Marketing professors Parthasarathy Krishnamurthy and Ye Hu from the University of Houston’s C. T. Bauer College of Business proposed in a new study that the way vaccines are “framed” could be a factor in overcoming hesitancy. (Credit Getty Images)
Key Takeaways
- A new study from the University of Houston’s C. T. Bauer College of Business suggests that effective public health communication should carefully consider whether vaccine communication aligns with specific personal values of the target audience rather than a “one-size-fits-all” approach.
- For vaccine-hesitant individuals, framing vaccination as a tool that enables personal freedom is associated with higher acceptance than framing it as a social responsibility or a government recommendation.
- The study found that framing a vaccine as a way to preserve personal freedom increased willingness to vaccinate among hesitant groups by six percentage points compared to traditional framing methods.
University of Houston researchers are applying the principles of marketing science to public health, proposing that the way vaccines are “framed” could be a factor in overcoming hesitancy.
According to one study, the COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy rate in the U.S. was nearly 30% at the height of the pandemic due to lack of confidence, complacency and other factors.
When examining COVID-19 era public health campaigns, marketing professors Parthasarathy Krishnamurthy and Ye Hu from the C. T. Bauer College of Business identified a common flaw: most campaigns adopted a broad, universal approach rather than focusing on the individual “customer.”
“At the core of it, vaccination is a behavioral challenge; it's about marketplace behaviors,” Krishnamurthy said. “All people are not uniform in their opinions, beliefs and experiences with vaccines. One of the cornerstones of marketing is the recognition that not everybody responds in the same way to the same message.”
Redefining ‘Freedom’ in Public Health
In research published in the medical journal JAMA Network, Krishnamurthy and Hu examined how different ways of describing vaccination were associated with people’s responses.
In a survey-based experiment involving more than 900 Americans, participants evaluated hypothetical vaccine options that varied across several attributes:
- Complying with government recommendations
- Protecting others and social responsibility
- Enhancing personal autonomy, also referred to as “freedom framing”
The study found that responses varied by the audience’s level of concern. While respondents with low-vaccine concerns did not show a meaningful difference across frames, those with higher concerns reported greater willingness when the vaccine was described as preserving personal autonomy — by a difference of about six percentage points.
While this study is survey-based, the next step involves behavioral studies to see if “freedom framing” increases actual vaccination rates in real-world settings.
“Scientific features of vaccines matter, but how they are described also matters. We need to describe vaccines in a way that helps people understand what they do and whether they are compatible with their values,” Krishnamurthy said. “Some people want to protect their health; others place more weight on their autonomy. These are not always the same thing — and ignoring that can be consequential for vaccine acceptance.”