“You Can’t Change An Anti-Vaxxer’s Mind” Cognitive Dissonance, Cultural Cognition & Conspiracy Theories Maya J. Goldenberg Department of Philosophy University of Guelph Guelph, Ontario, CANADA Viruses, Vectors, and Values Lecture Series, University of Texas at Dallas, April 13, 2016

“Backfire effect”

In the news “Nothing, Not Even Hard Facts, Can Make Anti-Vaxxers Change Their Minds” (Time, March ) “Throwing Science At Anti-Vaxxers Just Makes Them More Hardline” (The Conversation, Feb ) “...reason doesn’t work either” (in “How To Deal With Anti-Vaxxers” Slate, Feb ) “The Science Is Clear: Anti-Vaxxers Are Immune To The Truth” (Globe and Mail, Feb )

“Confirmation bias” “Disconfirmation bias” “Cognitive dissonance” “ Motivated reasoning” “Cultural cognition” “Conspiratorial ideation”

My proposal New characterization of vaccine hesitancy as a problem of biased reasoning invites new, more promising avenues for addressing the problem. Vaccine hesitancy has been poorly understood as a problem of public misunderstanding of science and has therefore been poorly addressed.

Public Misunderstanding of Science Public dissent due to poor understanding of the scientific issues Poor scientific literacy among American public (ex. NSF Science Indicators surveys) But reliable scientific studies are widely available But vaccine refusers are often college-educated A little knowledge is a dangerous thing? But “Information Deficit” model widely rejected in Science Communications Studies Goldenberg, MJ Public Misunderstanding of Science? Reframing the Problem of Vaccine Hesitancy. Perspective on Science 24(5).

Results (Nyhan et al, 2014) InterventionBelief that autism caused by vaccines Fear of vaccine side effects Intention to vaccinate Autism correctionLOWEREDSameSame, LOWERED * Disease RisksSame Disease NarrativeSameINCREASEDSame Disease ImagesINCREASEDSame * “Backfire effect” among parents with strongest initial vaccine opposition When confronted with evidence against their strong belief that vaccines cause autism, “respondents brought to mind other concerns about vaccines to defend their anti-vaccine attitudes” (Nyhan et al 2014) MOTIVATED REASONING

“People who hold strong opinions on complex social issues are likely to examine relevant empirical evidence in a biased manner. They are apt to accept “confirming” evidence at face value while subjecting “disconfirming” evidence to critical evaluation, and as a result to draw undue support for their initial positions from mixed or random empirical findings. Thus, the result of exposing contending factions in a social dispute to an identical body of relevant empirical evidence may be not a narrowing of disagreement but rather an increase in polarization”

“”Biased Assimilation” “People who hold strong opinions on complex social issues are likely to examine relevant empirical evidence in a biased manner. They are apt to accept ‘confirming’ evidence at face value while subjecting ‘disconfirming’ evidence to critical evaluation, and as a result to draw undue support for their initial positions from mixed or random empirical findings. Thus, the result of exposing contending factions in a social dispute to an identical body of relevant empirical evidence may be not a narrowing of disagreement but rather an increase in polarization” Similar terms “Motivated Reasoning” (Kunda 1990) “Confirmation Bias” (Munro & Ditto 1997) “Disconfirmation Bias” (Edwards & Smith 1996) “Motivated Skepticism” (Tauber & Lodge 2006) “Motivated Social Cognition” (Jost et al 2003) “ Identity-Protective Cognition” (Kahan et al 2007)

Motivated reasoning to avoid cognitive dissonance Cognitive Dissonance: the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes regarding behavioural decisions and attitude change (Festinger 1957; Cooper 2007). Faced with identity-threatening information, seek out ways to relieve this discordance. Perceived need for maintaining a valued identity

Cognitive Dissonance Festinger, Riecken, & Schachter, When Prophecy Fails. University of Minnesota Press.

Cultural Cognition Cultural values are a good indicator of one’s perception of particular risks (Kahan & Braman 2006; Kahan,Braman, Slovic et al 2009) Perception of risk influenced by our social and cultural values. Research demonstrating cultural cognition of risk perception regarding: Gun control (Kahan & Braman 2003) Nanotechnology (Kahan et al., 2009) Climate change (Kahan, Peters, Wittlin et al., 2012) US foreign policy, abortion (Cohen, Sherman, Bastardi et al 2007) Capital punishment (Cohen, Aronson, & Steele, 2000 ) HPV vaccine (Kahan, Braman, Cohen et al 2010)

VALUE SYSTE MS Kahan et al Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus. J Risk Research. cnrc.gc.ca/eng/di mensions/issue4/ bias.html

Conspiratorial ideation Conspiratorial ideation: A tendency to endorse theories that “explain events as the secret acts of powerful, malevolent forces” (Jolley and Douglas 2016) Conspiracy theorists 3x more likely to hold anti-vaccine attitudes (Lewandowsky et al 2013) Lewandowsky S, Gignac GE, Oberauer K The Role of Conspiracist Ideation and Worldviews in Predicting Rejection of Science. PLoS ONE 10(8).

Conspiratorial ideation

Competing Explanations of Vaccine Hesitancy FrameworkCausal Association How to Counter Vaccine Misperception Public Misunderstanding of Science Wrong beliefs ex. “Vaccines cause autism” Negative attitudesCorrect misinformation (DIRECT MEANS) Biased CognitionWrong beliefs ex. “Mercury in vaccines cause brain damage” Negative attitudesNothing can be done Change attitudes (INDIRECT MEANS)

“Indirect means” for countering vaccine hesitancy: 1.Self-affirmation 2.Enlist diverse set of experts 3.Tie facts to congenial values

1. Self-affirmation Strategies that validate one’s competence, character, values Improves performance, openness to new information Steele, C. M. (1988). The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. wgbh/nova/blogs/

2. A range of culturally-identifiable experts

3. Tie facts to congenial values Culture is prior to facts Facts are persuasive if compatible with cultural commitments Study: create new “ties” between factual claims & values? Kahan DM, Jenkins-Smith H, et al Geoengineering and Climate Change Polarization: Testing a Two-Channel Model of Science Communication. Annals Amer Acad Political & Social Science. Response to damning report on climate change after reading: First group: Restricted emissions Second group: Geoengineering Control group: Unrelated reading

Geoengineering

Conclusion You can change an anti-vaxxer’s mind But it won’t be easy THANK YOU!