Literature Review: Reactance to Vaccination
Reactance to Vaccination
Sprengholz et al. (2021) studied the consequences of mandatory vaccines. The mental health aspect of mandatory vaccination is an important concept to keep in mind when developing policies for vaccination. Their study questioned whether or not the negative reactions and complaints towards the Covid-19 vaccines (before they were developed) and the current insufficient supply of vaccines, or halting of distribution altogether, were based on the same psychological mechanism of psychological reactance. This mechanism reflects an individual’s motivation to “regain the freedom lost,” as a result of mandatory vaccination (p. 987). For their first survey study, Sprengholz et al. focused their attention on subjects that were 18 to 74 years old, including 494 males and 479 females (p. 988). For the second study, the final sample size of the participants was 564 females aged 18 to 59 years old (p. 990). The researchers did not mention the statistics of the male participants or if there were any male subjects involved within the final study. As stated previously, the first study was conducted in a survey format:
Participants were asked what they would do if they had the opportunity to get a free vaccination against COVID-19 in the next week […] Participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions. In the unrestricted vaccination condition, participants should imagine that vaccination against COVID-19 was recommended but voluntary. In the mandatory vaccination condition, they should imagine that the vaccination was mandatory and that non-compliance would lead to a fine […] In the scarce vaccination condition, participants were directed to imagine that the vaccine was scarce and that they would have to wait until 2022 if they want to be vaccinated as elderly people and health professionals would be prioritized. (Sprengholz et al., 2021, pp. 988-989)
The second study took data from the first study and explained that mandatory and scarce vaccination can elicit reactance. Sprengholz et al. (2021) extended their findings to the consequences of the behaviour related to reactance. The second study was an experiment run in the same manner as the first with participants assigned randomly to one of three conditions: “Vaccination against COVID-19 was recommended, free of charge, and either unrestricted, mandatory, or scarce, depending on condition” (p. 990). Unlike the first study, the researchers gave a greater emphasis to vaccine scarcity.
Over 50% of participants from the first study had completed secondary education with university entrance qualifications. For the second study, over 60% of the participants obtained a college degree. The majority of the participants were Caucasian, followed by Asian participants, Black, and Latino. Sprengholz et al. (2021) explained that the results of their first study show reactance with stronger vaccination intent increased within the scarce vaccination condition and reactance decreased within the mandatory vaccination condition with the same level of vaccination intent (p. 989). In regard to the second study’s results, the researchers stated that “the more positive a priori vaccination intentions were the less reactance occurred given mandatory vaccination […] on the other hand, stronger a priori intentions were related to increasing reactance given scarce vaccination” (p. 991).
In the final summary of the study, Sprengholz et al. (2021) explain how the results of the studies confirmed their hypothesis that behavioural consequences of restricting freedoms for vaccination choices results in an increased intention to act against the elimination of said freedoms. Since the researcherss confirmed that their hypothesis was expressed in the manner they intended, they achieved the purpose of their experiment. However, Sprengholz et al. mention, “it is beyond the scope of this research to evaluate the ethical queries related to the implementation and communication of mandatory or scarce vaccination,” (p. 994). Despite this, they believe their findings will help social scientists and policymakers understand the mental effects of different vaccination procedures along with communication strategies to help stop the spread of Covid-19.
Sprengholz et al.’s (2021) research relates the findings from this current study as a result of the data collected from the survey created for MacEwan University Communication Studies students and alumni. The majority of the participants who had a positive perspective on mandatory vaccination policies were in favour because of how effective vaccination is in defending against Covid-19, the understood necessity to protect the immunocompromised, and their feelings of relief at having a vaccine available. However, there were still negative perceptions toward the vaccine. This current study relates to the source’s results of behavioural limitations in the context of restrictive freedoms for vaccination choices resulting in an increased intention to act against the elimination of said freedoms (pp. 991-993). This is related to those opposed to the mandatory vaccination policies who claim that mandates infringe upon the right to choose when it comes to vaccinations and bodily autonomy rights.
