Vaccination Persuasion and Dissuasion: The Role of Online Discourse
Social media adds another layer of complexity to online vaccine discourses.
A study published in 2015 [1]on the persuasive features of pro-vaccine and vaccine-skeptical websites is worth reviewing in light of the current pandemic.
The qualitative analysis was conducted to generate hypotheses concerning what features of these websites are persuasive to people seeking information about vaccination and vaccine-related practices. The study found that the 2 pro-vaccine websites analyzed functioned as encyclopedias of vaccine information.
Both of the websites had relatively small digital ecologies because they only linked to government websites or websites that endorsed vaccination and evidence-based medicine. Neither of these websites offered visitors interactive features or made extensive use of the affordances of Web 2.0.
In contrast, in analyzing the 2 vaccine-skeptical websites, the researchers noted larger digital ecologies because they linked to a variety of vaccine-related websites, including government websites. They leveraged the affordances of Web 2.0 with their interactive features and digital media.
The study authors reported that while the pro-vaccine websites concentrate on the accurate transmission of evidence-based scientific research about vaccines and government-endorsed vaccination-related practices, the vaccine-skeptical websites focus on creating communities of people affected by vaccines and vaccine-related practices. From this personal framework, these websites then challenge the information presented in scientific literature and government documents.
Anti-Vaccine protest is nothing new
I was fascinated to learn from this study that the history of anti-vaccine protests dates back to 1853.
Since the United Kingdom passed the Vaccination Act of 1853, vaccine-skeptical groups have leveraged the available means of persuasion to voice their opposition to compulsory vaccination.
Some groups resorted to public demonstrations, legal actions, and the occasional riot after the passage of the the1853 law, but others, such as the Anti-Compulsory Vaccination League, which formed in response to the 1867 Vaccination Act, found publishing their ideas in newsletters and journals to be a more effective means of responding to government vaccine mandates for children. The Anti-Vaccinator Journal was founded in 1869 followed by the National Anti-Compulsory Vaccination Reporter in 1874 and the Vaccination Inquirer in 1879.
Then came the Internet
While the Internet transformed mass communication, affording its users new means of sharing information, social media, in the words of the authors “adds another layer of complexity to online vaccine discourses.”
The multimedia nature of Web 2.0 websites allows vaccine-skeptical groups a means of constructing more sophisticated arguments than a single medium could afford.
The authors point to the social networking features of Web 2.0 which have “transformed static Web pages into information hubs where viewers can share personal experiences in the form of images and narrative to create or participate in a community with individuals who share their vaccination beliefs.”
Research on vaccination and Web 2.0 suggests that websites featuring user-generated content are more likely to support vaccination viewpoints that counter or question medical science.
Online Vaccine Skepticism and The Post Modern Medical Paradigm
The authors observe that vaccine-skeptical websites do not subscribe to one notion of the truth.
Referencing a study by Kata[2] which described the relationship between postmodern medicine and Web 2.0 as one of “flattened hierarchies where infinite personal truths presented online are each portrayed as legitimate, thus supplanting the primacy of medical facts with a multiplicity of personal meanings and ways of knowing.”
Vaccine-skeptical groups appear to use the Internet to leverage postmodern notions of truth that are based on their own experiences with vaccines and their own understandings of medical science. Within the postmodern paradigm, the knowledge they generate and circulate online is not easily dismissible by attempts to better educate the public about vaccination.
Conclusion
The authors conclude the study with the observation that pro-vaccine information-driven websites in presenting unidirectional transmission of information deny “viewers the opportunity to share their experiences with vaccines or to challenge the information that is presented to them.”
In adopting this approach, these sites “foster an image of unsympathetic authoritarians who only care about well-being at the level of the public instead of at the level of the individual.”
The risk here is that those individuals who may have fears around vaccination or have had adverse experiences of vaccines have nowhere to turn to other than vaccine skeptical discussions.
The study authors recommend that future studies on vaccination and the Internet should take into consideration the influence of Web 2.0 community-building features on people seeking information about vaccine-related practices
References
[1] Grant, L., Hausman, B. L., Cashion, M., Lucchesi, N., Patel, K., & Roberts, J. (2015). Vaccination Persuasion Online: A Qualitative Study of Two Provaccine and Two Vaccine-Skeptical Websites. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 17(5), e133.
Kata A. Anti-vaccine activists, Web 2.0, and the postmodern paradigm — an overview of tactics and tropes used online by the anti-vaccination movement. Vaccine 2012 May 28;30(25):3788–3789.