What would disprove this analysis? (Criterion 1)

Information campaigns consistently increase vaccine uptake in hesitant populations

What would disprove this analysis? (Criterion 2)

Myth debunking reduces belief in the debunked myth rather than reinforcing it

What would disprove this analysis? (Criterion 3)

Detailed risk disclosure does not increase vaccine refusal rates

When should you avoid vaccine hesitancy information paradox?

Your primary strategy is fact-based debunking of vaccine myths. You assume hesitancy is primarily an information deficit problem

What are alternatives?

Trusted messenger programs: Community leaders and personal doctors are more persuasive than campaigns. Default and nudge approaches: Make vaccination the easy default rather than requiring active choice. Motivational interviewing: Address emotional concerns through conversation, not information delivery

Catalog

H011

Science & Health

Vaccine Hesitancy Information Paradox

HIGH(80%)

February 2026

3 sources

Context

Public health agencies respond to vaccine hesitancy by providing more information — fact sheets, debunking campaigns, social media counter-messaging. The assumption is that hesitancy stems from ignorance, and information corrects ignorance. But research consistently shows that more information often increases hesitancy rather than reducing it. Debunking myths reinforces them through the familiarity backfire effect. Detailed risk disclosures — required by law — give hesitant individuals specific fears to anchor on. And the information environment itself has changed: every fact sheet competes with thousands of emotionally compelling anti-vaccine narratives optimized for engagement. The information approach fails because hesitancy is primarily emotional and social, not informational.

Hypothesis

What people believe

“More information about vaccine safety and efficacy increases vaccine uptake.”

Actual Chain

→

Myth debunking reinforces myths(Familiarity backfire effect)

└

People remember the myth more than the correction

└

Repeated exposure to myth framing increases perceived prevalence

→

Risk disclosures provide anchoring points for fear(Rare side effects become salient)

└

1-in-a-million risks feel personal and immediate

└

Risk-benefit calculation skewed by availability bias

└

Informed consent process inadvertently increases refusal

→

Information campaigns compete with emotional narratives(Facts vs stories — stories win)

└

One emotional anecdote outweighs statistical evidence

└

Anti-vaccine content optimized for engagement, health content is not

Impact

Metric	Before	After	Delta
Hesitancy after debunking campaigns	Baseline hesitancy	Unchanged or increased	0 to +10%
Myth recall after correction	Expected: myth forgotten	Myth remembered, correction forgotten	Backfire effect
Vaccine confidence in high-information groups	Expected: highest	Often lower than moderate-information groups	Paradoxical

Navigation

Don't If

•Your primary strategy is fact-based debunking of vaccine myths
•You assume hesitancy is primarily an information deficit problem

If You Must

1.Lead with the correct information, not the myth being debunked
2.Use trusted community messengers rather than institutional campaigns
3.Focus on social norms (most people vaccinate) rather than risk statistics

Alternatives

Trusted messenger programs — Community leaders and personal doctors are more persuasive than campaigns
Default and nudge approaches — Make vaccination the easy default rather than requiring active choice
Motivational interviewing — Address emotional concerns through conversation, not information delivery

Falsifiability

This analysis is wrong if:

Information campaigns consistently increase vaccine uptake in hesitant populations
Myth debunking reduces belief in the debunked myth rather than reinforcing it
Detailed risk disclosure does not increase vaccine refusal rates

Sources

1.
Nyhan & Reifler: Backfire Effects in Vaccine Communication
Landmark study showing myth correction can increase misperceptions
2.
WHO: Vaccine Hesitancy Determinants
Framework identifying hesitancy as confidence, complacency, and convenience
3.
Lancet: Vaccine Confidence and Communication
Meta-analysis of information campaign effectiveness on vaccine uptake

H006 S002