Association for Public Policy Analysis & Management

Recently there has been much debate regarding childhood vaccination policies, with significant attention focused on the perceived risks associated with receiving vaccinations versus the perceived benefits derived from the vaccination. With the recent outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases in the United States, understanding the origins of risk and benefit perceptions associated with vaccines, and the resulting preferences toward existing vaccination policies, is imperative. Utilizing a recently conducted national survey of 1,231 American adults, we examine how one’s knowledge hubris and humility – conceptualized as a gap between one’s “perceived” versus “actual” levels of knowledge on a particular policy issue – regarding vaccine related issues influences policy preferences, particularly through perceptions of risks and benefits associated with vaccinations. The results of our data analysis indicate that those exhibiting knowledge hubris –who hold inflated levels of perceived knowledge in comparison with actual knowledge level – view vaccines as having higher risk, in turn leading to opposition of mandatory vaccination policy and support for policies providing greater parental discretion regarding the inoculation of their children. We discuss these results and their implications, specifically focusing on how policy actors’ knowledge hubris can affect policymaking in general, as well as health policymaking on childhood vaccination.