Blogged Arteries

Opinion and Commentary from TMA

Why Vaccine Opponents Think They Know More Than Medical Experts

(Public Health) Permanent link
Vaccine Opponents file shot

Vaccinations have saved countless lives and untold suffering, even though many adults still believe vaccines are bad for their children.

By Matthew Motta, University of Pennsylvania; Steven Sylvester, Utah Valley University, and Timothy Callaghan, Texas A&M University

One of the most contentious areas of health policy over the past two decades has been the safety of vaccination. Vaccines prevent the outbreak of diseases that used to be widespread, like polio, and scientific consensus strongly supports their safety. Yet many Americans refuse or delay the vaccination of their children out of fear that it could lead to autism, even though scientific consensus refutes this claim.

Anti-vaccine attitudes have been fueled in large part by growing rates of autism diagnoses as well as a now debunked study in The Lancet that linked autism and the measles mumps rubella (MMR) vaccine – pushing many parents to see vaccination as a potential explanation for their child’s autism diagnosis.

The growing “anti-vax” movement here and abroad has seen parents refuse to give their children mandatory school vaccinations, growing numbers of celebrities questioning vaccine safety, and even pet owners refusing to vaccinate their dogs – forcing the British Veterinary Association to issue a statement in April that dogs cannot develop autism.

Given the consistent message from the scientific community about the safety of vaccines, and evidence of vaccine success as seen through the eradication of diseases, why has the skepticism about vaccines continued?

One possibility is that attitudes about medical experts help to explain the endorsement of anti-vax attitudes. Specifically, building on past research, our research team contends that some U.S. adults might support anti-vax policy positions in part because they believe they know more than medical experts about autism and its causes. We wanted to test this theory.

Vaccine skepticism and knowledge

Vaccination has been one of public health’s greatest success stories. It led to the eradication of smallpox and to widespread elimination of polio. Eradication of a disease means that it has been permanently wiped out and that intervention efforts are no longer necessary; smallpox so far is the only disease that has been eradicated. Elimination means a reduction to zero incidence in a specific geographic area as a result of deliberate efforts. Vaccination has protected millions from the ravages of tetanus, whooping cough and even chicken pox.

And yet, vaccine skepticism persists, extending into the political realm, with many politicians questioning the safety of vaccines. Most notably, President Donald Trump has questioned the credentials of doctors calling for vaccination, pushed for slowed vaccination schedules, and tapped vaccine skeptic Robert Kennedy Jr. to chair an administrative panel on vaccine safety.

We wondered: Could the inability of anti-vaxxers to accurately appraise their own knowledge and skills compared to those of medical experts play a role in shaping their attitudes about vaccines? This inability to accurately appraise one’s own knowledge is called the Dunning-Kruger effect, first identified in social psychology. Dunning-Kruger effects occur when individuals’ lack of knowledge about a particular subject leads them to inaccurately gauge their expertise on that subject. Ignorance of one’s own ignorance can lead people who lack knowledge on a subject think of themselves as more expert than those who are comparatively better informed. We refer to this as “overconfidence.”

Dunning-Kruger effects and anti-vax attitudes

To test our hypothesis, our research asked more than 1,300 Americans in December 2017 to compare their own perceived levels of knowledge about the causes of autism to those of medical doctors and scientists. After doing that, we asked respondents to answer a series of factual knowledge questions about autism, as well as the extent to which they agree with misinformation about a potential link between childhood vaccines and autism.

We found that 34 percent of U.S. adults in our sample feel that they know as much or more than scientists about the causes of autism. Slightly more, or 36 percent, feel the same way about their knowledge relative to that of medical doctors.

We also found strong evidence of Dunning-Kruger effects in our sample. Sixty-two percent of those who performed worst on our autism knowledge test believe that they know as much or more than both doctors and scientists about the causes of autism, compared to only 15 percent of those scoring best on the knowledge test. Likewise, 71 percent of those who strongly endorse misinformation about the link between vaccines and autism feel that they know as much or more than medical doctors about the causes of autism, compared to only 28 percent of those who most strongly reject that misinformation.

We recently published our findings at the journal Social Science and Medicine.

How does this affect vaccine policy?

Our research also finds that these Dunning-Kruger effects have important implications for vaccine policy.

In addition to gauging autism knowledge, our survey asked respondents to share their opinions on several aspects of vaccine policy. For example, we asked respondents whether or not they support parents’ decisions to not vaccinate their children before sending them to public schools. Respondents could tell us whether they strongly agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree or strongly disagree with that statement.

We found that nearly a third, or 30 percent, of people who think that they know more than medical experts about the causes of autism strongly support giving parents the latitude to not vaccinate their children. In contrast, 16 percent of those who do not think that they know more than medical professionals felt the same way.

Our study also finds that people who think they know more than medical experts are more likely to trust information about vaccines from non-expert sources, such as celebrities. These individuals are also more likely to support a strong role for non-experts in the process of making policies that pertain to vaccines and vaccination.

An uphill battle?

Ultimately, our results point to the uphill battle that the scientific community faces as it confronts growing anti-vax sentiment from the public and politicians alike. Even as the mountain of evidence on the safety and importance of vaccines from doctors and scientists continues to grow, many Americans think they know more than the experts trying to correct their misperceptions.

Therefore, finding new ways to present scientific consensus on vaccines to an audience skeptical of medical experts should be a priority. Our research suggests that one interesting area for future research could be to examine whether pro-vaccine information from non-expert sources like celebrities could persuade those with anti-vaccine policy attitudes to change their minds.

Matthew Motta, Postdoctoral fellow, University of Pennsylvania; Steven Sylvester, Assistant professor, public policy, Utah Valley University, and Timothy Callaghan, Assistant Professor, Texas A&M University School of Public Health, Texas A&M University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Writing a Blog for Your Practice: It’s Not Brain Surgery

 Permanent link


This blog post was originally published on

Many people have asked us how to blog as a creative outlet that also helps their practice.

But it's hard to know where to start, what to write about, and how often to write.

We’ll go over a few questions you need to ask yourself and topics to get started.

For Best Results, Know Your Audience

Before you write, you need to know whom you're writing for. Content that is interesting and useful to your audience will keep them coming back.

Here are a few questions you ask can yourself: 

  • What keeps them awake at night?
  • What fears could you reduce?
  • What are health-related frustrations?
  • What are common health-related concerns they’re facing right now?  

Knowing what’s important to your patients will take the guesswork out of the “what do I write about?” question and help you create content that helps your patients.

How Often You Should Post

We recommend you post regularly — once or twice a month, at least. But if you want to make content a part of your marketing strategy, you should try to shoot for two to three updates per week.

Articles of 1,000 to 2,000 words in length tend to rank higher on Google. If you can't sustain that many times per week, shorter articles will still produce results.

The important thing is, to create valuable content that patients want to engage with. If your patients value your content, so will Google. And if Google values your content, your patients will see it.

Writing the Blog Article

After all this planning, you have to sit down and write your blog articles. This is the basic process you need to follow.

80% of the Power of Your Article Is in the Title 

If the title isn’t interesting, then it won’t get clicked — no matter how good the rest of the article is. There are many different types of titles, but if you want one that almost always works, go with one that piques curiosity.

Don’t Post Right Away

Let your article sit overnight before you post it on your blog. This lets your subconscious mind do its work. Give your mind time to churn over ideas you might not have thought of while you were writing.

After you let your article sit overnight, read it through one more time. See if everything still makes sense. 

  • Is anything unclear or in need of more development?
  • Does the article flow well?
  • Is there anything that doesn’t support the main point of your article? 

You want to look for anything that breaks your flow, doesn’t make sense, or seems out of place. Trust your gut on this one.

Get Started

There’s a lot to learn, but don’t let it overwhelm you. Choose one topic and start writing. Take things slow and don’t add too much at one time. 

Write For TMA

If you’re looking for a simple and effective way to blog to your peers in medicine, the Texas Medical Association is always looking for submissions to its member blog, Blogged Arteries.

Blogged Arteries reaches more than 51,000 Texas physicians, making it a great platform to reach your colleagues.

Send submissions of no more than 1,500 words to Dave Doolittle, director of TMA’s physician publications, at david.doolittle[at]texmed[dot]org.

More Tips From TMA

TMA’s newly updated guide, Get Social: Put Your Practice on the Social Media Map, is designed to help physicians who have little to no experience with blogging and other social media. The guide isn’t just a technical overview of Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram, it’s an in-depth look at how to use social media to build awareness for your practice and grow its reputation online. And, just like many of TMA’s continuing medical education courses, it’s free to members thanks to a generous gift from the Texas Medical Association Insurance Trust.