Using analogy-based messages to influence attitudes toward workplace COVID-19 vaccination mandates

Workplace mandates are a highly effective strategy for increasing COVID-19 vaccination rates, and their adoption by United States employers grew throughout 2021. Still, public opinion on these mandates has remained starkly polarized. Drawing from the widespread use of analogies in health communication during the pandemic, we investigated whether analogies to widely-accepted workplace safety rules could affect attitudes toward vaccination mandates. In a survey experiment conducted in September-October 2021, 1194 respondents were randomized to one of three messages about workplace COVID-19 vaccination mandates that included (1) no analogy; (2) an analogy to workplace hard hat policies; or (3) an analogy to workplace smoking bans. Only the smoking analogy increased support for (b = 0.41; p < .001) and perceived effectiveness of (b = 0.20; p = .037) workplace vaccination mandates. Moreover, the smoking analogy’s effect on perceived effectiveness was greater for unvaccinated respondents (b = 0.54; p = .015 for interaction) and was mediated via the perceived strength of mandate enforcement (indirect effect = 0.05; 95% confidence interval = [0.01, 0.10]; P = .006). Our results demonstrate that policymakers and administrators may use a simple analogy to boost public opinion on workplace mandates for COVID-19 vaccination.