Vaccination mandates and their alternatives and complements

Philipp Schmid; Robert Böhm; Enny Das; Dawn Holford; Stephan Lewandowsky; Cornelia Betsch; et al.

doi:10.1038/s44159-024-00381-2

Vaccination mandates and their alternatives and complements

Philipp Schmid^*, Robert Böhm, Enny Das, Dawn Holford, Stephan Lewandowsky, Cornelia Betsch^*, et al.

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article (Academic Journal) › peer-review

32 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Vaccination mandates are often suggested as a solution to low vaccine uptake. However, mandates are criticized because they aim to bypass rather than overcome the cognitive, emotional and social components of vaccine hesitancy and because they are highly restrictive interventions that can cause unintended psychological effects. In this Review, we contextualize the costs and benefits of implementing vaccination mandates on the basis of the evidence of their effectiveness, ethical considerations and unintended psychological effects. We present a toolbox of alternative interventions that specifically aim to overcome the cognitive, emotional and social barriers identified by psychological science. These interventions vary in degree of restrictiveness but are ultimately designed to preserve freedom of choice. They can be implemented in addition or as an alternative to mandates to tackle the psychological roots of vaccine hesitancy. We recommend that policies are tailored according to each country’s specific situation by selecting the set of interventions from the toolbox that cover the specific needs of the population.

Original language	English
Journal	Nature Reviews Psychology
Early online date	4 Nov 2024
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-024-00381-2
Publication status	E-pub ahead of print - 4 Nov 2024

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© Springer Nature America, Inc. 2024.

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

10.1038/s44159-024-00381-2

Full-text PDF (accepted manuscript)
This is the accepted author manuscript (AAM) of the article which has been made Open Access under the University of Bristol's Scholarly Works Policy. The final published version (Version of Record) can be found on the publisher's website. The copyright of any third-party content, such as images, remains with the copyright holder.
Accepted author manuscript, 1 MBLicence: CC BY

Handle.net

Persistent link

JITSUVAX: JIU-JITSU WITH MISINFORMATION IN THE AGE OF COVID: USING REFUTATION-BASED LEARNING TO ENHANCE VACCINE UPTAKE AND KNOWLEDGE AMONG HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONALS AND THE PUBLIC
Lewandowsky, S. (Principal Investigator), Gould, G. (Manager), Finn, A. H. R. (Co-Investigator), Barden, M. L. (Researcher), Anderson, E. C. (Researcher), Fisher, H. (Researcher) & Roderick, M. R. (Collaborator)
1/04/21 → 31/03/25
Project: Research, Parent

Cite this

@article{0f2621744dac43d1b26f7366f8e66fff,

title = "Vaccination mandates and their alternatives and complements",

abstract = "Vaccination mandates are often suggested as a solution to low vaccine uptake. However, mandates are criticized because they aim to bypass rather than overcome the cognitive, emotional and social components of vaccine hesitancy and because they are highly restrictive interventions that can cause unintended psychological effects. In this Review, we contextualize the costs and benefits of implementing vaccination mandates on the basis of the evidence of their effectiveness, ethical considerations and unintended psychological effects. We present a toolbox of alternative interventions that specifically aim to overcome the cognitive, emotional and social barriers identified by psychological science. These interventions vary in degree of restrictiveness but are ultimately designed to preserve freedom of choice. They can be implemented in addition or as an alternative to mandates to tackle the psychological roots of vaccine hesitancy. We recommend that policies are tailored according to each country{\textquoteright}s specific situation by selecting the set of interventions from the toolbox that cover the specific needs of the population.",

author = "Philipp Schmid and Robert B{\"o}hm and Enny Das and Dawn Holford and Stephan Lewandowsky and Cornelia Betsch and et al.",

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} Springer Nature America, Inc. 2024.",

year = "2024",

month = nov,

day = "4",

doi = "10.1038/s44159-024-00381-2",

language = "English",

journal = "Nature Reviews Psychology",

issn = "2731-0574",

publisher = "Springer Nature",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Vaccination mandates and their alternatives and complements

AU - Schmid, Philipp

AU - Böhm, Robert

AU - Das, Enny

AU - Holford, Dawn

AU - Lewandowsky, Stephan

AU - Betsch, Cornelia

AU - al., et

PY - 2024/11/4

Y1 - 2024/11/4

N2 - Vaccination mandates are often suggested as a solution to low vaccine uptake. However, mandates are criticized because they aim to bypass rather than overcome the cognitive, emotional and social components of vaccine hesitancy and because they are highly restrictive interventions that can cause unintended psychological effects. In this Review, we contextualize the costs and benefits of implementing vaccination mandates on the basis of the evidence of their effectiveness, ethical considerations and unintended psychological effects. We present a toolbox of alternative interventions that specifically aim to overcome the cognitive, emotional and social barriers identified by psychological science. These interventions vary in degree of restrictiveness but are ultimately designed to preserve freedom of choice. They can be implemented in addition or as an alternative to mandates to tackle the psychological roots of vaccine hesitancy. We recommend that policies are tailored according to each country’s specific situation by selecting the set of interventions from the toolbox that cover the specific needs of the population.

AB - Vaccination mandates are often suggested as a solution to low vaccine uptake. However, mandates are criticized because they aim to bypass rather than overcome the cognitive, emotional and social components of vaccine hesitancy and because they are highly restrictive interventions that can cause unintended psychological effects. In this Review, we contextualize the costs and benefits of implementing vaccination mandates on the basis of the evidence of their effectiveness, ethical considerations and unintended psychological effects. We present a toolbox of alternative interventions that specifically aim to overcome the cognitive, emotional and social barriers identified by psychological science. These interventions vary in degree of restrictiveness but are ultimately designed to preserve freedom of choice. They can be implemented in addition or as an alternative to mandates to tackle the psychological roots of vaccine hesitancy. We recommend that policies are tailored according to each country’s specific situation by selecting the set of interventions from the toolbox that cover the specific needs of the population.

U2 - 10.1038/s44159-024-00381-2

DO - 10.1038/s44159-024-00381-2

M3 - Article (Academic Journal)

SN - 2731-0574

JO - Nature Reviews Psychology

JF - Nature Reviews Psychology

ER -

Vaccination mandates and their alternatives and complements

Abstract

Bibliographical note

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Handle.net

Fingerprint

Projects

JITSUVAX: JIU-JITSU WITH MISINFORMATION IN THE AGE OF COVID: USING REFUTATION-BASED LEARNING TO ENHANCE VACCINE UPTAKE AND KNOWLEDGE AMONG HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONALS AND THE PUBLIC

Cite this