• About
    • About the Center for Public Interest Communications
    • What is Public Interest Communications?
    • Our Team
    • Theories We Use
    • Center Updates
    • Programs & Affiliates
      • frank gathering
      • The Research Prize in Public Interest Communications
      • Journal of Public Interest Communications
      • UF Programs
    • Our Approach to Generative Artificial Intelligence
    • Contact Us
    • Job: Center Research Assistant
  • SOLUTIONS
    • Beyond Raising Awareness
    • Become a Great Science Communicator
    • Fixing Data’s Demand Problem
    • Why your narrative change strategy isn’t working
    • How to reach people who don’t already agree with you
    • Why Your Science Communication Isn’t Landing
    • Services
      • Strategy Consulting
      • Issue Research
      • Training – Frameworks and Custom
  • Frameworks
  • Training
    • Programs
    • Professional Development
      • Learn on your schedule
      • Beyond raising awareness: How to create lasting change
      • Science Communications Course 
      • Strategic Communications Academy for UF Leaders & Scholars
  • RESOURCES
    • Case Studies
    • Newsletter
    • Scholarship & Publications
Center for Public Interest Communications
Support
  • About
    • About the Center for Public Interest Communications
    • What is Public Interest Communications?
    • Our Team
    • Theories We Use
    • Center Updates
    • Programs & Affiliates
      • frank gathering
      • The Research Prize in Public Interest Communications
      • Journal of Public Interest Communications
      • UF Programs
    • Our Approach to Generative Artificial Intelligence
    • Contact Us
    • Job: Center Research Assistant
  • SOLUTIONS
    • Beyond Raising Awareness
    • Become a Great Science Communicator
    • Fixing Data’s Demand Problem
    • Why your narrative change strategy isn’t working
    • How to reach people who don’t already agree with you
    • Why Your Science Communication Isn’t Landing
    • Services
      • Strategy Consulting
      • Issue Research
      • Training – Frameworks and Custom
  • Frameworks
  • Training
    • Programs
    • Professional Development
      • Learn on your schedule
      • Beyond raising awareness: How to create lasting change
      • Science Communications Course 
      • Strategic Communications Academy for UF Leaders & Scholars
  • RESOURCES
    • Case Studies
    • Newsletter
    • Scholarship & Publications
  • Research & Insights

When It Comes to Vaccines, A Story is Worth a Thousand Statistics

  • July 29, 2015
  • 3 minute read
Total
0
Shares
0
0
0
0

Record numbers of parents are currently opting out of vaccinations for their children, partly due to the spread of discredited or unproven claims that link vaccines to autism. For public health officials scrambling to reassure the public about the safety of vaccines, new research out of the University of Erfurt in Germany offers some guidance about how to encourage parents to vaccinate their children.

According to researchers Niels Haase, Cornelia Betsch, and Frank Renkewitz, stories have a greater impact on parents’ perceptions of vaccine safety than do statistics.

In their study, published in the Journal of Health Communication: International Perspectives in June 2015, the researchers examined the effects of presenting participants with information about a fictional disease called “dysomeria” alongside a fictional study regarding the potential side-effects of the dysomeria vaccine. Participants were first told that “a study had observed [side effects from the vaccine] in about 20% of all the vaccination cases.” Participants then read one of two statements about the credibility of the study designed to make it seem more or less credible.

For instance, some participants read that “[s]ome time after its publication, the German Research Foundation and the Robert-Koch-Institute describ[e] this study as being poor with regard to the scientific methods employed and the data analysis.” Other participants read the statement that ““[s]ome time after its publication, the German Research Foundation and the Robert-Koch-Institute describ[e] this study as being exemplary with regard to the scientific methods employed and the data analysis.” A third control group read no additional statement.

Next, participants were asked to read “short narratives from an online forum, which described personal experiences with the dysomeria vaccination.” Some of the fictional accounts came from a neutral forum (“health-net.de”) while others came from an anti-vax site (“vaccination-harms.de”). The frequency with which negative stories about the vaccination came up in the accounts read was varied. Some participants saw negative accounts 35% of the time, while others saw them 85% of the time. This was done to determine whether seeing more anecdotal accounts of side effects encouraged participants to see the vaccine as riskier.

Participants were asked about their attitudes towards vaccines, the extent to which they based their views about the vaccine on the narrative stories or the statistics, and whether they thought the vaccination was risky.

The researchers found that reading the dysomeria vaccine narratives did encouraged participants to see the vaccine as riskier than the “official” risk statistics.” Furthermore, the information about the study’s credibility had little effect on the persuasiveness of the narratives. “Contrary to our expectations,” the researchers write, “informing participants that the statistical baserate [of side-effects as documented by the fictional study] was based on unreliable or very reliable data did not moderate the narrative bias.”

“Narrative evidence is a common feature of anti-vaccination websites,” the researchers explain. “Apparently, these reports affect individuals’ risk perceptions and vaccination intentions, irrespective of whether they were collected with a specific agenda in mind.”

However, “presenting the narratives in the context of an anti-vaccination forum led to a general decrease in vaccination risk perceptions” when compared to the participants who read the stories on a general health forum. That is, although both groups of respondents were influenced, people appear to have been swayed less by the stories when they were presented by anti-vaxxers.

“Fortunately, it appears that some anti-vaccination websites may inadvertently reduce this effect by stressing their agenda…Overall, the present research demonstrates once more how difficult it is to counter the biasing effect of narrative information.”

Journal of Health Communication: International Perspectives

Researchers:
Niels Haase, Cornelia Betsch, and Frank Renkewitz, University of Erfurt, Erfurt, Germany

Total
0
Shares
Share 0
Tweet 0
Share 0
Related Topics
  • frankology
Previous Article
  • Research & Insights

These Findings About Health Communications Are Nuts

  • July 27, 2015
View Post
Next Article
  • Research & Insights

frankology Celebrates One Year of Research Just for Changemakers

  • July 30, 2015
View Post
Professional Development
  • Strategic Communications Academy for UF Leaders & Scholars
  • Science Communications Course 
  • Beyond raising awareness: How to create lasting change
More of our work
  • The Science of Belief: Move Beyond “Us” and “Them” to “We”
  • Finding the Right Messenger for Your Message
  • Photo by Klaus Nielsen:
    How to Use Stories to Bring ‘Us’ and ‘Them’ Together
  • Most Americans believe we should have gun regulation. Here is why those who don’t are winning the debate.
Latest from the Center
  • Most Americans Support Freedom of Information. Almost None Have Ever Used It.
  • October 2025 nationwide survey sheds light on Americans’ increasing worry about housing affordability
  • 2025 ‘Real Good Census’ Reveals a Strategically Vital Field with Strong Rewards, Marking Significant Growth
  • composite image of Audrey Goldfarb and text stating "Science isn't personal: why communicating emotion isn't 'soft,' it's strategic"
    Changemakers in Action: Dr. Audrey Goldfarb
How We Help – Case Studies
  • Council on Foundations - Largest study on narratives about philanthropy
    Largest Study on Narratives About Philanthropy with the Council on Foundations
  • gloved hand holding vial
    Science-based communication strategy on COVID for the UN Verified Initiative
  • hands with medicine
    Invest in Trust – a vaccine communications guide for CNAs
UF Logo

Center for Public Interest Communications
PO Box 118400
Gainesville, FL 32611-8400

An auxiliary unit of the College of Journalism and Communications

Copyright © 2026

Contact Us

We are eager to chat with you about your project or training need.

Send us a note

The Center for Public Interest Communications, the first of its kind in the nation, is designed to study, test and apply the science of strategic communication for change. We are based at the University of Florida College of Journalism and Communications.

  • Change Communication
  • Science Communication
  • Strategic Communication
  • Broader Impacts
  • Public Interest Communication
  • Narrative Change
  • Leadership Development
  • Strategy Development
  • Effective Presentations
  • Research Translation & Insights

Input your search keywords and press Enter.