Polarized Pandemic Politics: How Endorsements & Attributes Affect Vaccination

• In Event: Political Opinion During a Pandemic

Abstract

In November 2020, Pfeizer announced their proposed vaccine demonstrated a significant likelihood of providing protection against the virus that causes COVID-19. While many celebrated this announcement, U.S. public health officials remained cautious. Their concern was rooted in the potential that many Americans may elect to not receive a vaccination against COVID-19, potentially falling under the minimum 70% vaccination threshold that public health officials believe is necessary to establish herd immunity. Skeptics have offered a plethora of reasons for their vaccine hesitancy, ranging from vaccine country of origin to a concern that any vaccine approval process would be tainted by the polarized politics of the U.S. national government. In this paper, we assess what types of information can persuade the U.S. public to agree to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. Leveraging an original conjoint experiment fielded in the 2020 CCES, we examine how different information about the vaccine’s efficacy, the vaccine’s development, risks from taking the vaccine, and the political figures who endorse the vaccine affect the public’s likelihood to agree to receive the vaccine. These results are important not only to determining the best approach to resolve the current public health crisis, but also provide insight in to how general vaccine hesitancy can be resolved. Additionally, the results can contribute to our understanding about the effectiveness of corrections to misinformation in a crisis.

Authors

• Carlos Algara, Claremont Graduate University

• Daniel J. Simmons, Saint Michael's College