CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,232Misinformation and Its ImpactsVaccine Coverage and HesitancyRisk Perception and Management

The Effects of Anti-Vaccine Conspiracy Theories on Vaccination Intentions

Open access
Jolley, Daniel, Douglas, Karen M.·2014·PLoS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0089177PMC PMC3930676
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The current studies investigated the potential impact of anti-vaccine conspiracy beliefs, and exposure to anti-vaccine conspiracy theories, on vaccination intentions. In Study 1, British parents completed a questionnaire measuring beliefs in anti-vaccine conspiracy theories and the likelihood that they would have a fictitious child vaccinated. Results revealed a significant negative relationship between anti-vaccine conspiracy beliefs and vaccination intentions. This effect was mediated by the perceived dangers of vaccines, and feelings of powerlessness, disillusionment and mistrust in authorities. In Study 2, participants were exposed to information that either supported or refuted anti-vaccine conspiracy theories, or a control condition. Results revealed that participants who had been exposed to material supporting anti-vaccine conspiracy theories showed less intention to vaccinate than those in the anti-conspiracy condition or controls. This effect was mediated by the same variables as in Study 1. These findings point to the potentially detrimental consequences of anti-vaccine conspiracy theories, and highlight their potential role in shaping health-related behaviors.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Two studies show that anti-vaccine conspiracy beliefs and exposure to anti-vaccine conspiracy material are associated with lower intentions to vaccinate a fictitious child. These effects were mediated by perceived vaccine dangers, powerlessness, disillusionment, and mistrust in authorities.

Key findings

  • In Study 1, anti-vaccine conspiracy beliefs significantly negatively predicted vaccination intentions, \(F(1, 87) = 15.97, p < .001, R^2 = .16, \beta = -.63\). Perceived dangers of vaccines, powerlessness, disillusionment, and trust in authorities each significantly mediated this relationship.
  • In Study 2, vaccination intentions were significantly lower in the pro-conspiracy condition (\(M = 4.87, SD = 1.74\)) than in the anti-conspiracy condition (\(M = 5.69, SD = 1.31, p = .003\)) and the control condition (\(M = 5.47, SD = 1.50, p = .028\)), overall \(F(2, 185) = 4.81, p = .009, \eta^2 = .05\).
  • The manipulation check showed higher endorsement of anti-vaccine conspiracy theories in the pro-conspiracy condition (\(M = 4.11, SD = 1.41\)) than the anti-conspiracy condition (\(M = 2.93, SD = 1.14, p < .001\)) and control condition (\(M = 3.56, SD = 1.21, p = .014\)).
  • Perceived vaccine dangers consistently mediated the effects; powerlessness and disillusionment mediated the pro- versus anti-conspiracy difference, and trust in authorities mediated the pro-conspiracy versus control difference.

Methods

  • Study 1 used a correlational online questionnaire with 89 British parents (\(80\) women, \(9\) men; \(M\) age \(= 38.06, SD = 9.25\)). Participants completed measures of anti-vaccine conspiracy beliefs, perceived dangers, powerlessness, disillusionment, trust in authorities, and intention to vaccinate a fictitious 8-month-old child against a made-up disease, dysomeria.
  • Study 2 recruited 246 U.S. MTurk participants, with a final analyzed sample of 188 after screening exclusions. Participants were randomly assigned to pro-conspiracy, anti-conspiracy, or control information, then completed the same mediator measures and vaccination intention measure.
  • Both studies used bootstrapping mediation analyses with 5000 bootstrap samples; Study 2 used ANOVA and indicator-coded mediation to compare the three conditions.

Limitations

  • The paper states that effect sizes were small (e.g., \(\eta^2 = .05\) in Study 2), conspiracy endorsement was generally around or below the midpoint except in the pro-conspiracy condition (\(M = 4.11\)), the mediation pattern was less clear in Study 2, and findings relied on self-reported intentions for a fictional child and made-up disease rather than actual vaccination behavior.
  • The paper notes that future research should examine larger samples, actual vaccination behavior, additional or isolated mediators, and geographical areas with dangerously low vaccination uptake.
  • Evident from the text: Study 1 is correlational and cannot establish causality, and both studies use hypothetical vaccination scenarios, which may limit ecological validity.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0089177

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

0 of 32 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    In Study 1, anti-vaccine conspiracy beliefs were significantly negatively associated with vaccination intentions among British parents.

    “Results revealed a significant negative relationship between anti-vaccine conspiracy beliefs and vaccination intentions.”
    • Also stated in: § Results and Discussion · plain
      “As predicted, regression analyses revealed that anti-vaccine conspiracy beliefs were a significant negative predictor of vaccination intentions, F(1, 87) = 15.97, p<.001, R2 = .16, β = −.63, t = − 3.10, p<. 001.”
    • Also stated in: § Results and Discussion · plain
      “Participants who endorsed anti-vaccine conspiracy theories to a greater extent indicated less intention to vaccinate.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    In Study 1, anti-vaccine conspiracy beliefs were a significant predictor of perceived dangers of vaccines.

    “As shown in Table 2, anti-vaccine conspiracy beliefs were a significant predictor of perceived dangers of vaccines, and feelings of powerlessness, disillusionment and trust in authorities, F(5, 83) = 120.37, p<.001, R2 = .58; F(5, 83) = 41.70, p<.001, R2 = .32; F(5, 83) = 74.43, p<.001, R2 = .46; F(5, 83) = 23.00, p<.001, R2 = .20, respectively.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    In Study 2, participants exposed to material supporting anti-vaccine conspiracy theories showed less intention to vaccinate than those in the anti-conspiracy condition or control.

    “Results revealed that participants who had been exposed to material supporting anti-vaccine conspiracy theories showed less intention to vaccinate than those in the anti-conspiracy condition or controls.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    In Study 2, the effect of exposure to anti-vaccine conspiracy theories on vaccination intentions was mediated by the same variables as in Study 1 (perceived dangers, powerlessness, disillusionment, trust in authorities).

    “This effect was mediated by the same variables as in Study 1.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    In Study 1, the negative relationship between anti-vaccine conspiracy beliefs and vaccination intentions was mediated by perceived dangers of vaccines, feelings of powerlessness, disillusionment, and trust in authorities (each controlling for the others).

    “This effect was mediated by the perceived dangers of vaccines, and feelings of powerlessness, disillusionment and mistrust in authorities.”
    • Also stated in: § Results and Discussion · hedged
      “The multiple mediation analysis of the effect of anti-vaccine conspiracy beliefs on vaccination intentions indicated that perceived dangers of vaccines and feelings of powerlessness, disillusionment and trust in authorities (controlling for each other) were each significant mediators of this effect.”
    • Also stated in: § Results and Discussion · plain
      “When all factors were taken into account, each was a significant mediator of the relationship between anti-vaccine conspiracy beliefs and vaccination intentions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 18
  • May combine two claims. 9
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 2

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    The perceived dangers of vaccines scale had acceptable internal consistency (α = .86).

    “There were eight statements (e.g., “Vaccines lead to allergies”, α = .86)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    The powerlessness scale had acceptable internal consistency (α = .82).

    “Participants were asked to read the statements (e.g., “I feel that my actions will not stop the negative outcomes of immunizations”, α = .82)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    The disillusionment scale had acceptable internal consistency (α = .89).

    “consisted of four statements (e.g., “I am very disappointed with those who are involved in immunizations (e.g., the government, pharmaceutical companies)”, α = .89)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Feelings of political powerlessness mediate the relationship between exposure to conspiracy theories and voting intentions.

    “and also that feelings of political powerlessness mediate the relationship between exposure to conspiracy theories and voting intentions [22].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [22] Jolley D, Douglas KM (2013) The social consequences of conspiracism: Exposure to conspiracy theories decreases the intention to engage in politics and to reduce one’s carbon footprint. Br J Psychol: in press. doi:10.1111/bjop.12018. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    More than 20% of respondents endorse the idea that there is a link between childhood vaccines and autism.

    “Further, polls demonstrate that more than 20% of respondents endorse the idea that there is a link between childhood vaccines and autism [13].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [13] Public Policy Polling (2013) Democrats and Republicans differ on conspiracy theory beliefs. Available: <ext-link xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_National_ConspiracyTheories_040213.pdf" xlink:type="simple">http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_National_ConspiracyTheories_040213.pdf</ext-link>. Accessed: 2013 Nov 27.

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Exposure to conspiracy theories increases political disillusionment.

    “Previous research has demonstrated that exposure to conspiracy theories increases political disillusionment [22]”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [22] Jolley D, Douglas KM (2013) The social consequences of conspiracism: Exposure to conspiracy theories decreases the intention to engage in politics and to reduce one’s carbon footprint. Br J Psychol: in press. doi:10.1111/bjop.12018. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Endorsement of conspiracy theories about birth control and HIV/AIDS amongst African Americans is associated with negative attitudes towards contraceptive behaviors.

    “Endorsement of these conspiracy theories amongst African Americans has been found to be associated with negative attitudes towards contraceptive behaviors, which may potentially expose people to the risk of unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted illnesses [23], [24], [25].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [23] ST Bird, 2003, Birth control conspiracy beliefs, perceived discrimination, and contraception among African Americans, Journal of Health Psychology source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [24] LM Bogart, 2006, Relationship of African Americans’ socio demographic characteristics to belief in conspiracies about HIV/AIDS and birth control, Journal of the National Medical Association

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [25] MA Hoyt, 2012, HIV/AIDS-related institutional mistrust among multiethnic men who have sex with men: Effects on HIV testing and risk behaviors, Health Psychology source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The order of measures was counterbalanced in Study 1.

    “The order of measures was counterbalanced.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Study 1 was approved by the Psychology Ethics Committee at the University of Kent and all participants provided written informed consent.

    “The study was approved by the Psychology Ethics Committee at the University of Kent and all participants provided their written, informed consent.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). The quote only partly states this claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    The trust in authorities scale had acceptable reliability (Spearman-Brown Coefficient = .82).

    “There were two trust sources (corporations and government; Spearman-Brown Coefficient = .82)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Exposure to conspiracy theories has been found to have detrimental effects in other domains, such as reducing pro-environmental intentions and willingness to engage in politics.

    “Also, exposure to conspiracy theories has been found to have detrimental effects in other domains, such as reducing pro-environmental intentions and willingness to engage in politics [21], [22].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [21] LD Butler, 1995, The psychological impact of viewing the film JFK: Emotions, beliefs and political behavioral intentions, Political Psychology source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [22] Jolley D, Douglas KM (2013) The social consequences of conspiracism: Exposure to conspiracy theories decreases the intention to engage in politics and to reduce one’s carbon footprint. Br J Psychol: in press. doi:10.1111/bjop.12018. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    In Study 2, feelings of powerlessness and disillusionment mediated the difference between the pro- and anti-conspiracy conditions, and mistrust in authorities mediated the difference between the pro-conspiracy and control conditions.

    “In Study 2, feelings of powerlessness and disillusionment mediated the difference between the pro- and anti-conspiracy conditions, and mistrust in authorities mediated the difference between the pro-conspiracy and control conditions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The proportion of variance in vaccine intentions explained by exposure to conspiracy theories was quite modest and there are potentially many other factors that contribute to vaccine intentions.

    “This means that the proportion of variance in vaccine intentions explained by exposure to conspiracy theories was quite modest and there are potentially many other factors that contribute to vaccine intentions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    In Study 2, the final sample size used for data analysis was 188 after removing participants who failed screening.

    “The final sample size used for data analysis was therefore 188 (112 women and 76 men, M age = 36.33, SD = 13.40).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Feelings of powerlessness and disillusionment mediated the difference between the pro- and anti-conspiracy conditions, and mistrust in authorities mediated the difference between the pro-conspiracy and control conditions.

    “Further, feelings of powerlessness and disillusionment mediated the difference between the pro- and anti-conspiracy conditions, and mistrust in authorities mediated the difference between the pro-conspiracy and control conditions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    In Study 2, there were 60 participants in the pro-conspiracy condition, 62 in the anti-conspiracy condition, and 66 in the control condition.

    “There were 60 participants in the pro-conspiracy condition, 62 in the anti-conspiracy condition, and 66 in the control condition.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Intentions do not always translate into behaviors.

    “As is well known, intentions do not always translate into behaviors [47], [48], [49].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [47] RT LaPiere, 1934, Attitudes vs. actions, Social Forces source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [48] LS Linn, 1965, Verbal attitudes and overt behavior: A study of racial discrimination, Social Forces source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [49] Sheeran P (2002) Intention-behavior relations: A conceptual and empirical review. In: Stroebe W, Hewstone M, editors. European Review of Social Psychology. Chichester, UK: Wiley. Vol. 12, 1–36. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationcitation

    Different strategies for successful intervention may apply for people who hold strong anti-vaccine conspiracy beliefs than those who do not hold strong beliefs.

    “Similarly, different strategies for successful intervention may apply for people who hold strong anti-vaccine conspiracy beliefs than those who do not hold strong beliefs [44].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [44] CR Sunstein, 2009, Conspiracy theories: Causes and cures, J Polit Philos source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Psychologists are learning more about the traits and characteristics associated with beliefs in conspiracy theories more generally, such as mistrust, anomie, political cynicism and Machiavellianism.

    “Psychologists are learning more about the traits and characteristics associated with beliefs in conspiracy theories more generally, such as mistrust, anomie, political cynicism and Machiavellianism [8], [20], [31], [50]”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [8] T Goertzel, 1994, Belief in conspiracy theories, Polit Psychol source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [20] KM Douglas, 2008, The hidden impact of conspiracy theories: Perceived and actual influence of theories surrounding the death of Princess Diana, Br J Soc Psychol source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [31] M Abalakina-Paap, 1999, Beliefs in conspiracies, Political Psychology source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Anti-vaccine conspiracy theories appear to reduce vaccination intentions by inducing undue concern about the dangers of vaccines, and increasing powerlessness, disillusionment, and mistrust.

    “Specifically, they appear to reduce vaccination intentions by inducing undue concern about the dangers of vaccines, and increasing powerlessness, disillusionment, and mistrust.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Participants were not strong endorsers of anti-vaccine conspiracy theories, meaning that different patterns of findings may emerge for those who do strongly endorse conspiracy theories.

    “Therefore, the participants were not strong endorsers of anti-vaccine conspiracy theories, meaning that different patterns of findings may emerge for those who do strongly endorse conspiracy theories.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Overall, anti-vaccine conspiracy theories appear to introduce undue suspicion about vaccine safety, increase feelings of powerlessness and disillusionment, and decrease trust in authorities, which in turn introduce reluctance to vaccinate.

    “Therefore, overall, anti-vaccine conspiracy theories appear to introduce undue suspicion about vaccine safety, and increase feelings of powerlessness and disillusionment, whilst decreasing trust in authorities, which in turn introduce reluctance to vaccinate.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    In Study 2, participants were randomly assigned to one of the three conditions.

    “Participants were randomly assigned to one of the three conditions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Study 2 was approved by the Psychology Ethics Committee at the University of Kent and all participants provided written informed consent.

    “The study was approved by the Psychology Ethics Committee at the University of Kent and all participants provided their written, informed consent.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
24 of 24

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The measured mediators (perceived vaccine dangers, powerlessness, disillusionment, and trust in authorities) are causally prior to and influence vaccination intentions, as required for the mediation analysis.

    “Each of the candidate mediators was then examined in a test of mediation in order to explain the effect of the conspiracy conditions (pro-conspiracy versus anti-conspiracy, versus control) on vaccination intentions.”
1 of 1

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • Consistentχ²(136) = 4544.44reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “X 2 (136) = 4544.44, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 87) = 15.97reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1, 87) = 15.97, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(5, 83) = 120.37reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(5, 83) = 120.37, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(5, 83) = 41.7reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(5, 83) = 41.70, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(5, 83) = 74.43reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(5, 83) = 74.43, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(5, 83) = 23reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(5, 83) = 23.00, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(2, 185) = 4.81reported p = .009 · recomputed p = .009

    “F(2, 185) = 4.81, p = .009”

  • ConsistentF(2, 185) = 7.61reported p = .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(2, 185) = 7.61, p = .001”

  • ConsistentF(2, 185) = 3.44reported p = .034 · recomputed p = .034

    “F(2, 185) = 3.44, p = .034”

  • ConsistentF(2, 185) = 7.46reported p = .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(2, 185) = 7.46, p = .001”

  • ConsistentF(2, 185) = 2.32reported p = .1 · recomputed p = .101

    “F(2, 185) = 2.32, p = .10”

11 of 11

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Table 1 gives two values for the same intention-danger correlation

    Minor

    The intention row reports its correlation with dangers as −.49, while the dangers row reports the same correlation as −.48.

  • Study 1 regression t and F statistics disagree

    Minor

    For a regression with one predictor, F equals t squared. The reported t of −3.10 gives F = 9.61, not 15.97.

    Reported 15.97 · recomputed 9.61

  • Table 1 gives two values for the same danger-disillusionment correlation

    Minor

    The dangers row reports the correlation with disillusionment as .60, while the disillusionment row reports it as .59.

  • Study 1 standardized coefficient conflicts with its correlation

    Minor

    In a regression with one predictor, the standardized coefficient β equals the predictor-outcome correlation. The regression reports β = −.63, while Table 1 reports −.40.

  • Study 1 mediator regressions have incompatible degrees of freedom

    Minor

    The text describes four separate regressions, each with anti-vaccine conspiracy beliefs as the predictor and one mediator as the outcome. Each would have one predictor degree of freedom, not the reported five.

5 of 5

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 49 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Jolley, D., & Douglas, K. M.
Affiliations
University of Kent (GB)
Corresponding author
  • Jolley, Daniel
  • Douglas, Karen M.
ORCID
Venue
PLoS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2014-02-20
Volume
9
Issue
2
Pages
e89177
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0089177
PMC
PMC3930676
OpenAlex
W2016520072
Cited by
1,232
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 68 · 2025: 92 · 2024: 116 · 2023: 147 · 2022: 225 · 2021: 232 · 2020: 147 · 2019: 51 · 2018: 72 · 2017: 39 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 6
FWCI
89.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Staffordshire Online Repository (Staffordshire University) (acceptedVersion)
  • Northumbria Research Link (Northumbria University) (acceptedVersion)
  • Kent Academic Repository (University of Kent) (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Health › Vaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
Keywords
vaccination intention, vaccine hesitancy, powerlessness, misinformation exposure, health behavior, parents
MeSH terms
Adult, Child, Preschool, Culture, Female, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Male, Surveys and Questionnaires, Vaccination, Vaccines, Intention

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-09.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-09.

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