Tailoring interventions to suit self-reported format preference does not decrease vaccine hesitancy

Individually tailored vaccine hesitancy interventions are considered auspicious for decreasing vaccine hesitancy. In two studies, we measured self-reported format preference for statistical vs. anecdotal information in vaccine hesitant individuals, and experimentally manipulated the format in which COVID-19 and influenza vaccine hesitancy interventions were presented (statistical vs. anecdotal). Regardless of whether people received interventions that were in line with their format preference, the interventions did not influence their vaccine attitudes or vaccination intentions. Instead, a stronger preference for anecdotal information was associated with perceiving the material in both the statistical and the anecdotal interventions as more frustrating, less relevant, and less helpful. However, even if the participants reacted negatively to both intervention formats, the reactions to the statistical interventions were consistently less negative. These results suggest that tailoring COVID-19 and influenza vaccine hesitancy interventions to suit people's format preference, might not be a viable tool for decreasing vaccine hesitancy. The results further imply that using statistics-only interventions with people who hold anti-vaccination attitudes may be a less risky choice than using only anecdotal testimonies.

Automated summary

According to two studies, individually tailored vaccine hesitancy interventions based on people's format preference may not be effective in decreasing vaccine hesitancy. Regardless of whether individuals received interventions in their preferred format, it did not influence their vaccine attitudes or intentions. Furthermore, individuals with a stronger preference for anecdotal information found both statistical and anecdotal interventions more frustrating, less relevant, and less helpful. However, the reactions to statistical interventions were consistently less negative than anecdotal interventions, suggesting that using statistics-only interventions may be a less risky option when targeting individuals with anti-vaccination attitudes.