ArticleEClinicalMedicine2020
Herd immunity communication counters detrimental effects of selective vaccination mandates: Experimental evidence.
Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
26 citing papers in PubMed.
- Virtual reality reduces COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the wild: a randomized trial.Scientific reports · 2022Trial
- Psychological reactance to system-level policies before and after their implementation.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- The influence of audience's regulatory focus on the persuasive effect of different pro-vaccine messages.PloS one · 2025Article
- Determinants of high vaccine confidence and uptake among the Australian public: insights from a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- From vaccine hesitancy to vaccine motivation: A motivational interviewing based approach to vaccine counselling.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2024Article
- Do COVID-19 Vaccination Policies Backfire? The Effects of Mandates, Vaccination Passports, and Financial Incentives on COVID-19 Vaccination.Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2024Review
- Article
- On compromising with vaccine-hesitant families.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2024Article
- Psychological reactance, misinformation, and distrust: A mixed methods analysis of COVID-19 vaccine uptake.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2024Article
- Different Interventions for COVID-19 Primary and Booster Vaccination? Effects of Psychological Factors and Health Policies on Vaccine Uptake.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2023Article
- Anticipating hopes, fears and expectations towards COVID-19 vaccines: A qualitative interview study in seven European countries.SSM. Qualitative research in health · 2022Article
- How a generally well-accepted measles vaccine mandate may lead to inequities and decreased vaccine uptake: a preregistered survey study in Germany.BMC public health · 2022Article
- Exploring vaccine hesitancy in care home employees in North West England: a qualitative study.BMJ open · 2022Article
- The unintended consequences of COVID-19 vaccine policy: why mandates, passports and restrictions may cause more harm than good.BMJ global health · 2022Review
- Vaccination policy reactance: Predictors, consequences, and countermeasures.Journal of health psychology · 2022Article
- The Effectiveness of Interventions for Increasing COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake: A Systematic Review.Vaccines · 2022Review
- Facts Tell, Stories Sell? Assessing the Availability Heuristic and Resistance as Cognitive Mechanisms Underlying the Persuasive Effects of Vaccination Narratives.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- Article
- Reactance revisited: Consequences of mandatory and scarce vaccination in the case of COVID-19.Applied psychology. Health and well-being · 2021Article
- Rather than inducing psychological reactance, requiring vaccination strengthens intentions to vaccinate in US populations.Scientific reports · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLow vaccine uptake results in regular outbreaks of severe diseases, such as measles. Selective mandates, e.g. making measles vaccination mandatory (as currently implemented in Germany), could offer a viable solution to the problem. However, prior research has shown that making only some vaccinations mandatory, while leaving the rest to voluntary decisions, can result in psychological reactance (anger) and decreased uptake of voluntary vaccines. Since communicating the concept of herd immunity has been shown to increase willingness to vaccinate, this study assessed whether it can buffer such reactance effects.
methodsA total of
findingsHerd immunity communication generally increased vaccination intentions; selective mandates had no overall effect on intentions, and there was no interaction of the factors. However, selective mandates led to increased anger when herd immunity was not explained, leading in turn to lower subsequent vaccination intentions.
interpretationExplaining herd immunity can counter potential detrimental effects of selective mandates by preventing anger (reactance).
fundingThis study was funded by the University of Erfurt and the German Research Foundation (BE-3979/11-1).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.