Introduction
The presence or absence of information is not the main reason that causes people to believe in misconceptions about medical issues (University of Massachusetts 1).
Instead, such misconceptions arise from different types of motivated reasoning, which may arise from emotional, psychological, and behavioral barriers. The above argument informs the debate why many people say vaccinations cause autism.
This paper borrows on the arguments of Monica Prasad (cited in the University of Massachusetts 1) and Washington and Haydn (cited in the University of Massachusetts 1) when they argue that the belief about vaccinations as a primary cause of autism stems from emotional, psychological, and behavioral barriers, as opposed to the lack, or presence, of information regarding the issue.
However, this paper first explores the concept of denial and the history of the debate surrounding vaccinations and autism.
Denial
John Cook, an environmental scientist (cited in the University of Massachusetts 1) says that there is a strong need to differentiate denial from skepticism because denial is the refusal to accept a position regardless of the evidence that supports the position.
Skepticism is only the quest to seek the truth and facts that support it, without opposing the truth. However, denial is the opposition to the truth, even when the facts say otherwise.
Therefore, unlike skepticism, denial is not necessarily about seeking the truth, but about rejecting truth because it does not fit with one’s idea of the truth (University of Massachusetts 7). For example, scientists may use denial to explain the misconception that climate change is not real.
The fact that climate scientists are wrong, merely because they are “liberals” may motivate such people to believe in such misconceptions (University of Massachusetts 7)
The denial of the lack of relationship between vaccines and autism is part of a wider movement that has characterized human history.
Indeed, denial is an old chip of human history because people have historically refused to agree with certain positions because of their personal beliefs, and psychological barriers.
Regarding the ingrained trait of denial as a human attribute, University of Massachusetts says, “We all deny, and the ability to deny is an amazing human phenomenon, largely unexplained and often inexplicable” (7).
One researcher, Stanley Cohen (cited in the University of Massachusetts 7), believes that denial is “a product of the sheer complexity of our emotional, linguistic, moral, and intellectual lives” (University of Massachusetts 7).
Albeit denial is an understandable human trait, it may be dangerous for human existence.
For example, ignoring a serious disease may lead to death and ignoring critical environmental issues may lead to the collapse of ecosystems, which sustain human life. Therefore, denial is a very worrisome issue.
History of the Vaccine-Autism Debate
The controversy surrounding the role of vaccines in causing autism is not a new phenomenon.
In fact, the National Academy of Sciences explored the high prevalence of autism among young children aged between one and two years old because there were many concerns regarding the high number of new diagnoses among children who previously seemed to be developing normally, until they suddenly started to develop signs of cognitive and communication impairment (University of Massachusetts 14).
The current statistic regarding the prevalence of autism provides a sharp contrast from the past because “The incidence of autism has risen dramatically during the past three decades, from less than one child in 2,500 in 1970 to nearly one in every 150 today” (University of Massachusetts 14).
The high incidence of autism among newly born children started to cause widespread concern among parents who were unfamiliar with the types of diseases, which doctors helped to prevent through the administration of vaccines.
They, therefore, started to question the point of giving their children vaccines if the vaccines could not prevent such diseases in the first place.
Specter (cited in University of Massachusetts 14) argues, since many young parents in America may be unfamiliar with the diseases that medical doctors have prevented through vaccinations, in the past, they now question the small side effects of vaccines.
A common argument that may explain why many people say vaccinations cause autism is the suspicion and mistrust that some people have towards pharmaceutical companies.
The mistrust stems from the belief that pharmaceutical companies are greedy companies that would do anything for profit. Therefore, it is easy to convince people who believe vaccines cause autism to believe that pharmaceutical companies are selling drugs that have a medical side effect (autism).
Medics have not opposed the side effects of vaccines, but such side effects are normally minor. In fact, they may only manifest as small swellings, temporary fevers, or even very tiny rashes.
This is by no means a cause of alarm. However, many young American parents who are unfamiliar with the benefits of vaccines and how they have saved the lives of millions of people fail to appreciate their importance as they attribute their uses to mystery and suspicion.
On the contrary, vaccines have eradicated serious diseases like measles, smallpox (and the likes), which used to kill many people, for centuries, more than even the deaths that have ever been reported in any war or revolution (University of Massachusetts 14).
Nonetheless, despite the existence of vaccination side effects, Specter (cited in University of Massachusetts 14) finds it crucial to say that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) scrutinizes all vaccines to establish their safety.
After the ascertainment of their safety, FDA licenses them for sale to the American public. The safety approval tests have prevented the licensing of many vaccines because of the failure to comply with safety regulations.
Therefore, people may regard those vaccines that make it to the market as safe, at least compared to the infections they are supposed to prevent.
Causes of Denial
False beliefs about specific medical issues probably surface as the main reason for the prevalence of misconceptions regarding the relationship between vaccines and autism.
The misconception that surrounds vaccines and autism draws a parallel analysis with the false beliefs that undermine democratic theories and practice.
An example of the extent that false beliefs influence people’s perceptions in democratic theory and practice stems from the assertion by Monica Prasad (cited in the University of Massachusetts 1), a scholar, about the widespread belief in 2004 that Saddam Hussein was mainly responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
Certainly, even opinion pollsters affirmed that during the 2004 elections, many Americans believed that Saddam was either fully or partially involved in the 2001 attacks (University of Massachusetts 1).
This misconception existed despite the existence of reliable information that showed there was no link between the 9/11 attacks and the activities of Saddam Hussein.
The misconception that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 attack was, therefore, a smear campaign by the Bush administration to gain public support for its war in Iraq.
Indeed, Gershkoff and Kushner (cited in the University of Massachusetts 1) say, “The Bush administration successfully convinced [a majority of the public] that a link existed between Saddam Hussein and terrorism generally, and between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda specifically” (University of Massachusetts 1).
Despite the existence of information misconceptions that characterized the belief that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks, recent evidence shows that the belief that Saddam was partly involved in the 9/11 attacks transcended the absence or presence of information that showed the contrary (University of Massachusetts 1).
This assertion stems from a psychological model of reasoning which most scholars understand as “motivated reasoning” (University of Massachusetts 1).
This model has proved that regardless of the presence, or absence, of information, people still prefer to seek information that confirms their beliefs, as opposed to information that questions their beliefs.
Therefore, even when they are aware of the conflicting and reliable information, they process such information very cautiously and defensively.
If we mirrored this defensiveness to the debate regarding vaccinations and autism, people who believe in the misconception would be very defensive about their positions, thereby treating any conflicting information with a lot of suspicions.
Psychological theories that focus on heuristics also explain people’s denial of the nonexistent relationship between vaccines and autism.
These theories explain that many people prefer to take shortcuts that help them to make decisions, without properly interrogating the background of the decisions they make (University of Massachusetts 2).
Most of the decisions they make align with their sets of beliefs. For example, within political psychology, researchers have affirmed that different heuristics, like parties and ideologies, allow voters to associate a candidate with an external factor, without properly interrogating their positions.
Therefore, voters would easily judge a candidate because of their political affiliations, looks, and such as superficial features. Therefore, if a person were to propose a contrary position from the one believed, it would be very difficult to convince the voter to believe otherwise.
Relative to this assertion, Prasad mirrors people’s denial of wars, where they believe that a specific factor about their surrounding justifies the occurrence of a war (University of Massachusetts 5). Such positions are misinformed. Relative to this assertion, Prasad says,
“We argue that some citizens believe leaders would not take action as drastic as war if it were not justified. They then develop effective ties to this conclusion and seek information that confirms it, while dismissing information that contradicts it” (University of Massachusetts 5).
The motivated reasoning concept explains the above misconceptions. The concept stems from the social psychological theory of social dissonance. This dissonance explains the influence of an unconscious impulse to relieve cognitive tension (University of Massachusetts 2).
This process occurs when a person encounters conflicting information that does not support their beliefs.
The cognitive dissonance theory also posits that most people “strive to avoid inconsistency, ignore challenging information altogether, discredit the information source, or argue substantively against a challenge” (University of Massachusetts 2).
The process of substantive counter arguing has a significant effect of solidifying initial opinions of valuing any evidence that supports original beliefs, as opposed to any evidence that contradicts the same. This process leads to the entrenchment of strong misconceptions about different issues.
The misconception about the role of vaccinations in causing autism mirrors the misconceptions regarding if climate change is true or false. Interestingly, most of the arguments that discredited the scientific argument that climate changes are true to have similar characteristics.
These characteristics manifest through the advancement of conspiracy theories, the opinions of fake experts, misrepresentation and logical fallacies, impossible expectations, and cherry picking (University of Massachusetts 9).
It is crucial to mention that most of these characteristics aim to mislead the public regarding specific issues about the climate change debate.
It is similarly easy to affirm that the main goal of such arguments rest in convincing the public to believe that climate change is not necessarily true, thereby prompting the people to refrain from taking actions that most scientists have recommended mitigating the effects of climate change.
Critics say that to achieve this objective, proponents of the “climate fallacy” attempt to engage the public in non-existent rhetorical arguments that attempt to give impetus to a position that does not have any legitimacy (University of Massachusetts 9).
The above example provides an insight into why people fail to believe vaccines do not cause autism. Indeed, besides denial, there are many rhetorical arguments that aim to mislead people regarding this debate.
Conclusion
After weighing the findings of this paper, it is easy to understand the explanations surrounding why people have misconceptions regarding vaccinations and their alleged role in causing autism.
Based on similar arguments that many scholars have used to explain similar misconceptions, such as the role of Saddam Hussein in the 9/11 attacks and the misconceptions regarding climate change, it is safe to say that the presence of information does not necessarily guarantee the change of people’s opinions regarding their beliefs about vaccines and autism.
Therefore, emotional and psychological barriers make people be defensive about what they believe, even when they are wrong.
Works Cited
University of Massachusetts 2013, Denialism. Web.