Early on in the pandemic, we were told by medical experts that masks help protect others, rather than the wearer, from Covid-19. It was assumed that empathy for the wellbeing of others would trump motivations to avoid masks. We learned that there are influencers more powerful than empathy for a sizable segment of the population.
We’re about to embark on another coronavirus challenge requiring effective persuasion. In order to avoid missing the mark when encouraging people to take a coronavirus vaccination, we need to truly know what matters to them. How they should think is not nearly as important as how they do think.
The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, where African American sharecroppers from Macon, Alabama were heartlessly used by researchers to observe the effects of untreated syphilis, is often cited as a reason for the higher distrust of coronavirus vaccines in Black communities. If asked, though, would this be the primary reason given in such communities for vaccine resistance? Can we afford to assume again?
Persuasion research suggests people respond to one or more of three general categories of reasoning when considering a new course of action: Appropriateness, Consistency and/or Effectiveness (ACE). Appropriateness is the extent to which an action is approved of by important others. An appeal to appropriateness might be “Everyone in our group is going to do this, so you should too.” Seeing respected leaders and role models happily take a coronavirus vaccine can also fall into this category.
Consistency appeals focus on acting in a way consistent with self-image or prior behavior. If a person considers herself intelligent, then an appeal such as “Someone as smart and informed as you must be getting the vaccination” could get their attention. So, too, could pointing out that they’ve always been health conscious or that they put family first.
Effectiveness appeals focus on desired outcomes. “If you want to safely hug your grandchildren, you should be vaccinated” is one example. “Leading coronavirus experts attest to the vaccine’s effectiveness and safety.”
People differ with regard to how much they care about the opinions of others, toleration of inconsistency, and goal priorities. To use the ACE formulation productively, health communication experts need to familiarize themselves with vaccine resistant populations and the true reasons for their concerns.
Then there is emotion. Some groups are fearful of the coronavirus vaccines. As a result, they may deny the lethality of Covid-19. If so, then appropriateness, consistency and effectiveness appeals could fall on deaf ears. Instead, the focus would initially need to be on dispelling fear.
Those who identify as staunchly opposed to vaccines of any sort pose a particular persuasion challenge. They may be unreachable by reason or emotion. Some may have heard or read about the UK warning that people with significant allergies should not take the vaccine and recent U.S. cases of adverse reactions. Here again we need experts on the ground learning why groups of people reject vaccines. Having had one of my three children turn red and swell up after his first DPT shot, I can sympathize with vaccine hesitancy. Respect for concerns and fears, finding some justifiable, is critical to any hope of dispelling them.
For now, the persuasive appeals most likely to succeed with specific populations are best determined by public health experts who live or work among them. Such ear-to-the-ground research will help determine which appeal or combination of appeals is likely to be most influential. Otherwise, we rely on risky assumptions likely to fail, delay or even derail the goal of one day soon returning precious normalcy to our lives.
