershonR.GneezyA. (2021). COVID-19 and vaccine hesitancy: A longitudinal study. PloS one.
32.
FuL. Y.ZimetG. D.LatkinC. A.JosephJ. G. (2019). Social networks for human papillomavirus vaccine advice among african American parents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 65(1), 124–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2019.01.029
33.
GainesB. J.KuklinskiJ. H.QuirkP. J.PeytonB.VerkuilenJ. (2007). Same facts, different interpretations: Partisan motivation and opinion on Iraq. Journal of Politics, 69(4), 957–974. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00601.x
34.
GalstonW. A. (2021). For covid-19 vaccinations, party affiliation matters more than race and ethnicity. Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings_edu/blog/fixgov
35.
GerberA. S.GreenD. P.LarimerC. W. (2008). Social pressure and voter turnout: Evidence from a large-scale field experiment. American Political Science Review, 102(1), 33–48. https://doi.org/10.1017/s000305540808009x
36.
GollwitzerA.MartelC.BradyW. J.PärnametsP.FreedmanI. G.KnowlesE. D.Van BavelJ. J. (2020). Partisan differences in physical distancing are linked to health outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(11), 1186–1197. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-00977-7
37.
GreenD. P.BradleyP.SchicklerE. (2004). Partisan hearts and minds: Political parties and the social identities of voters. Yale University Press.
38.
HaysR. B. (1989). The day-to-day functioning of close versus casual friendships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 6(1), 21–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/026540758900600102
HuckfeldtR.JohnsonP. E.SpragueJ. (2004a). Political disagreement: The survival of diverse opinions within communication networks. Cambridge University Press.
41.
HuckfeldtR.MendezJ. M.OsbornbT. (2004b). Disagreement, ambivalence, and engagement: The political consequences of heterogeneous networks. Political Psychology, 25(1), 65–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00357.x
42.
HuckfeldtR.SpragueJ. (1987). Networks in context: The social flow of political information. American Political Science Review, 81(4), 1197–1216. https://doi.org/10.2307/1962585
43.
HuckfeldtR. R.SpragueJ. (1995). Citizens, politics and social communication: Information and influence in an election campaign. Cambridge University Press.
44.
JiangJ.ChenE.ShenY.LermanK.FerraraE. (2020). Political polarization drives online conversations about COVID-19 in the United States. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2(3), 200–211. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.202.
45.
JonesD. R.McDermottM. L. (2022). Partisanship and the politics of COVID vaccine hesitancy. Polity, 54(3), 408–434. https://doi.org/10.1086/719918.
46.
KahaneL. H. (2021). Politicizing the mask: Political, economic and demographic factors affecting mask wearing behavior in the USA. Eastern Economic Journal, 47(2), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41302-020-00186-0
47.
KerrJ.PanagopoulosC.van der LindenS. (2021). Political polarization on COVID-19 pandemic response in the United States. Personality and Individual Differences, 179, 110892. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.110892.
48.
KlarS. (2014). Partisanship in a social setting. American Journal of Political Science, 58(3), 687–704. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12087
49.
KlofstadC. A.Edward SokheyA.McClurgS. D. (2013). Disagreeing about disagreement: How conflict in social networks affects political behavior. American Journal of Political Science, 57(1), 120–134. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2012.00620.x
50.
KnokeD. (1990). Networks of political action: Toward theory construction*. Social Forces, 68(4), 1041–1063. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/68.4.1041
51.
KonstantinouP.GeorgiouK.KumarN.KyprianidouM.NicolaidesC.KareklaM.AngelosKassianosP. (2021). Transmission of vaccination attitudes and uptake based on social contagion theory: A scoping review. Vaccines, 9(6), 607. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines9060607
52.
KuhlmanC.KumarV.MaratheM.RaviS.RosenkrantzD.SwarupS.TuliG. (2011). A Bi-threshold model of complex contagion and its application to the spread of smoking behavior. Proceedings of the workshop on social network mining and analysis (SNA-KDD 2011),San Diego, California. Citeseer.
53.
LaumannE. O. (1973). Bonds of pluralism: The form and substance of urban social networks. J. Wiley.
54.
LelkesY.SoodG.IyengarS. (2017). The hostile audience: The effect of access to broadband internet on partisan affect: Effect of broadband internet access on partisan affect. American Journal of Political Science, 61(1), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12237
55.
LiT.ZhangY. (2015). Social network types and the health of older adults: Exploring reciprocal associations. Social Science & Medicine, 130, 59–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.02.007.
56.
LuptonR.ThorntonJ. (2017). Disagreement, diversity, and participation: Examining the properties of several measures of political discussion network characteristics. Political Behavior, 39(3), 585–608. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-016-9371-7
57.
LyonsJ.SokheyA. E.McClurgS. D.DrewS. (2016). Personality, interpersonal disagreement, and electoral information. The Journal of Politics, 78(3), 806–821. https://doi.org/10.1086/685734
58.
MarsdenP. V. (2004). Recent Developments in Network Measurement. Vol. Models and methods in social network analysis. : Cambridge University Press.
59.
McClurgS. D. (2006). The electoral relevance of political talk: Examining disagreement and expertise effects in social networks on political participation. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 737–754. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00213.x
60.
McPhersonM.Smith-LovinL.JamesCookM. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1), 415–444. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415
61.
MottaM. (2021). Republicans, not Democrats, are more likely to endorse anti-vaccine misinformation. American Politics Research, 49(5), 428–438. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X211022639
62.
MutzD. C. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. Cambridge University Press.
63.
PaluckE. L.ShepherdH.AronowP. M. (2016). Changing climates of conflict: A social network experiment in 56 schools. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(3), 566–571. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1514483113
64.
PanagopoulosC. (2010). Affect, social pressure and prosocial motivation: Field experimental evidence of the mobilizing effects of pride, shame and publicizing voting behavior. Political Behavior, 32(3), 369–386. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-010-9114-0
65.
PinkS. L.ChuJ.DruckmanJ. N.RandD. G.RobbWiller.WillerR. (2021). Elite party cues increase vaccination intentions among Republicans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(32), Article e2106559118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2106559118
66.
PriorM. (2007). Post-broadcast democracy: How media choice increases inequality in political involvement and polarizes elections. Cambridge University Press.
67.
RobertsD. C.UtychS. M. (2021). Polarized social distancing: Residents of republican-majority counties spend more time away from home during the COVID- 19 crisis. Social Science Quarterly, 102(6), 2516–2527. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.13101
ShinJ.YangA.LiuW.KimH. M.ZhouA.SunJ. (2022). Mask- wearing as a partisan issue: Social identity and communication of party norms on social media among political elites. Social Media + Society, 8(1), 20563051221086230. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051221086233
70.
SinclairB. (2012). The social citizen: Peer networks and political behavior. University of Chicago Press.
71.
SmirnovI.ThurnerS. (2017). formation of homophily in academic performance: Students change their friends rather than performance. Plos One, 12(8), Article e0183473. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183473
WeiselO. (2021). Vaccination as a social contract: The case of COVID-19 and US political partisanship. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(13), Article e2026745118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2026745118
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
