Reanalyses of data from Horne, Powell, Hummel & Holyoak (2015)
git clone
Log | Files | Refs | README | LICENSE

commit acfa000eb3202988e8990c07a8c204bc537276bf
parent 9d6f834859cd7c3fa6ebf4057372609c5d71f2ee
Author: eamoncaddigan <>
Date:   Sat, 29 Aug 2015 23:42:56 -0400

Starting the writeup.

Aantivax-attitudes.Rmd | 22++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

diff --git a/antivax-attitudes.Rmd b/antivax-attitudes.Rmd @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@ +--- +title: "Bayesian estimation of anti-vaccination belief interventions" +author: "Eamon Caddigan" +date: "August 29, 2015" +output: html_document +--- + +How easy is it to change people's attitude toward vaccinating their children? According to a study [published in PNAS](, a simple intervention that consists of showing people the negative effects of skipping childhood vaccinations causes people to become more likely to vaccinate their children. [Here's a good writeup]( of the article if you're unable to read the original. + +The authors [placed their data online](, which consist of survey responses before and after the intervention for three groups of participants: a control group, an "autism correction" group that were shown evidence that vaccines don't cause autism, and a "disease risk" group that were shown images of the effects of the diseases that the vaccines prevent. I decided to evaluate the data with a Bayesian model for a couple reasons. First, I'm friends with Zach Horne and John Hummel and it's good to see them doing cool work. Second, I don't have much experience working with survey data, and I was excited to try a Bayesian approach because it'd let me take a look at the data from a few different angles without having to worry about inflating the false-alarm rate. + +```{r} +summary(cars) +``` + +You can also embed plots, for example: + +```{r, echo=FALSE} +plot(cars) +``` + +Note that the `echo = FALSE` parameter was added to the code chunk to prevent printing of the R code that generated the plot.