�鶹��Ѱ�����

People who get their news from an ideologically diverse array of sources are more likely to get vaccinated, regardless of their political affiliation, .

“This study shows that being exposed to a range of perspectives encourages critical thinking and makes people less likely to get stuck in a bubble or misled by misinformation,” said senior author Leaf Van Boven, a professor in the Department of Psychology and Neuroscience.

Published in the journal Scientific Reports, the study is among the first to take a close look at how media consumption habits shape vaccine hesitancy, which the World Health Organization has named as one of the “top 10” global threats to public health. The study comes as nationwide, and remains lower than it was before the pandemic. President Donald Trump has also nominated outspoken vaccine skeptic Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to lead the Department of Health and Human Services.

The researchers offer some advice for public health communicators wanting to boost trust and improve vaccine adherence: Encourage people to get out of their echo chambers.

“We as a society have kind of fallen into this belief that you can’t change other people’s minds, but this paper goes to show that when people are introduced to new ideas and evidence, they can make more informed choices and they are willing to change their beliefs,” said Dani Grant, first author of the study and a doctoral candidate at �鶹��Ѱ�����Boulder.

Media diet

As part of a larger project exploring public sentiments about COVID-19, Van Boven and Grant surveyed nearly 1,700 people in the spring of 2022, when vaccines and boosters were readily available to the public. The researchers asked respondents their age, ethnicity, education and political affiliation—factors that have previously been shown to shape vaccine adherence—and also asked them to rank how much they got their news from 20 different news outlets.

Outlets ranged from Breitbart News Network and Fox News on the conservative side to MSNBC and Democracy Now on the liberal side. The researchers determined a publication’s ideological tilt using bias ratings from All Sides and Ad Fontes Media, independent media intelligence organizations.

The team gave each respondent a media diversity score based on their answers.

At the time, 21% of those surveyed were not vaccinated, 17% were vaccinated, and 62% were vaccinated and boosted.

The study found that people who reported consuming more conservative media were significantly less likely to be vaccinated and boosted. The researchers noted that, for example, Fox News pundit Sean Hannity told viewers at the time that COVID-19 was made up by the “deep state,” and then-Fox business anchor Trish Regan characterized the virus as “a scam.”

Echo chambers

The most interesting finding, Grant and Van Boven said, was that when people consumed a diverse media diet, even if it included a range of conservative outlets, they still tended to get vaccinated.

“People who consumed news and opinions from a variety of political perspectives were more likely to be vaccinated, even after accounting for their political affiliation, age, gender, race and education,” said Van Boven.

When it came to trust in science, media consumption also had a notable influence. Those who consumed only left-leaning media had very high trust in science, while those who consumed only right-leaning media were highly skeptical.

The authors said that understanding the factors associated with vaccine hesitancy is critical not only for addressing the ongoing threat of COVID-19 but also for tackling other diseases like influenza, measles and whooping cough. Vaccination rates for all three diseases are declining in the United States.

“When people delay or refuse vaccines, we see avoidable deaths, illness and economic losses,” said Van Boven. “Vaccines are among our most effective public health tools, but their power depends on public trust.”

To regain trust, scientists and public health officials might also do well to step out of their own echo chambers, Grant said, sharing their perspectives and research with outlets they may not typically engage with.

“This is an opportunity for scientists to reflect on where we are not being as constructive as we could be,” she said. “I think that we should all be interacting across the media spectrum.”