On the benefits of explaining herd immunity in vaccine advocacy

Abstract

Most vaccines protect both the vaccinated individual and the community at large by building up herd immunity. Even though reaching disease-specific herd immunity thresholds is crucial for eliminating or eradicating certain diseases1,2, explanation of this concept remains rare in vaccine advocacy3. An awareness of this social benefit makes vaccination not only an individual but also a social decision. Although knowledge of herd immunity can induce prosocial vaccination in order to protect others, it can also invite free-riding, in which individuals profit from the protection provided by a well-vaccinated society without contributing to herd immunity themselves. This cross-cultural experiment assesses whether people will be more or less likely to be vaccinated when they know more about herd immunity. Results show that in cultures that focus on collective benefits, vaccination willingness is generally higher. Communicating the concept of herd immunity improved willingness to vaccinate, especially in cultures lacking this prosocial cultural background. Prosocial nudges can thus help to close these immunity gaps.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: Detail from the interactive herd immunity simulation used in the study.
Figure 2: Communicating herd immunity has an overall positive effect on vaccination intention against the less contagious disease in western countries with individualistic cultural backgrounds.
Figure 3: The intention to be vaccinated against the less contagious disease increases when the concept of herd immunity is communicated, particularly in the interactive simulation condition.
Figure 4: Risks associated with diseases (solid lines, lifetime incidence in unvaccinated individuals) and vaccination (horizontal dotted line).

References

  1. 1

    Fine, P., Eames, K. & Heymann, D. L. ‘Herd immunity’: a rough guide. Clin. Infect. Dis. 52, 911–916 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2

    Anderson, R. M. & May, R. M. Vaccination and herd immunity to infectious diseases. Nature 318, 323–329 (1985).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3

    Shim, E., Chapman, G. B., Townsend, J. P. & Galvani, A. P. The influence of altruism on influenza vaccination decisions. J. R. Soc. Interface 9, 2234–2243 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4

    Herd immunity. The History of Vaccineshttp://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/herd-immunity-0 (2016).

  5. 5

    Parents’ Guide to Childhood Immunizations (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2015); http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/parents-guide

  6. 6

    Bauch, C. T., Galvani, A. P. & Earn, D. J. D. Group interest versus self-interest in smallpox vaccination policy. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100, 10564–10567 (2003).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7

    Vietri, J. T., Li, M., Galvani, A. P. & Chapman, G. B. Vaccinating to help ourselves and others. Med. Decis. Mak. 32, 447–458 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8

    Böhm, R., Betsch, C. & Korn, L. Selfish-rational non-vaccination: experimental evidence from an interactive vaccination game. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 131, 183–195 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9

    Betsch, C., Böhm, R. & Chapman, G. B. Using behavioral insights to increase vaccination policy effectiveness. Policy Insights Behav. Brain Sci. 2, 61–73 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10

    Fischoff, B., Brewer, N. T. & Downs, J. Communicating Risks and Benefits: An Evidence-Based User’s Guide (FDA, 2011); http://www.fda.gov/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/RiskCommunication/default.htm

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11

    Au, W. T. & Kwong, J. Y. Y. in Contemporary Psychological Research on Social Dilemmas (eds Suleiman, R., Budescu, D., Fischer, I. & Messick, D. ) 71–98 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2004).

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12

    Murphy, R. O. & Ackermann, K. A. Social value orientation: theoretical and measurement issues in the study of social preferences. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 18, 13–41 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13

    McClintock, C. G. & Allison, S. T. Social value orientation and helping behavior. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 19, 353–362 (1989).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14

    Hofstede, G. Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations across Nations (Sage, 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15

    Triandis, H. C. & Gelfand, M. J. Converging measurement of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 74, 118–128 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16

    Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M. & Kemmelmeier, M. Rethinking individualism and collectivism: evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychol. Bull. 128, 3–72 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17

    Markus, H. R. & Kitayama, S. Culture and the self: implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychol. Rev. 98, 224–253 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18

    Thomson, A. & Watson, M. Listen, understand, engage. Sci. Transl. Med. 4, 138ed6 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19

    Reyna, V. F. Risk perception and communication in vaccination decisions: a fuzzy-trace theory approach. Vaccine 30, 3790–7 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20

    Hofstede, G. H. Cultural Dimensions (2016); https://geert-hofstede.com/cultural-dimensions.html

  21. 21

    Aiken, L. S., West, S. G. & Reno, R. R. Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions (Sage, 1991).

  22. 22

    Gross National Income per Capita 2015, Atlas Method and PPP (World Bank, 2015); http://databank.worldbank.org/data/download/GNIPC.pdf

  23. 23

    Tuberculosis Case Detection Rate (%, All Forms) (World Bank, 2016); http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.TBS.DTEC.ZS

  24. 24

    State of Vaccine Confidence 2016: global Insights through a 67-Country Survey. The Vaccine Confidence Projecthttp://www.vaccineconfidence.org/we-are-pleased-to-announce-the-publication-ofthe-state-of-vaccine-confidence-2016/ (2016).

  25. 25

    Hayes, A. F. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis 3–4 (Guilford, 2013).

  26. 26

    Chen, R. T. Vaccine risks: real, perceived and unknown. Vaccine 17, S41–S46 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27

    Roush, S. W. & Murphy, T. V. Historical comparisons of morbidity and mortality for vaccine-preventable diseases in the United States. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 298, 2155–2163 (2007).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28

    Omer, S. B., Salmon, D. A., Orenstein, W. A., DeHart, M. P. & Halsey, N. Vaccine refusal, mandatory immunization, and the risks of vaccine-preventable diseases. N. Engl. J. Med. 360, 1981–1988 (2009).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29

    Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R. & Nacke, L. From game design elements to gamefulness. In Proc. 15th Int. Academic MindTrek Conf. Envisioning Future Media Environments 9–15 (ACM, 2011).

  30. 30

    Deterding, S. Gamification: designing for motivation. Interactions 19, 14–17 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31

    Gorodnichenko, Y. & Roland, G. in Institutions and Comparative Economic Development (eds Aoki, M., Kuran, T. & Roland, G. ) 213–236 (Palgrave Macmillan, 2012); http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/9781137034014_12

    Google Scholar 

  32. 32

    Talhelm, T. et al. Large-scale psychological differences within China explained by rice versus wheat agriculture. Science 344, 603–608 (2014).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33

    Betsch, C. et al. Improving medical decision making and health promotion through culture-sensitive health communication: an agenda for science and practice. Med. Decis. Making 36, 811–833 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34

    Sheeran, P. Intention–behavior relations: a conceptual and empirical review. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 12, 1–36 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35

    Lehmann, B. A., Ruiter, R. A. C., Chapman, G. & Kok, G. The intention to get vaccinated against influenza and actual vaccination uptake of Dutch healthcare personnel. Vaccine 32, 6986–6991 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36

    Hofstede, G. H., Hofstede, G. J. & Minkov, M. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind (McGraw-Hill, 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  37. 37

    Betsch, C., Böhm, R., Korn, L. & Holtmann, C. On the Benefits of Explaining Herd Immunity in Vaccine Advocacy (OSF, 2017); https://osf.io/9a7sb/

Download references

Acknowledgements

Funding from the Asia Pacific Alliance for the Control of Influenza (APACI) for C.B. and R.B., as well as from the Excellence Initiative (ZUK II) of the German Research Foundation (DFG) for R.B., is gratefully acknowledged. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. We thank colleagues in the participating countries for support during data collection (W. J. Kim, S. Kim, M. Kim, M. C. van Egmond, D. Thi The, P. K.S. Chan, M. Khanna, K. Sampson and U. Kühnen), especially K. Sampson of APACI for continuous support during all stages of the study. We thank L. Jennings and F. Renkewitz for comments on earlier versions of this manuscript, and K. Eames for support with the epidemiological underpinnings.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

C.B. and R.B. designed the study, analysed the data and wrote the article. L.K. and C.H. assisted in this process and were responsible for data collection and data management.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cornelia Betsch.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Figures 1–2, Supplementary Tables 1–8, Supplementary Note, Supplementary Methods, Supplementary References. (PDF 266 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Betsch, C., Böhm, R., Korn, L. et al. On the benefits of explaining herd immunity in vaccine advocacy. Nat Hum Behav 1, 0056 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0056

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Quick links

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter for a daily update on COVID-19 science.
Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing