Pro-vaccination communication requires tailoring: Evidence from an experimental and longitudinal comparison of communication strategies on vaccination-related cognition and intentions
Abstract
Effective vaccination communication requires evidence-based strategies, yet direct comparisons are scarce. In a longitudinal experiment (N = 901, four time points), participants were exposed to six pro-vaccination communicative texts, all centered on the concept of herd immunity to maintain consistency in information content while varying the communication style — nudge, boost, psychological inoculation (PI), patient-concerns-centred communication (PCCC), dismissive informational load (DIL), and neutral informational load (NIL) — compared against a control. We assessed the immediate and sustained, i.e., after a period of 7 and 14 days, impact on vaccination intention (personal and proxy), information-seeking habits, and vaccine-related biased reasoning. No single communication strategy was universally superior; effectiveness depended on the decision context and pre-existing attitudes. PCCC most effectively increased immediate personal vaccination intention. Pre-existing attitudes and beliefs were strong moderators of the effect (e.g., PI and NIL were more effective for individuals reporting higher levels of vaccine conspiracy beliefs when making proxy decisions). Critically, our findings reveal what these brief interventions can and cannot achieve: while initial gains in intention from PCCC remained stable, the impact on information-seeking habits was modest, and these brief-exposure interventions were insufficient to alter ingrained cognitive processes, such as vaccine-related biased reasoning. While brief communication can shift immediate intentions, changing how people think requires more sustained efforts. We argue that communication must be tailored to the audience and decision type, emphasizing the importance of considering patient concerns and suggesting abandoning the DIL approach given its tone and ineffectiveness.
Related
- Three-year longitudinal safety surveillance following COVID-19 vaccination in individuals with underlying medical conditions
- Vaccination of patients with hematological malignancies: barriers and strategies to improve uptake
- Ethical dilemmas and intervention strategies in doctor-patient-family communication in end-of-life pediatric oncology: a narrative review
- Communication Strategies Within the Mental Health Context—The Evidence for Nurses, Midwives, and Social Workers. A Rapid Review
- Crisis communication strategies, government reputation signals, and health compliance willingness during COVID-19: a randomized experiment in the context of China’s zero-COVID policy
BibTeX
@article{damnjanovic2026provaccination,
title = {{Pro-vaccination communication requires tailoring: Evidence from an experimental and longitudinal comparison of communication strategies on vaccination-related cognition and intentions}},
author = {Kaja Damnjanović and Sandra Ilić and Marija Kušić and Ksenija Mišić and Milica Ninković and Dunja Paunovic and Marija B. Petrović},
journal = {Scientific Reports},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.1038/s41598-026-67996-8},
url = {https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-026-67996-8},
note = {CC BY-NC-ND 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Pro-vaccination communication requires tailoring: Evidence from an experimental and longitudinal comparison of communication strategies on vaccination-related cognition and intentions
AU - Kaja Damnjanović
AU - Sandra Ilić
AU - Marija Kušić
AU - Ksenija Mišić
AU - Milica Ninković
AU - Dunja Paunovic
AU - Marija B. Petrović
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/21
JO - Scientific Reports
DO - 10.1038/s41598-026-67996-8
UR - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-026-67996-8
AB - Effective vaccination communication requires evidence-based strategies, yet direct comparisons are scarce. In a longitudinal experiment (N = 901, four time points), participants were exposed to six pro-vaccination communicative texts, all centered on the concept of herd immunity to maintain consistency in information content while varying the communication style — nudge, boost, psychological inoculation (PI), patient-concerns-centred communication (PCCC), dismissive informational load (DIL), and neutral informational load (NIL) — compared against a control. We assessed the immediate and sustained, i.e., after a period of 7 and 14 days, impact on vaccination intention (personal and proxy), information-seeking habits, and vaccine-related biased reasoning. No single communication strategy was universally superior; effectiveness depended on the decision context and pre-existing attitudes. PCCC most effectively increased immediate personal vaccination intention. Pre-existing attitudes and beliefs were strong moderators of the effect (e.g., PI and NIL were more effective for individuals reporting higher levels of vaccine conspiracy beliefs when making proxy decisions). Critically, our findings reveal what these brief interventions can and cannot achieve: while initial gains in intention from PCCC remained stable, the impact on information-seeking habits was modest, and these brief-exposure interventions were insufficient to alter ingrained cognitive processes, such as vaccine-related biased reasoning. While brief communication can shift immediate intentions, changing how people think requires more sustained efforts. We argue that communication must be tailored to the audience and decision type, emphasizing the importance of considering patient concerns and suggesting abandoning the DIL approach given its tone and ineffectiveness.
SN - 2045-2322
ER -