Vaccine for yourself, your community, or your country? Examining audiences' response to distance framing of COVID-19 vaccine messages

Shupei Yuan, Haoran Chu, Shupei Yuan, Haoran Chu

Abstract

Objective: This study explored the effects of COVID-19 vaccine promotion messages highlighting the benefit at individual, community, and country levels. Based on the cultural theory of risks, we investigated how individuals' valuation of individualism vs. communitarianism and hierarchical vs. egalitarian social structure affect their responses to vaccine messages.

Methods: An online experiment (N = 702) with four video message conditions (individual-centered, community-centered, country-centered, and no message) was conducted. Participants were asked about their cultural cognition worldview, then were randomly assigned to view one message. Participants also reported their willingness to receive COVID-19 vaccines and support for vaccine mandate.

Results: Respondents were more likely to get vaccinated and support vaccine mandates after viewing an individual-centered message, less with a community-centered message. Individuals who value individualism were more likely to respond positively to individual-centered messages, but those who believe more in communitarianism value were less likely.

Conclusion: Results showed that individuals are motivated selectively to respond to certain claims that cohere with their worldview and therefore respond differently to vaccine benefit frames.

Practice implications: The results point to the importance of understanding audiences' worldviews. By identifying this process through hierarchical and individualistic values, properly designed health promotion messages can maximize the desired outcomes.

Keywords: Benefit frames; Cultural cognition; Health communication; Vaccine message.

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of Competing Interest The authors have no conflict of interest in the authoring of this manuscript.

Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Conceptual framework.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
estimated coefficient of Significant paths. (Note: Insignificant paths are omitted for the sake of parsimony).

References

    1. Fontanet A., Cauchemez S. COVID-19 herd immunity: where are we? Nat Rev Immunol. 2020;20(10):583–584.
    1. Lazarus J.V., Ratzan S.C., Palayew A., Gostin L.O., Larson H.J., Rabin K., et al. A global survey of potential acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine. Nat Med. 2021;27(2):225–228.
    1. Bonnevie E., Rosenberg S.D., Kummeth C., Goldbarg J., Wartella E., Smyser J. Using social media influencers to increase knowledge and positive attitudes toward the flu vaccine. PLoS One. 2020;15(10)
    1. Patel H., Jeve Y.B., Sherman S.M., Moss E.L. Knowledge of human papillomavirus and the human papillomavirus vaccine in European adolescents: a systematic review. Sex Transm Infect. 2016;92(6):474–479.
    1. Sturgis P., Allum N. Science in society: re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Underst Sci. 2004;13(1):55–74.
    1. Maaravi Y., Levy A., Gur T., Confino D., Segal S. “The tragedy of the commons”: How individualism and collectivism affected the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic. Front. Public Health. 2021;9:37.
    1. Champion V.L., Skinner C.S. The health belief model. Health Behav Health Educ Theory Res Pract. 2008;4:45–65.
    1. Freeman D., Loe B.S., Yu L.-M., Freeman J., Chadwick A., Vaccari C., Shanyinde M., Harris V., Waite F., Rosebrock L., Petit A., Vanderslott S., Lewandowsky S., Larkin M., Innocenti S., Pollard A.J., McShane H., Lambe S. Effects of different types of written vaccination information on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the UK (OCEANS-III): a single-blind, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Public Health. 2021;6(6):e416–e427.
    1. Norton S.P., Scheifele D.W., Bettinger J.A., West R.M. Influenza vaccination in paediatric nurses: cross-sectional study of coverage, refusal, and factors in acceptance. Vaccine. 2008;26(23):2942–2948.
    1. Al Awaidy S.T., Khamis F. Preparing the community for a vaccine against COVID-19. Oman Med J. 2020;35(6):193.
    1. Olin J., Kokolamami J., Lepira F.B., Mwandagalirwa K., Mupenda B., Ndongala M.L., et al. Community preparedness for HIV vaccine trials in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Cult Health Sex. 2006;8(6):529–544.
    1. Leask J., Chapman S., Hawe P., Burgess M. What maintains parental support for vaccination when challenged by anti-vaccination messages? A qualitative study. Vaccine. 2006;24:7238–7245.
    1. Dzigbede K.D., Gehl S.B., Willoughby K. Disaster resiliency of US local governments: insights to strengthen local response and recovery from the COVID‐19 pandemic. Public Adm Rev. 2020;80(4):634–643.
    1. Kahan D.M., Braman D., Cohen G.L., Gastil J., Slovic P. Who fears the HPV vaccine, who doesn’t, and why? An experimental study of the mechanisms of cultural cognition. Law Hum Behav. 2010;34(6):501–516.
    1. Hornsey M.J., Harris E.A., Fielding K.S. The psychological roots of anti-vaccination attitudes: a 24-nation investigation. Health Psychol J Div Health Psychol Am Psychol Assoc. 2018;37(4):307–315.
    1. Lu H., Schuldt J.P. Compassion for climate change victims and support for mitigation policy. J Environ Psychol. 2016;45:192–200.
    1. Yang Z.J. Altruism during Ebola: risk perception, issue salience, cultural cognition, and information processing. Risk Anal. 2016;36(6):1079–1089.
    1. Scannell L., Gifford R. Personally relevant climate change: the role of place attachment and local versus global message framing in engagement. Environ Behav. 2013;45(1):60–85.
    1. Rothman A.J., Salovey P. Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: the role of message framing. Psychol Bull. 1997;121(1):3–19.
    1. Abhyankar P., O’connor D.B., Lawton R. The role of message framing in promoting MMR vaccination: evidence of a loss-frame advantage. Psychol Health Med. 2008;13(1):1–16.
    1. Liu S., Yang J.Z., Chu H. Now or future? Analyzing the effects of message frame and format in motivating Chinese females to get HPV vaccines for their children. Patient Educ Couns. 2019;102(1):61–67.
    1. Kahan D.M., Jenkins‐Smith H., Braman D. Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. J Risk Res. 2011;14(2):147–174.
    1. Liu S., Yang J.Z., Chu H., Sun S., Li H. Different culture or different mind? Perception and acceptance of HPV vaccine in China and in the US. J Health Commun. 2018;23(12):1008–1016.
    1. Hayes A.F. Guilford Publications; 2017. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorzy i współpracownicy

Warunki medyczne

Interwencje lekowe

3
Subskrybuj