Persuading people to get vaccinated may intensify social polarization

Encouraging people to get vaccinated is often seen as a public health success story. However, understanding how persuading people to roll up their sleeves to receive vaccines creates social division is crucial. Particularly in a post COVID-19 world, where attitudes about infection control have may influence conflict.

Recent research, published in Vaccine: X highlights the recent efforts of a team from The University of Osaka, as their study aimed to better understand the relationship between vaccine messaging and social harmony. The findings suggest that common justifications used to promote COVID-19 vaccination can unintentionally worsen hostility between people who are for and against vaccination.

The team conducted four repeated online surveys between July 2023 and April 2024, after the COVID-19 emergency phase had officially ended. More than 13,000 adults from eight countries: Japan, the United Kingdom, the United States, China, South Korea, Germany, Italy, and South Africa took part. The participants were asked about their reasons for supporting vaccination, their intention to be vaccinated in the future, and their feelings toward people who held opposing views.

The results show a striking trade-off: higher vaccination intent and support for vaccine promotion was linked to ideas of self-protection, preventing harm to others, protecting society as a whole, and following social norms. However, these same ideas were also associated with stronger negative attitudes toward people who disagreed with vaccination, particularly among those who already supported it.

“Public health communication often assumes that stronger moral or social arguments are always better,” says lead author, Tomoyuki Kobayashi. “Our findings show that these messages can be double-edged swords. They motivate action, but they can also deepen social divisions.”

Senior author Asako Miura explains further, “When people see vaccination as a moral duty or a collective responsibility, those who opt out can come to be viewed as irresponsible or threatening. That perception can fuel social conflict, even after the immediate health crisis has passed.”

Interestingly, there was one exception. The possibility of penalties for not being vaccinated did not influence vaccination intent, but having consequences did appear to reduce hostility towards those with opposing views on vaccinations.

“This was a surprising finding,” says Miura. “While penalties are controversial, they may reduce interpersonal resentment by addressing fairness concerns, rather than placing moral blame on individuals.”

The study arrives at a critical moment, as COVID-19 increasingly becomes a matter of personal choice rather than emergency response. The researchers observed that while general approval of vaccination remained relatively stable, willingness to get vaccinated in the future declined steadily over time.

The results suggest that public health messaging needs to do more than just encourage vaccination compliance. Long-term consequences, such as social fragmentation, must also be considered to prepare the public to respond appropriately for future infectious disease outbreaks.