"Pathologizing Dissent: Why Vaccine Hesitancy Isn’t 'Inflexible Thinking'"

Recently, a study by the University of Hertfordshire suggested that “inflexible thinking styles” could be behind vaccine hesitancy. According to this research, those with what researchers call “cognitive inflexibility”—defined as difficulty adapting to changing rules and feedback—are more likely to resist vaccines. Led by Professor Keith Laws, the study found that individuals who persisted in making incorrect choices in a cognitive flexibility test were also more likely to be hesitant toward COVID-19 vaccines. While this is an interesting theory, it prompts an important question: is this truly about inflexible thinking, or is it a reflection of thoughtful skepticism?

Let’s take a closer look at the study's methodology, claims, and the broader narrative implications it brings to light. The underlying premise is that those who question vaccines are cognitively inflexible and therefore “stuck” in a mindset that resists new information. But is it possible that this study, rather than uncovering inflexibility, simply reveals that vaccine hesitancy is rooted in a healthy, informed skepticism of profit-driven health initiatives?

The "Inflexible Thinking" Label: A Convenient Narrative?

The research utilized a computerized version of the Wisconsin Card Sort Task, a test often employed to study cognitive flexibility in conditions like OCD and autism. In this test, participants were asked to sort cards based on changing rules, and those classified as more “cognitively inflexible” reportedly struggled to adjust their approach despite being informed that their previous answers were incorrect. According to Professor Laws, these findings suggest that people with an inflexible thinking style could benefit from “innovative interventions” in public health messaging rather than simple information campaigns.

Yet, framing vaccine hesitancy as a byproduct of a rigid, “inflexible” mind overlooks a fundamental truth: people question vaccines for myriad valid reasons, many of which are grounded in well-documented concerns. When studies like this one dismiss skepticism as mere psychological bias, they reduce a complex issue to a personality quirk, glossing over legitimate questions about vaccine efficacy, safety, and the pharmaceutical industry’s motives.

Vaccine Hesitancy: A Thoughtful Choice, Not Just “Cognitive Inflexibility”

At its core, vaccine hesitancy is often a rational, evidence-based response. The University of Hertfordshire’s research, however, frames this skepticism as if it were akin to an inability to adjust to new evidence—a form of psychological rigidity. But many who question vaccines have already demonstrated the flexibility to shift their views based on new information, especially given the ongoing data about vaccine safety and adverse effects. This choice to question, rather than follow blindly, should not be mistaken for inflexibility.

The COVID-19 pandemic showcased how people adapted their beliefs as new information emerged. Take the initial claims that vaccines would prevent transmission. Many accepted the vaccine early on, believing it was essential for community protection. When evidence revealed that vaccinated individuals could still transmit COVID-19, many began to re-evaluate. This adaptability is not rigid or inflexible thinking; it’s a thoughtful response to changing scientific information.

Cognitive Flexibility or Conformity?

In their study, researchers suggest that vaccine-hesitant individuals’ inability to adjust in a card-sorting task is an indicator of broader resistance to changing one’s beliefs. But in reality, the push for universal COVID-19 vaccination came with its own set of inflexible, one-size-fits-all rules. We saw mandates rolled out with minimal room for individual circumstances or medical exemptions. Those who questioned the universal application of these rules were often met with derision, labeled as “anti-vaxxers” or “science deniers.” Ironically, the true inflexibility may lie with those enforcing mandates without acknowledging the nuances in health profiles, risk factors, or the natural immunity acquired from prior infections.

The psychology of conformity—a willingness to align with prevailing beliefs and avoid challenging the status quo—was pervasive during the pandemic. Those who pushed for the vaccine mandates often displayed an unwillingness to entertain alternative viewpoints or acknowledge adverse reactions, sidelining open debate in favor of compliance. Framing dissenters as cognitively inflexible appears to project inflexibility onto those most willing to ask questions.

Questioning Big Pharma: Skepticism Isn’t a Symptom of Rigidity

A significant component of vaccine hesitancy is the public’s distrust in pharmaceutical companies and regulatory agencies. From the opioid crisis to the manipulation of drug efficacy data, the pharmaceutical industry has a long history of prioritizing profit over safety. People who remain cautious about new vaccines often do so not out of inflexible thinking but because they’re acutely aware of this track record.

Vaccine hesitancy is not unique to COVID-19. Various communities have expressed concerns over other vaccines, citing cases like the 1976 swine flu vaccine, which was pulled due to severe side effects, or more recent concerns about the HPV vaccine. It is understandable, then, that some people exercise caution, particularly when new vaccines are developed and distributed at record speeds. Skepticism is not a sign of psychological inflexibility but a prudent response in a landscape where profit margins often influence medical recommendations.

Inflexibility and the Problem of Denying Vaccine Risks

If we’re to discuss inflexible thinking, it’s worth pointing out the reluctance within public health circles to acknowledge potential risks associated with vaccines. The CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) has reported thousands of adverse events related to COVID-19 vaccines, yet public health narratives rarely incorporate these concerns. Instead, they continue to label anyone who mentions VAERS data as “misinformed” or as someone perpetuating vaccine hesitancy.

Studies like this one from the University of Hertfordshire risk reinforcing a narrow, one-dimensional view of vaccine hesitancy by attributing it to cognitive deficits rather than acknowledging the complexities involved. Many of those hesitant toward vaccines are not “immune” to new information; they’re simply cautious, often citing personal experiences, the experiences of others, and a long list of historical missteps in public health policy. They’re well aware that vaccine injury stories often go unheard, that clinical trials are sometimes flawed, and that government health agencies have close ties to the very industries they’re supposed to regulate.

Health Freedom as the Core of Vaccine Skepticism

Ultimately, many vaccine-hesitant individuals view their position as a matter of health freedom. They believe in informed consent and in the right to make personal health choices without coercion. In labeling them “cognitively inflexible,” studies like this one ignore a fundamental principle: the right to question.

Public health policies often focus on population-wide benefits without considering individual needs. This one-size-fits-all approach can feel dismissive to those who want tailored healthcare and the autonomy to make personal decisions. For them, skepticism is not about rejecting science but about exercising the right to assess risk and make informed choices based on their unique health profiles and values.

In this light, vaccine hesitancy is less about cognitive inflexibility and more about a thoughtful stand for personal autonomy. For many, rejecting a vaccine is not an act of defiance against science; it’s a call for transparency, accountability, and respect for individual choice.

Toward Honest Dialogue, Not Pathologizing Dissent

The findings from the University of Hertfordshire’s study reflect a growing trend: the urge to reduce dissent to psychological deficits. But true scientific progress—and effective public health policy—requires open dialogue, not dismissal of alternative perspectives. If the goal is to increase vaccine uptake, perhaps we should begin by acknowledging the concerns of those who question and respecting the nuances of their decisions.

Framing vaccine hesitancy as a matter of cognitive inflexibility only serves to alienate those it seeks to reach. By instead acknowledging legitimate concerns and fostering honest discussions about risks and benefits, public health can engage skeptics in a meaningful way.

In the end, vaccine hesitancy isn’t a “cognitive glitch” but rather a signal that people are thinking critically and prioritizing their autonomy. Calling it an “inflexible mind” may serve the narrative, but it misses the point: this isn’t a case of mental rigidity; it’s a case of bending too far to authority that snaps our sense of freedom. If anything, it’s the “rigid insistence” that everyone fits the same mold that stands to be questioned—because in the realm of health, one size rarely fits all.

Reference: 'Inflexible thinking style' behind why some people won't accept vaccines, says new research