Framing Effects on US Adults’ Reactions to COVID-19 Public Health Messages: Moderating Role of Source Trust

Sarah E. Vaala · Matthew B. Ritter · Deepak Palakshappa

10 citations0/0 files storedAmerican Behavioral Scientist

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Communication and COVID-19 Impact Risk Perception and Management Media Influence and Health

Abstract

Increasing politicization of health guidance and fluctuating trust in public health institutions have challenged effective coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) public health communication in the United States. Applying the extended parallel process model, this research reports findings from two online survey experiments conducted at different points in the pandemic regarding two advocated risk reduction behaviors. Analyses test US adults’ emotional and argument strength reactions to experimental tweets attributed to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and Prevention which vary with regards to advocated behavior (social distancing; vaccination), emotional appeal, wellbeing orientation (individual vs. collective), and content frame (health vs. economic outcomes). Trust in the CDC is treated as a potential moderator. Results of path analyses indicated that emotional appeal and content frame had little impact on emotional or cognitive responses to the social distancing tweets, though unvaccinated adults with low trust in the CDC experienced greater hope and fear responses to tweets emphasizing collective benefits of vaccination. Hope reactions in both studies predicted greater perceived response efficacy for the advocated behavior, particularly among those with low CDC trust, while message annoyance undermined efficacy among low trust participants. Particularly among adults with low trust in the CDC, fear reactions led to reduced efficacy. Perceived efficacy of vaccination predicted greater intention to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, controlling for prior intention. Messages which inspire hope with regards to risk reduction behaviors and include sound arguments may be more motivating than fear-appeal messages, particularly among individuals with low levels of trust in public health institutions.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 10 citations exist upstream.

References

2009Predicting and Changing Behavior: The Reasoned Action Approach 1986Communication and Persuasion 1968A Theory of Psychological Reactance 1992Putting the fear back into fear appeals: The extended parallel process model 2000A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeals: Implications for Effective Public Health Campaigns 2014Sixty years of fear appeal research: Current state of the evidence 2018“You don't trust a government vaccine”: Narratives of institutional trust and influenza vaccination among African American and white adults 2011Fear Appeals and Persuasion: A Review and Update of the Extended Parallel Process Model

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.