Lay understanding of vaccine efficacy.

Although perceived vaccine efficacy is strongly associated with vaccination behavior, little is known about how well laypeople understand what vaccine efficacy rates mean. Three experiments (N=3402) explored errors in how laypeople process numerical information about vaccine efficacy rates and examined the effects of three tutorial interventions designed to bring lay perceptions in line with normative efficacy calculations. Findings indicate that responses to questions about efficacy rate tend to align with normatively correct calculations, whereas responses to questions about the rate of infections indicate an incorrect calculation whereby the post-vaccination risk of infection is assumed to be the efficacy rate subtracted from 100%. Both quantitative and conceptual tutorial interventions helped participants calculate efficacy rates that were more aligned with the normatively correct values and infection rates that were less aligned with the incorrect values, particularly when participants had higher numeracy levels or responded with numeric inputs rather than choices between options.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition
Published
2024-10-17
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1037/mac0000197
Primary Topic
Vaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Lay understanding of vaccine efficacy.

Alison Butler, Gretchen B. Chapman
Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition
Vaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
article

Lay understanding of vaccine efficacy.

Alison Butler, Gretchen B. Chapman
article en

Abstract

Although perceived vaccine efficacy is strongly associated with vaccination behavior, little is known about how well laypeople understand what vaccine efficacy rates mean. Three experiments (N=3402) explored errors in how laypeople process numerical information about vaccine efficacy rates and examined the effects of three tutorial interventions designed to bring lay perceptions in line with normative efficacy calculations. Findings indicate that responses to questions about efficacy rate tend to align with normatively correct calculations, whereas responses to questions about the rate of infections indicate an incorrect calculation whereby the post-vaccination risk of infection is assumed to be the efficacy rate subtracted from 100%. Both quantitative and conceptual tutorial interventions helped participants calculate efficacy rates that were more aligned with the normatively correct values and infection rates that were less aligned with the incorrect values, particularly when participants had higher numeracy levels or responded with numeric inputs rather than choices between options.

Journal of Applied Research in Memory and CognitionVol. 14(2)
University of Pittsburgh (US), UCLA Medical Center (US), Decision Sciences (United States) (US), Harbor–UCLA Medical Center (US), Carnegie Mellon University (US)
National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences
Zero hunger
Openalex Percentile: Top 77%
Vaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.