Search

The current study has three main purposes: to examine 1) the impact of theory-driven corrective messages using individual vs. collective frames on information-seeking intention 2) the mediating role of risk perceptions and 3) the moderating role of reflection and gender. Our findings from a randomized experimental study and Hayes' moderated, moderated mediation model show collective frames were associated with high-risk perceptions among women, which in turn led to higher information seeking intention. The second moderator reveals that people who scored higher on reflection were more willing to seek information. Our findings have critical implications for misinformation research by demonstrating the importance of theoretically driven messages in understanding misperceptions as well as people's information seeking behavior.

The United States is one of the hardest-hit countries by the COVID-19 pandemic and yet there is widespread hesitancy to take the vaccine. In order to address vaccine hesitancy and foster public understanding of the COVID-19 vaccine, it is necessary to strategize public health messages based on evidence. To this end, we use experimental data to examine the effects of four message frames on participants' attitudes toward the COVID-19 vaccine and their vaccine intention. The primary purposes of this paper are to examine the 1) impact of loss vs. gain frames and individual vs. collective frames and 2) role of perceived benefits on participants' attitudes toward the COVID-19 vaccine and their vaccine intention. Our findings show that participants with higher perceived benefits and exposed to the loss frame showed higher positive attitudes toward the COVID-19 vaccine and greater intention to vaccinate. Similar patterns were revealed in case of the individual frame message. Implications are discussed.

After four years into the pandemic, we know that COVID-19 vaccines are effective, and it is crucial to increase public compliance with getting the COVID-19 vaccines. The current study examines the interplay of credibility perceptions, perceived benefits, and two different types of vaccine promotion messages: individual versus collective. Data was collected using an online randomized experiment. Findings demonstrated that individual versus collective frames did not influence everyone similarly. The results show a significantly moderated mediation model, such that the association between message frame and vaccine intention was mediated by the credibility of the message, and the relationship between message frame and perceived credibility was moderated by perceived benefits of the vaccine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although there is enough scientific evidence to show the benefits and safety of vaccines, vaccine rates are low, while misperceptions about vaccines are on the rise. The main purposes of the current study are to 1) examine the effects of narrative vs. statistical messages on vaccine intention, 2) test the mediating role of perceived expectancies, and 3) examine the moderating roles of perceived susceptibility and misperceptions on vaccine intention. Data were collected with an online experiment through Amazon Mturk. The online experiment was conducted via Qualtrics once the study was considered exempt by the Institutional Research Board of a large University in the U.S. A total of 300 participants aged 18 and above completed the survey. Findings show that perceived expectancies mediate the relationship between message manipulation and vaccine intention. Our findings also show a three-way interaction which indicates that among individuals with high misperceptions, statistical messages are more persuasive for individuals with high perceived susceptibility, while narrative messages are more influential for individuals with low perceived susceptibility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One of the ways to overcome the sheer devastation of the COVID-19 pandemic is to get vaccinated. However, vaccine hesitancy could be a significant barrier. The main purposes of the current study are to examine the impact of four types of theory-driven messages on COVID-19 vaccination intention and to understand the moderating role of partisan media use and vaccination attitudes. The study used a between-subject randomized online experiment with four conditions. The manipulation messages were presented as screenshots from the CDC's Facebook page. The total number of participants were 387 (female 43%, mean age 37 years). The participants were from the U.S. and older than 18 years. The findings show that loss vs. gain message frames did not have any impact on COVID-19 vaccine intention. The moderating effects of conservative media and attitudes show that in general, those who consumed lower conservative media and held positive attitudes were higher on vaccine intention, and individual vs. collective frames did not have a strong impact. However, among those participants who scored high on conservative media use, and held negative vaccination attitudes, the individual frame had a higher impact on vaccine intention. The current study experimentally tested the intertwined relationships among message frames, partisan media use, and attitudes on vaccine intention. These relationships are critical considering the political nature of the pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This research examines the influence of norm-based messages (positively worded descriptive vs. negatively worded descriptive vs. injunctive vs. basic information) on intentions and risk perceptions about receiving human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination among young adults aged 18–29. Results from an experiment show that compared to the basic information condition, additional exposure to injunctive normative messages increased intention to seek further information about HPV vaccination, which in turn enhanced intention to get the vaccine. Negatively worded descriptive normative messaging should be used with caution since it resulted in the highest risk perceptions of the HPV vaccine, compared to positively worded descriptive norms and basic information messages. Theoretical and practical implications are further discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To assess how previous experiences and new information contributed to COVID-19 vaccine intentions. Design: Online survey (N = 1264) with quality checks. Setting: Cross-sectional U.S. survey fielded June 22-July 18, 2020. Sample: U.S. residents 18+; quotas reflecting U.S. Census, limited to English speakers participating in internet panels. Measures: Media literacy for news content and sources, COVID-19 knowledge; perceived usefulness of health experts; if received flu vaccine in past 12 months; vaccine willingness scale; demographics. Analysis: Structural equation modelling. Results: Perceived usefulness of health experts (b =.422, P <.001) and media literacy (b =.162, P <.003) predicted most variance in vaccine intentions (R-squared=31.5%). A significant interaction (b =.163, P <.001) between knowledge (b = −.132, P =.052) and getting flu shot (b =.185, P <.001) predicted additional 3.5% of the variance in future vaccine intentions. An increase in knowledge of COVID-19 associated with a decrease in vaccine intention among those declining the flu shot. Conclusion: The interaction result suggests COVID-19 knowledge had a positive association with vaccine intention for flu shot recipients but a counter-productive association for those declining it. Media literacy and trust in health experts provided strong counterbalancing influences. Survey-based findings are correlational; thus, predictions are based on theory. Future research should study these relationships with panel data or experimental designs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]