Influence of Peers on Beliefs About Vaccination and GM Food: Mechanisms and Interventions

Santa Fe Institute, Santa Fe NM

Investigators

Abstract

Beliefs that are not aligned with the current scientific evidence can have important consequences for national health, prosperity, and welfare. For example, insufficient rates of vaccination could place U.S. children at greater risk of vaccine-preventable diseases and preventing the adoption of genetically modified (GM) crops can hurt local economies and farmers. Why are people sometimes reluctant to adopt beliefs that are in line with scientific consensus? We investigate the social influence of peers, a factor that is known to be important for belief formation but is still insufficiently understood: For example, parents who are reluctant to vaccinate their healthy children are often clustered in the same neighborhoods, and information from social environments and cultural differences have a strong influence on the acceptance of GM food. In a longitudinal experimental study of parents and their peers, we investigate the mechanisms underlying peers’ social influence: informational cues one receives from peers, and social network cues that reinforce the need to be in sync with peers' views. For example, disagreeing with a well-connected peer can lead to disapproval by others in one's social network and loss of valuable connections; whereas disagreeing with a less prominent member might not matter as much. This project will inform the design of public education interventions that leverage the theoretical knowledge about how social networks influence people’s beliefs about science, while providing transparent information about scientific consensus and promoting people’s own agency when forming their beliefs. These interventions can be applied to a broad range of science topics of national interest. This project aims to investigate the mechanisms underlying belief change, or lack of it, after exposure to others with different beliefs. We focus on beliefs about scientific issues that affect day to day family-level decisions: childhood vaccination and GM food. We will develop a conceptual framework and use a longitudinal experimental study to investigate two questions: First, how important are different informational and social network cues for social dissonance? Integrating literatures on social dissonance and social networks, we propose that the extent of social dissonance individuals feel when encountering a peer with a different belief depends on perceived informational and social network cues. Second, what is the relative importance of social learning and belief protection strategies in reducing social dissonance, and how does the choice of strategy depend on social network cues? Building on the literatures on social learning and motivated cognition, we propose that individuals can resolve their social dissonance by either changing their beliefs in line with their peers’ beliefs (social learning) or by protecting their existing beliefs (belief protection). Using a web-based platform SciFriends (NSF-MMS #1560592), we investigate experimentally whether this framework can explain when and why people become more or less influenced by the beliefs of their peers, and of scientists. The project will serve the national interest by supporting a healthy and prosperous public and provide new insights on how social networks influence belief change. This award reflects NSF's statutory mission and has been deemed worthy of support through evaluation using the Foundation's intellectual merit and broader impacts review criteria.