← Quick Find
Menü
Public health campaigns punishing and harassing people into getting a vaccine
Reactance is a well-known psychological construct which describes an individual’s tendency to defend their autonomy when they perceive that others are trying to impose their will on them.
Individuals who have high reactance may respond to any health advice as an infringement on their ability to choose an action for themselves. High reactance has been consistently associated with vaccine hesitancy.
Reactance manifests in arguments proclaiming that the decision of whether or not to vaccinate must be completely free and autonomous. Reactance tends to be associated with a high sense of personal autonomy and empowerment, and with a view of civil liberties that includes the right to act contrary to social norms and political injunctions.
This theme invokes a pushback against an authority who threatens or coerces people to be vaccinated. Arguments often cite resistance to punishment, retribution, use of force, or harassment and bullying as reasons to be against vaccination.
Public health campaigns can indeed come across the wrong way and be seen as condescending. It is legitimate to be irritated by condescension. Poorly designed messages can make it difficult to look beyond the messenger and understand what is the actual data on vaccine safety and effectiveness.
Dialogue between patients and healthcare professionals is most productive if it is guided by empathy, and an opportunity for the patient to affirm the reasons underlying their attitudes and to express understanding for that. That’s why it is important to understand the attitude roots behind people’s overt opinions. To affirm a person’s underlying attitude root does not mean we need to agree with the specifics of their argument. For example, we can acknowledge that:
Public health campaigns can indeed come across the wrong way and be seen as condescending. It is legitimate to be irritated by condescension. Poorly designed messages can make it difficult to look beyond the messenger and understand what is the actual data on vaccine safety and effectiveness.
We should consider the benefits and risks of vaccinations separately from how the message about them is delivered. We can empower ourselves with knowledge and evidence to decide what we should do.
In the case of vaccines, there is overwhelming evidence and scientific consensus about their safety and efficacy in protecting us from the impact of severe diseases such as measles, whooping cough, and COVID-19. For example, vaccination successfully suppressed measles, a disease that used to cause more than 2.6 million deaths globally each year.
We can disagree about how public health campaigns are executed and still make a choice that protects ourselves.
Additional information:
Academic references:
English 
French 
Spanish 
German 
Romanian