Erhöht Meinungsaustausch das Interesse an einer Covid-19-Impfung? Ein Online-Experiment zu Gruppendynamiken, Argumenten und Narrationen
Zusammenfassung der Projektergebnisse
Do discussions with vaccine supporters in randomly generated online chat groups change the tendency to get vaccinated of vaccine skeptics, and vice versa? How do hearsay- viz. fact-based text primings mediate the effect of communication on vaccination? This research presents causal evidence on the role of peer-to-peer communication in random chat groups on the likelihood of getting vaccinated against Covid-19. We conducted a two-wave randomized control trial with 3858 unvaccinated individuals in Germany. Using a 3x2 factorial between-subjects design, we investigate how chat deliberation with randomly selected others holding a different willingness to get vaccinated (WGV) affects the participants’ tendency to get vaccinated themselves. We further study how this effect of communication is mediated by priming participants to think of the experience-based testimony of people they know viz. objective facts. We find that in the absence of any priming, vaccine skeptics are the more likely to get vaccinated the more vaccine supporters in the random chat group they encounter. We do not find the reverse effect. In the hearsay priming treatment - and to a weaker extent in the fact priming treatment - participants have a higher tendency to get vaccinated than in the treatment without priming. Communication has no longer any effect in any priming treatment. Hence, we find that communication and text priming are substitutes. Our research has external relevance for other public good provision situations, where both priming and persuasion tactics of individuals in social network channels matter. Key Words: Communication, Text Priming, Vaccine Hesitancy, Covid-19, Behavioral Modification, Text as Data
