Biased Assimilation and Need for Closure: Examining the Effects of Mixed Blogs on Vaccine-Related Beliefs
Abstract
This study examines the effect of mixed online information, in the form of user-generated blogs, related to the HPV vaccine on perceived efficacy and safety of this vaccine. Guided by the theoretical frameworks of biased assimilation and need for closure, this research hypothesizes that exposure to mixed blogs about the HPV vaccine will lead to polarization of HPV vaccine-related beliefs among individuals with opposing prior opinions about vaccination and that the polarizing effects will be most pronounced among those high in need for closure. A controlled experiment (N = 338) found support for the hypotheses with regard to efficacy beliefs but not with regard to safety beliefs. Implications for health communication research and practice are discussed.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Nan and Daily found that portrayals of scientific disagreement regarding vaccine safety resulted in more supportive attitudes for individuals with prior support for vaccines, but less supportive attitudes for those with prior opposition to vaccines.
“One example is a study (Nan and Daily, 2015) finding that portrayals of scientific disagreement regarding vaccine safety resulted in more supportive attitudes for individuals with prior support for vaccines, but less supportive attitudes for those with prior opposition to vaccines.”
From A review of the effects of uncertainty in public science communication (2020) · cites this paper as Nan and Daily, 2015
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 40 · Cited by 55
- Authors
- Nan, X., & Daily, K.
- Affiliations
- University of Maryland, College Park (US)
- La Salle University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Nan, Xiaoli
- ORCID
- Nan, Xiaoli
- Venue
- Journal of Health Communication
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2015-03-09
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 462-471
- ISSN
- 1081-0730 (ISSN-L)
- 1087-0415
- OpenAlex
- W2055414591
- Cited by
- 55
- References
- 40
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 1
- FWCI
- 5.44
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Health Communication (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Health › Vaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
- Keywords
- HPV vaccine, vaccine beliefs, biased assimilation, need for closure, blogs, user-generated content, belief polarization, perceived vaccine efficacy, perceived vaccine safety, vaccine attitudes
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Female, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Male, Psychological Theory, Papillomavirus Vaccines, Young Adult, Blogging
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
