Skip to main content
Skip to main content

AAP Gateway

Advanced Search »

User menu

  • Login
  • Current Policy
  • Topic/Program Collections
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Alerts
  • Subscribe
  • aap.org

Menu

  • AAP Grand Rounds
  • AAP News
  • Hospital Pediatrics
  • NeoReviews
  • Pediatrics
  • Pediatrics in Review
  • Current AAP Policy
  • Journal CME
  • AAP Career Center
  • Pediatric Collections
  • AAP Journals Catalog

Sections

    • Login
    • Current Policy
    • Topic/Program Collections
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Alerts
    • Subscribe
    • aap.org

    Sign up for Insight Alerts highlighting editor-chosen studies with the greatest impact on clinical care.

    New! Video Abstracts -- brief videos summarizing key findings of new articles

    Know what's next when you read AAP Journals, view the new 2018 Catalog.
    Trainees,
    enter the SOPT Essay Contest for a chance to be published in Pediatrics!

    Advertising Disclaimer »

    Tools and Links

    Pediatrics
    May 2013, VOLUME 131 / ISSUE 5
    From the American Academy of Pediatrics
    Commentary

    Window or Mirror: Social Networks’ Role in Immunization Decisions

    Douglas J. Opel, Edgar K. Marcuse
    • Article
    • Info & Metrics
    • Comments
    Loading
    Download PDF
    • decision-making
    • immunization
    • social networks

    Parents’ immunization decision-making is complex.1 It can be influenced by perceptions of disease risk and vaccine effectiveness as well as external factors, such as school immunization policies and a health care providers’ recommendation. Parents’ immunization decisions are not always based on rational logic that incorporates scientific evidence. Rather, the cultural, emotional, political, and social context within which decisions are made may introduce substantial irrationality.2 Currently, we have only a rudimentary understanding of the effects of this social context on parents’ immunization behavior. In this month’s Pediatrics, Brunson applies an innovative methodology called “social network analysis” to gain insight into how peer networks and information sources affect immunization decisions.3

    During the 1950s, Solomon Asch conducted seminal studies of the impact of social influence on judgment. In one set of experiments, several groups were asked to match the length of 3 lines drawn on a piece a paper to a standard line drawn on another paper.4 Only 1 of the 3 lines was equal to the standard. Before the experiment, all but 1 person in each group, the critical subject, were covertly told to vocally and unanimously express the wrong judgment about which line matched the standard. The results were striking. Compared with subjects who were part of control groups in which no artificial majority was created, critical subjects were much less likely to match the correct line to the standard (95% vs 24%, respectively): their judgements were distorted by the unanimously wrong majority. When interviewed afterward, subjects most likely to agree with the majority were less confident of their rightness, more doubtful, and felt more temptation to conform.

    The pressure to conform to group opinion is relevant to immunization decision-making. In a survey study, Hershey and colleagues found that among 3 factors hypothesized to be involved in immunization decisions: altruism, free-riding, and bandwagoning (ie, doing what most other people do), bandwagoning had the greatest effect on vaccine acceptance.5 Similarly, as part of an international ethnographic study, Streefland and colleagues observed a collective dimension to decision-making: “people have their children vaccinated because everybody does and it seems the normal thing to do.”6

    Brunson continues this inquiry into the impact of social influence by exploring the features inherent to the social groups of parents who do and do not conform to the recommended vaccination schedule. Her results lay bare a fundamental question: are social networks a window or mirror into parental immunization decisions? That is, does the collective advice from a parent’s social network serve as an opportunity to explore diverse ideas and viewpoints about immunization and specific vaccines, or does it simply reflect and reinforce what that parent is already predisposed to think and do?

    Recent evidence suggests the latter. For instance, the cultural cognition thesis maintains that people conform their factual beliefs to ones that are consistent with their cultural worldview. Kahan et al has shown that cultural cognition indeed mitigates our perceptions of the risks and benefits of human papillomavirus vaccination: we not only endorse or ignore information about human papillomavirus in a manner that confirms our previous beliefs, but this selectivity intensifies when we perceive the source of this information to be someone with whom we share similar values.7 Leask et al also found that mothers’ social networks were a source of reassurance in the face of new information about vaccines and were “an important way to return to formerly established views.”8

    Brunson’s study also provokes us to consider what might be the cumulative effect of social networks on parental immunization decision-making. Networks that may initially be a window may become reflective over time, thereby strengthening and sustaining a vaccine position. It is clear that we need to understand how the influence of social networks on parental immunization decision-making evolves and matures over time if we hope to shape it.

    The emerging understanding of the importance of social networks in immunization decision-making not only serves as a reminder that immunization is a social practice but also that we have much to learn about how health care decisions are made today. As a society, we respect the privacy of health care decisions; however, if we are to sustain adherence to the recommended immunization schedule as a social norm, we need to learn how to empower immunizing parents to become vocal and talk with other parents, including prospective parents, about why they chose to immunize their children. We must develop and test public health interventions that are based on the cognitive processes actually used by parents in their immunization decision-making while working to increase the role of science in parent’s decision-making.

    This work is important to help lessen the burden on pediatric providers to influence parents’ immunization knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs. Although the provider-parent conversation about vaccines may be the most influential to parental decision-making, these conversations can be difficult to navigate, especially during the increasingly time-limited provider-parent encounter. Public health interventions aimed at shaping the social milieu of immunization decision-making outside the examination room can complement providers’ efforts to achieve the full benefit of immunizations within. Our emerging understanding of vaccine decision-making suggests that this priming of the pump is just what is needed.

    Footnotes

      • Accepted February 22, 2013.
    • Address correspondence to Douglas J. Opel MD, MPH, Treuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics, Center for Clinical and Translational Research, Seattle Children’s Research Institute, 1900 Ninth Ave, M/S: C9S-6, Seattle, WA 98101. E-mail: djopel{at}u.washington.edu
    • Opinions expressed in these commentaries are those of the author and not necessarily those of the American Academy of Pediatrics or its Committees.

    • FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: The authors have indicated they have no financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose.

    • FUNDING: No external funding.

    • COMPANION PAPER: A companion to this article can be found on page e1397, and online at www.pediatrics.org/cgi/doi/10.1542/peds.2012-2452.

    References

    1. 1.↵
      1. Sturm LA,
      2. Mays RM,
      3. Zimet GD
      . Parental beliefs and decision making about child and adolescent immunization: from polio to sexually transmitted infections. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2005;26(6):441–452
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    2. 2.↵
      1. Plough A,
      2. Krimsky S
      . The emergence of risk communication studies: social and political context. Sci Technol Human Values. 1987;12(3&4):4–10
      OpenUrlWeb of Science
    3. 3.↵
      1. Brunson EK
      . The impact of social networks on parents' vaccination decisions. Pediatrics. 2013
    4. 4.↵
      1. Asch SE
      . Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychol Monogr. 1956;79(9):1–70
      OpenUrl
    5. 5.↵
      1. Hershey JC,
      2. Asch DA,
      3. Thumasathit T,
      4. Maszaros J,
      5. Waters VV
      . The roles of altriusim, free riding, and bandwagoning in vaccination decisions. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1994;59(2):177–187
      OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
    6. 6.↵
      Streefland P, Chowdhury AM, Ramos-Jimenez P. Patterns of vaccination acceptance. Soc Sci Med 1999;49(12):1705–1716.
    7. 7.↵
      1. Kahan DM,
      2. Braman D,
      3. Cohen GL,
      4. Gastil J,
      5. Slovic P
      . Who fears the HPV vaccine, who doesn’t, and why? An experimental study of the mechanisms of cultural cognition. Law Hum Behav. 2010;34(6):501–516
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    8. 8.↵
      1. Leask J,
      2. Chapman S,
      3. Hawe P,
      4. Burgess M
      . What maintains parental support for vaccination when challenged by anti-vaccination messages? A qualitative study. Vaccine. 2006;24(49–50):7238–7245
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    • Copyright © 2013 by the American Academy of Pediatrics
    View Abstract
    PreviousNext

     

    Advertising Disclaimer »

    View this article with LENS
    PreviousNext
    Email

    Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Pediatrics.

    NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

    Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
    Window or Mirror: Social Networks’ Role in Immunization Decisions
    (Your Name) has sent you a message from Pediatrics
    (Your Name) thought you would like to see the Pediatrics web site.

    Alerts
    Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
    Citation Tools
    Window or Mirror: Social Networks’ Role in Immunization Decisions
    Douglas J. Opel, Edgar K. Marcuse
    Pediatrics May 2013, 131 (5) e1619-e1620; DOI: 10.1542/peds.2013-0531

    Citation Manager Formats

    • BibTeX
    • Bookends
    • EasyBib
    • EndNote (tagged)
    • EndNote 8 (xml)
    • Medlars
    • Mendeley
    • Papers
    • RefWorks Tagged
    • Ref Manager
    • RIS
    • Zotero
    Share
    Window or Mirror: Social Networks’ Role in Immunization Decisions
    Douglas J. Opel, Edgar K. Marcuse
    Pediatrics May 2013, 131 (5) e1619-e1620; DOI: 10.1542/peds.2013-0531
    del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
    Print
    PDF
    Insight Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Current Policy
    • Early Release
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Policies
    • Overview
    • Open Access
    • Pediatric Collections
    • Video Abstracts
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
    • Submit My Manuscript

    Subjects

    • Infectious Disease
      • Infectious Disease
      • Vaccine/Immunization
    Back to top

                

    Copyright (c) 2018 by American Academy of Pediatrics

    International Access »           

    Terms of Use
    Privacy Statement
    FAQ

    AAP Pediatrics