DSM‐5‐TR: overview of what’s new and what’s changed

World Psychiatry 21:2 June 2022 Understanding the factors discussed above helps make sense of what, for many scientists and health professionals, is one of the most exasperating and difficult-to-understand features of the vaccination debate: facts are not enough. Merely repeating evidence has been a notoriously ineffective way of shifting attitudes among those who self-identify as anti-vaccination. One reason for this is that people do not always behave like cognitive scientists, weighing up evidence before reaching a conclusion. Frequently, we behave more like cognitive lawyers, selectively exposing ourselves, critiquing, and remembering evidence that reinforces a conclusion that feels “right” for us. Successful communication requires deep listening and an attentiveness to the fears, worldviews and ideologies that might be motivating COVID-19 refusal. Persuasion attempts that are responsive to these underlying “attitude roots” are more likely to be successful than those that sail above them with an exclusive focus on facts and data. Finally, mental health professionals recognize as much as anyone the importance of communication that is non-stigmatizing and inclusive. Although the public face of the anti-vaccination movement sometimes seems strident and unworthy of empathy, community members who align with those views are frequently characterized by anxiety and uncertainty. There is the potential for negative feedback loops, where the vaccine hesitant feel misunderstood and stigmatized, reinforcing their worldview that the system is corrupted and lacking in humanity. Feeling socially isolated, vaccine refusers may be driven toward the online communities and misinformation echo chambers that reinforce their fears. Respectful and inclusive communication is not just the “nice” thing to do; on a pragmatic level, it is a pre-requisite for enabling positive change.