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

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.