Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Vaccines and values: When you’re having a tough conversation about medicine, don’t just pile on evidence − listen to someone’s ‘moral foundations’

Older woman speaking with another woman

Listen for values and emotions, not just points you can rebut with facts.

kupicoo/Getty Images

It’s that special time of year when family and friends come together to celebrate the holidays, share meals, spread cheer – and, too often, pass along their germs.

Because vaccines can save lives and prevent serious illness, health professionals have long recommended vaccinations for influenza, COVID-19 and respiratory syncytial virus, or RSV. Yet despite these apparent benefits, many people decline.


Conversations about vaccines – whether in a clinic or at a holiday gathering – can spark intense debates, leading only to frustration and misunderstanding. Picture a familiar scenario: You present someone with essential facts about vaccine safety and effectiveness. You refute any myths with solid evidence. Yet they remain hesitant. In fact, your efforts may backfire, and the person pushes back even harder.

As a pediatrician and a pharmacist who research vaccines and vaccine hesitancy, we believe these conversations are often nonproductive for one simple reason: Human decision-making is not purely rational. We need to understand the deeper values behind each other’s views.

The rider and the elephant

The social psychologist Jonathan Haidt offers a metaphor: riding on an elephant. The rider represents rational and logical thinking, while the elephant embodies everything else: emotions, intuitions, values and subconscious motivations. You can try to steer the elephant, but ultimately, the elephant usually chooses the path.

Suppose you were slowly starving. But you have a pet dog – do you think you would eat it?

Without even thinking, most people’s emotional elephant tells them “NO!” based on the value that they love their dog and cannot imagine doing it any harm. People’s choices aren’t just based on the logic of a situation: “I’m starving, and dogs are edible.” Moral decisions are also driven by emotions and values: “I love animals more than I fear hunger.”

The rider did not make that decision; the elephant did.

Many people would make the same choice. But in a case where you do want to encourage someone to change their behavior, both the rider and the elephant must be understood and addressed: rational drivers, as well as emotional ones.

Health leaders often emphasize the objective evidence when discussing vaccines. But values and emotions are just as essential, if not more – especially since getting vaccinated involves moral decision-making.

Moral foundations

Many theories attempt to explain the complex, values-driven factors behind human decision-making – the “elephant” part of the equation. When it comes to vaccine hesitancy, one particularly insightful but underappreciated model is the moral foundations theory, which Haidt developed with colleagues.

The model describes six key ethical concerns that often shape people’s decisions:

  • care/harm
  • fairness/cheating
  • loyalty/betrayal
  • purity/degradation
  • authority/subversion
  • liberty/oppression

Individual people don’t usually value all six moral foundations equally. Some care more about loyalty and liberty; others prize fairness. Variation is associated with different attitudes on all kinds of issues, from politics to abortion to vaccines.

Consider a parent who emphasizes purity and liberty. The first principle may make them very concerned about the ingredients in vaccines. For instance, some parents express concern over putting chemicals into their child’s body. Meanwhile, the focus on liberty may lead the parent to resist vaccine requirements for schools or child care, viewing these mandates as governmental intrusions on personal freedom.

Research bears out the correlation between moral foundations and attitudes toward vaccines. In a 2017 study, parents with high hesitancy toward childhood vaccines were more likely to emphasize purity and liberty. Similarly, in a 2022 study, COVID-19 vaccine uptake was lower in counties where residents said they prioritize bodily and spiritual purity.

Or consider two workers at a nursing home that requires vaccination as a condition for continued employment. A staff member who emphasizes the moral foundation of care may be motivated to get the vaccine out of their sense of duty toward elderly patients. However, a colleague who emphasizes loyalty may be more motivated by fears that their religious leader is opposed to vaccination. Being vaccinated might feel like betraying their faith community, making the worker reluctant.

People may apply the same moral foundation in different ways. Take care/harm. Some parents may hear about a recent measles outbreak and worry that their children may be harmed if they are not vaccinated. Another parent may believe that measles poses little harm, but that the vaccine’s harms are unpredictable.

Whole-hearted listening

Moral foundations theory does not capture the entirety of underlying factors guiding any and all decisions. However, we believe it is helpful to illustrate the complex, nuanced ways that people’s conscience and subconscious drive decisions about vaccination.

Exploring other people’s motivations with empathy, respect and curiosity, instead of judgment, is at the core of effective communication about vaccines. If you hope for better discussions in your clinic or around the table this holiday season, avoid just talking past each other with facts. Instead, take the time to actively listen and learn about the deeply held values behind a person’s concerns, no matter how much you disagree.

You might be surprised at how much progress can be made when you engage with the whole person – their rider and their elephant.The Conversation

Rovers is a professor of pharmacy and health sciences at Drake University. Higgins is a research fellow and instructor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read More

Communication concept with multi colored abstract people icons.

Research shows that emotional, cognitive, and social mechanisms drive both direct and indirect contact, offering scalable ways to reduce political polarization.

Getty Images, Eoneren

“Direct” and “Indirect” Contact Methods Likely Work in Similar Ways, so They Should Both Be Effective

In a previous article, we argued that efforts to improve the political environment should reach Americans as media consumers, in addition to seeking public participation. Reaching Americans as media consumers uses media like film, TV, and social media to change what Americans see and hear about fellow Americans across the political spectrum. Participant-based efforts include dialogues and community-based activities that require active involvement.

In this article, we show that the mechanisms underlying each type of approach are quite similar. The categories of mechanisms we cover are emotional, cognitive, relational, and repetitive. We use the terms from the academic literature, “direct” and “indirect” contact, which are fairly similar to participant and media consumer approaches, respectively.

Keep ReadingShow less
The American Experiment Requires Robust Debate, Not Government Crackdowns

As political violence threatens democracy, defending free speech, limiting government overreach, and embracing pluralism matters is critical right now.

Getty Images, Javier Zayas Photography

The American Experiment Requires Robust Debate, Not Government Crackdowns

The assassinations of conservative leader Charlie Kirk and Democratic lawmakers in Minnesota have triggered endorsements of violence and even calls for literal war on both the far right and far left. Fortunately, an overwhelming majority of Americans reject political violence, but all of us are in a fight to keep our diverse and boisterous brand of democracy alive. Doing so requires a renewed commitment to pluralism and a clear-headed recognition of the limits of government, especially when proposals entail using the criminal justice system to punish speech.

Pluralism has been called the lifeblood of a democracy like ours, in which being an American is not defined by race or religion. It requires learning about and accepting our differences, and embracing the principle that, regardless of them, every person is entitled to be protected by our Constitution and have a voice in how we’re governed. In contrast, many perpetrators of political violence rationalize their acts by denying the basic humanity of those with whom they disagree. They are willing to face the death penalty or life in prison in an attempt to force everyone to conform to their views.

Keep ReadingShow less
A woman sitting down and speaking with a group of people.

The SVL (Stories, Values, Listen) framework—which aims to bridge political divides with simple, memorable steps for productive cross-partisan conversations—is an easy-to-use tool for making an impact at scale.

Getty Images, Luis Alvarez

Make Talking Politics Easier and More Scalable: Be SVL (Stories, Values, Listen)

How can one have a productive conversation across the political spectrum?

We offer simple, memorable guidance: Be SVL (pronounced like “civil”). SVL stands for sharing Stories, relating to a conversation partner’s Values, and closely Listening.

Keep ReadingShow less
St. Patrick’s Cathedral’s Mural: Art, Immigration, and the American Spirit

People attend a mass and ceremony for a new mural dedicated to New York City’s immigrant communities and honoring the city’s first responders at St. Patrick’s Cathedral on September 21, 2025 in New York City.

(Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

St. Patrick’s Cathedral’s Mural: Art, Immigration, and the American Spirit

In a bold fusion of sacred tradition and contemporary relevance, artist Adam Cvijanovic has unveiled a sweeping new mural at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York City—one that reimagines the historic narthex as a vibrant ode to peace, migration, and spiritual continuity.

In an age of polarization and performative politics, it’s rare to find a work of art that speaks with both spiritual clarity and civic urgency. Yet that’s exactly what “What’s So Funny About Peace, Love and Understanding” accomplishes. The piece is more than a visual upgrade to a “dreary” entranceway—it’s a theological and cultural intervention, one that invites every visitor to confront the moral stakes of our immigration discourse.

Keep ReadingShow less