Fake News, Politics, and Behavioral Biases: A Perfect Storm for Vaccine Hesitancy

Data and research continue to offer indisputable evidence that vaccines are effective and safe. A recent study in South Africa of more than 1 million people found that the unvaccinated are five times more likely to get infected with Covid-19 and 20 times more likely to die from complications of the disease. In fact, the vaccines reduce the risk of mortality from the virus to less than that of influenza.

In terms of safety, the same study recorded zero vaccine-related deaths and extremely low chances of side effects—almost all of which resolved quickly without treatment. More important, the study found that these same side effects are up to 112 percent more likely as the result of a Covid-19 infection.

The data is also clear that Covid-19 remains a real threat, with emerging strains such as the omicron variant. The concern is not only for those that contract and survive the virus, but for the people who were previously infected and are now experiencing “long Covid.” With continuing symptoms and damage to the lungs, heart, and brain, long Covid-19 is considered by many to be the next public health crisis in the making.

Vaccines represent the most reliable route to return to normalcy, yet vaccine hesitancy remains a common thread globally. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that hesitancy rates range across states from 3 percent to 27 percent.

Many ascribe this reluctance to the anti-vax movement or to politics. While these are certainly strong driving forces, they were not the primary reasons cited by participants in our recent worker study. Among participants who stated that they are not going to get the vaccine, we asked why. Only 10 percent claimed to be against vaccines in general, and only 8 percent cited political reasons. When asked for specifics around their Covid vaccine hesitancy, respondents cited mistrust of government (43%) and the companies and scientists that developed the vaccines (25%)—and the most cited reason (52%) was concern over side effects.

Despite overwhelming evidence about the need for the vaccine and its safety and efficacy, people rank concern about the small chance of side effects above the much higher risk of serious, prolonged illness resulting from Covid-19. Irrational decision-making like this can usually be explained by powerful cognitive biases. The myriad of false news and misinformation surrounding the vaccine is creating a perfect storm for them.

To help overcome vaccine hesitancy and to guide people, companies, and countries to the other side of the pandemic, we examined the various behavioral biases at play and offer strategies to address.

Confirmation Bias

In the new digital age, the world’s information is at our fingertips. Thirty years ago, when the internet was blossoming, most people assumed that access to more information would mean we would become better informed. Fast-forward to today, and we see that most people suffer from a severe side effect of access to humanity’s collective knowledge: information overload. We’re not swimming in a sea of information, we’re drowning in it, allowing self-proclaimed authorities and fear mongers, across social media especially, to have a larger voice.

This sets the stage for confirmation bias—the tendency to look for, interpret, and remember information in a way that supports one’s prior beliefs or favored conclusions, ignoring contrary information and interpreting ambiguous evidence to support one’s existing beliefs. The effect is especially strong for emotionally charged issues and deeply entrenched beliefs, often underpinned by overconfidence in one’s own beliefs.

For those who are mistrustful of, or disillusioned with, establishments like government and pharmaceutical companies (especially those of certain political leanings), the conspiracy theory that the vaccine is ineffective and unsafe may be an attractive and emotionally charged idea. Such individuals will likely receive misinformation supporting this hypothesis through social media and then search for and filter all other information to confirm their belief.

Optimism Bias

It’s been nearly two years since the pandemic swept the world, up-ending our ways of work and socializing. Many today have an illusion of control and may think that the actions they take day-to-day, like wearing masks and sanitizing, can completely prevent infection and/or that they can effectively manage the risks.

When faced with the choice to get vaccinated, some people feel they don’t need to because they’re generally healthy. In fact, 18 percent of our vaccine-hesitant respondents said exactly that. Others feel that it won’t happen to them—that they won’t be the ones in the ICU on a ventilator.

Loss Aversion

First proposed by Kahneman and Tversky in 1979, and backed by multiple controlled studies since, loss aversion describes how people react to potential losses and gains. These psychologists found that people don’t behave rationally; we react differently depending on whether there is the potential for losses or the potential for gains. They termed this difference in reaction ‘loss aversion’ because people tend to prefer avoiding losses over acquiring equivalent gains. This bias generally exhibits itself in a situation where any deviation from a given reference point could result in potential losses or gains.

How does loss aversion relate to vaccine hesitancy? Our research suggests that people are already settling into a new normal, with self-assessed mental health and well-being returning to pre-pandemic levels and with most people happy with their current work situation. In all of this, many may have factored the risk of Covid-19 infection (and, at worst, death) into the steady state of their lives. So any decision from this reference point, like getting the vaccine, would be evaluated for its perceived gains and losses.

For the vaccine-hesitant, confirmation bias has led to doubt that vaccines are effective and/or safe. At the extreme, they believe vaccines are ineffective and unsafe. On top of this, optimism bias and illusions of control may lead such a person to not assess their Covid-19 risk correctly. Finally, the vaccine presents a situation where the perceived loss (e.g., side effects) is immediate and tangible, but the gain is intangible. This puts a thumb on the scale that makes the vaccine’s perceived gains look smaller and the perceived losses appear larger. So when the time comes to choose whether to get vaccinated, loss aversion leads such a person to avoid the perceived losses, rather than acquiring the gain.

We see evidence of loss aversion in the effectiveness of workplace vaccine mandates to flip the vaccine-hesitant. When mandates are implemented, vaccination rates consistently climb above 90 percent. This is because mandates put another thumb on the scale of loss aversion, adding to the equation significant, tangible consequences (such as job loss) that people would rather avoid.

Behavioral Science: A Key to Unwinding Vaccine Hesitancy

As behavioral biases can help us understand why people refuse to vaccinate, they also can be used to encourage people to get the vaccine. That’s why we’re sharing our data and recommendations based on more than 20 years of harnessing behavioral science to create initiatives and incentives that drive behavior change. This was the impetus behind the behavior change framework we used to educate, engage, and reward members to get vaccinated.

Our interventions attempt to unwind vaccine hesitancy using the same human behavioral biases that cause it:

1. Educate. Confirmation bias and information filtering have created a situation where many are unaware of the scientific evidence that vaccines are safe and effective. Many are also unaware of the impact that one person’s vaccination has on those around them. Getting information in the hands of employees is the first step to unwinding the effects of misinformation and confirmation bias. This may include motivational and educational communications, blog posts, webinars from trusted experts, and a toolkit of resources.

2. Engage. Create practical, personal goals for employees. For our members, we developed gamified activities that test people’s Covid-19 knowledge and motivate them to do their part in preventing the spread and impact of the virus, including getting vaccinated.

3. Reward. Incentivize people to participate. Incentives add another thumb to the scale of loss aversion.

Together, these interventions maximize the likelihood of behavior change, and among our members, the results were stark. Before the campaign, we surveyed over 90,000 members. Thirty percent responded that they were either vaccine-hesitant or undecided. Among vaccine-hesitant participants, our interventions caused 69 percent to exhibit an increased willingness to get vaccinated. Among those who were originally decided, 74 percent received the vaccine. In vulnerable groups, we also saw strong results, with 67 percent of those with elevated clinical and/or lifestyle risks increasing their willingness to get the vaccine.

Behavioral science can be leveraged to cure behavioral biases. These are pivotal tools to unwind vaccine hesitancy.

Employers play an important role in thwarting the dangerous cloud of vaccine misinformation. As organizations navigate returning to physical workplaces, grappling with vaccine hesitancy will form a vital part of any return-to-work strategy. Understanding the human psychology driving hesitancy and leveraging techniques to counter it are key to resuming physical operations effectively and safely.

Matthew Daniel is an actuary and director of technical marketing at Vitality.

From: BenefitsPRO