Flu infections are surging across the United States, leading to at least 81,000 hospitalizations and 3,100 deaths so far this season, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Despite the increasing threat, vaccination rates remain lower than expected, raising questions about why people are not getting vaccinated in greater numbers.
This puzzling trend is being explored by researchers, including a Cornell psychology professor who suggests that traditional models of rational decision-making may not fully capture how individuals decide whether to vaccinate. According to new research, decisions are influenced more by a person’s intuitive sense of the information — or the “gist” — rather than raw data.
Understanding Vaccine Hesitancy
In a recent study, Valerie Reyna, the Lois and Melvin Tukman Professor of Human Development at Cornell University, and her colleagues examined how people perceive risks and benefits associated with flu vaccines. Their findings indicate that simple categorizations of risks and benefits as none, low, medium, or high significantly predict vaccination intentions better than quantitative measures traditionally used by economists and psychologists.
Reyna’s research, published in Behavioral Sciences, challenges classic decision theories that emphasize the rational evaluation of trade-offs between positive and negative outcomes. Instead, Reyna proposes that decision-making is driven by two key processes: the encoding of literal facts and the creation of meaning based on one’s experiences and background.
“We make decisions based on the bottom-line gist of information: What does all this information boil down to? What’s the decision really about?” said Valerie Reyna.
Research Findings and Implications
The study involved over 700 college students and nearly 200 community members, assessing their vaccination behaviors and intentions. Participants answered questions related to their knowledge of flu vaccines and their perceptions of risks and benefits. The results showed that while vaccine knowledge and accessibility accounted for only 14% of the variation in vaccination intentions among younger adults, this figure rose to 58% when considering responses to gist-based questions. In the community sample, the predictive power of gist questions increased from 57% to 80%.
Reyna’s research suggests that people form a global impression of information, which significantly influences their decisions. This impression, or gist, is more determinative than detailed facts.
“Part of our mind looks at details and precise facts, but the other part of our mind looks at the bottom-line, qualitative gist – and that’s the more determinative part,” Reyna explained.
Opportunities for Improved Communication
The findings highlight opportunities to reduce vaccine hesitancy through communication strategies that emphasize gist principles. Current approaches often rely on detailed facts and expert trust, which may not resonate with the public. Instead, Reyna advocates for communication that provides a conceptual understanding of vaccine risks and benefits, aligning them with core values such as community safety and informed choice.
Reyna emphasizes the importance of contextualizing facts to foster a gist understanding. For example, explaining the difference between viruses and bacteria or how vaccines work with the immune system can help individuals form a meaningful understanding of vaccination.
“If you follow that recipe, you will be much more likely to make a difference with people, according to our research,” Reyna said. “You have to take the right approach, and it’s fundamentally different from what we’re currently doing.”
Looking Ahead
As flu cases continue to rise, understanding the psychological underpinnings of vaccine hesitancy becomes increasingly important. By adopting communication strategies that align with how people naturally process information, public health officials may be better equipped to encourage vaccination and protect communities from the flu.
Reyna’s research offers a promising avenue for addressing vaccine hesitancy, suggesting that a shift in communication strategies could lead to higher vaccination rates and, ultimately, better public health outcomes.
