Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Jan 25;13(1):e0191728.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0191728. eCollection 2018.

The influence of political ideology and trust on willingness to vaccinate

Affiliations

The influence of political ideology and trust on willingness to vaccinate

Bert Baumgaertner et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

In light of the increasing refusal of some parents to vaccinate children, public health strategies have focused on increasing knowledge and awareness based on a "knowledge-deficit" approach. However, decisions about vaccination are based on more than mere knowledge of risks, costs, and benefits. Individual decision making about vaccinating involves many other factors including those related to emotion, culture, religion, and socio-political context. In this paper, we use a nationally representative internet survey in the U.S. to investigate socio-political characteristics to assess attitudes about vaccination. In particular, we consider how political ideology and trust affect opinions about vaccinations for flu, pertussis, and measles. Our findings demonstrate that ideology has a direct effect on vaccine attitudes. In particular, conservative respondents are less likely to express pro-vaccination beliefs than other individuals. Furthermore, ideology also has an indirect effect on immunization propensity. The ideology variable predicts an indicator capturing trust in government medical experts, which in turn helps to explain individual-level variation with regards to attitudes about vaccine choice.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Path model results.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Sealander J. The failed century of the child: Governing America’s young in the twentieth century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2003.
    1. Phadke VK, Bednarczyk RA, Salmon DA, Omer SB. Association between vaccine refusal and vaccine-preventable diseases in the United States. JAMA. 2016;315: 1149 doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.1353 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Elam-Evans LD, Yankey D, Singleton JA, Kolasa M. National, state, and selected local area vaccination coverage among children aged 19–35 months—United States, 2013. In: Mobidity and mortality weekly report [Internet]. 2014. Available: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6334a1.htm - PMC - PubMed
    1. Fine P, Eames K, Heymann DL. “Herd immunity”: A rough guide. Clin Infect Dis. 2011;52: 911–916. doi: 10.1093/cid/cir007 - DOI - PubMed
    1. States with religious and philosophical exemptions from school immunization requirements [Internet]. 2016 [cited 8 Sep 2017]. Available: http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/school-immunization-exemption-state-...

Publication types