The main purposes of the current study are to examine 1) the influence of narrative vs statistics messages on COVID-19 related information seeking and COVID-19 vaccine intention and 2) the moderating role of perceived behavioral control (PBC).
Design
Data for a between-subject randomized experiment were collected online. The manipulation messages were presented as screenshots from the CDC’s Facebook page.
Setting
The participants were recruited from Amazon MTurk.
Subjects
A total of 300 subjects participated in the study, who were 18 years and above (M = 38.40).
Measures
Intention to seek information, COVID-19 vaccine intention, and PBC.
Analysis
To test the hypotheses, we utilized Hayes’s (2014) PROCESS for SPSS (Model 1). For intention to seek information, the main effect of the message manipulation (narrative vs statistics) [b = −2.10, t (300) = −4.14, P < .001] and the interaction [b = .41, t (300) = 3.88, P < .001] were significant. For vaccine intention, the main effects of message manipulation [b = 1.64, t (300) = −2.61, P < .005] and the interaction [b = .34, t (300) = 2.64, P < .005] were significant.
Results
Our research found that narrative messages were more persuasive for both information seeking and vaccine intention. But this was true only in the case of individuals whose PBC was low.
Conclusions
Our findings have critical implications for vaccine promotion research.
Bar-ZeevNInglesbyT. COVID-19 vaccines: Early success and remaining challenges. Lancet. 2020;396(10255):868-869. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(20)31867-5
3.
RotshildVHirsh-RaccahBMiskinIMuszkatMMatokI. Comparing the clinical efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):22777. doi:10.1038/s41598-021-02321-z
4.
TregoningJFlightKHighamSWangZPierceB. Progress of the COVID-19 vaccine effort: Viruses, vaccines and variants versus efficacy, effectiveness and escape. Nat Rev Immunol. 2021;21:626-636. doi:10.1038/s41577-021-00592-1
5.
BadenLEl SahlyHEssinkB, et al.Efficacy and safety of the mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. N Engl J Med. 2021;384:403-416. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2035389
LogunovDDolzhikovaIShcheblyakovD, et al.Safety and efficacy of an rAd26 and rAd5 vector-based heterologous prime-boost COVID-19 vaccine: An interim analysis of a randomised controlled phase 3 trial in Russia. Lancet. 2021;397:671-681. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(21)00234-8
8.
PolackFPThomasSJKitchinN, et al.Safety and efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 vaccine. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:2603-2615.
9.
VoyseyMClemensSACMadhiSA, et al.Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: An interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK. Lancet. 2021;397(10269):99-111. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32661-1
10.
OlliaroPTorreeleEVaillantM. COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and effectiveness-the elephant (not) in the room. Lancet Microbe. 2021;2(7):e279-e280. doi:10.1016/S2666-5247(21)00069-0
SadoffJGrayGVandeboschA, et al.Safety and efficacy of single-dose Ad26.COV2.S vaccine against Covid-19. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(23):2187-2201. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2101544
13.
ShayDGeeJSuJ, et al.Safety monitoring of the Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) COVID-19 vaccine — United States, March–April 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021;70(18):680-684. doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm7018e2
14.
ZhuFCLiYHGuanXH, et al.Safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of a recombinant adenovirus type-5 vectored COVID-19 vaccine: A dose-escalation, open-label, non-randomised, first-in-human trial. Lancet. 2020;395(10240):1845-1854. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31208-3
15.
RemmelA. COVID vaccines and safety: What the research says. Nature. 2021;590(7847):538-540. doi:10.1038/d41586-021-00290-x
BertinPNeraKDelouvéeS. Conspiracy beliefs, rejection of vaccination, and support for hydroxychloroquine: A conceptual replication-extension in the COVID-19 pandemic context. Front Psychol. 2020;11:565128. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.565128
BorahPHwangJHsuYCL. COVID-19 vaccination attitudes and intention: message framing and the moderating role of perceived vaccine benefits. J Health Commun. 2021;26(8):523-533. doi:10.1080/10810730.2021.1966687
21.
LennonRPSmallMLSmithRA, et al.Unique predictors of intended uptake of a COVID-19 vaccine in adults living in a rural college town in the United States. Am J Health Promot. 2022;36(1):180-184. doi:10.1177/08901171211026132
22.
QiaoSTamCCLiX. Risk exposures, risk perceptions, negative attitudes toward general vaccination, and COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among college students in South Carolina. Am J Health Promot. 2022;36(1):175-179. doi:10.1177/08901171211028407
23.
LefevereJDe SwertKWalgraveS. Effects of popular exemplars in television news. Commun Res. 2012;39(1):103-119. doi:10.1177/0093650210387124
24.
ZillmannD. Exemplification effects in the promotion of safety and health. J Commun. 2006;56:S221-S237. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00291.x
25.
Knobloch-WesterwickSSargeMA. Impacts of exemplification and efficacy as characteristics of an online weight-loss message on selective exposure and subsequent weight-loss behavior. Commun Res. 2015;42(4):547-568. doi:10.1177/0093650213478440
26.
NanXDahlstromMFRichardsARangarajanS. Influence of evidence type and narrative type on HPV risk perception and intention to obtain the HPV vaccine. Health Commun. 2015;30(3):301-308. doi:10.1080/10410236.2014.888629
27.
SmithNGrahamT. Mapping the anti-vaccination movement on Facebook. Inf Commun Soc. 2019;22(9):1310-1327. doi:10.1080/1369118x.2017.1418406
28.
XiaoXWongRM. Vaccine hesitancy and perceived behavioral control: A meta-analysis. Vaccine. 2020;38(33):5131-5138. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.04.076
29.
HayesA. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. New York: Guilford Publications; 2018.
30.
SlaterMRounerD. Value-affirmative and value-protective processing of alcohol education messages that include statistical evidence or anecdotes. Commun Res. 1996;23(2):210-235. doi:10.1177/009365096023002003
31.
GreenMCBrockTC. The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2000;79(5):701-721. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.79.5.701
32.
Moyer-GuséE. Toward a theory of entertainment persuasion: Explaining the persuasive effects of entertainment-education messages. Commun Theor. 2008;18(3):407-425. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2008.00328.x
33.
NiederdeppeJHeleyKBarryC. Inoculation and narrative strategies in competitive framing of three health policy issues. J Commun. 2015;65(5):838-862. doi:10.1111/jcom.12162
34.
HeleyKKennedy-HendricksANiederdeppeJBarryCL. Reducing health-related stigma through narrative messages. Health Commun. 2020;35(7):849-860. doi:10.1080/10410236.2019.1598614
35.
KrauseRJRuckerDD. Strategic storytelling: When narratives help versus hurt the persuasive power of facts. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2020;46(2):216-227. doi:10.1177/0146167219853845
36.
BetschCUlshöferCRenkewitzFBetschT. The influence of narrative v. statistical information on perceiving vaccination risks. Med Decis Making. 2011;31(5):742-753. doi:10.1177/0272989X11400419
37.
HopferS. Effects of a narrative HPV vaccination intervention aimed at reaching college women: A randomized controlled trial. Prev Sci. 2012;13(2):173-182. doi:10.1007/s11121-011-0254-1
LarkeyLKMcClainDRoeDJ, et al.Randomized controlled trial of storytelling compared to a personal risk tool intervention on colorectal cancer screening in low-income patients. Am J Health Promot. 2015;30(2):e59-e70. doi:10.4278/ajhp.131111-QUAN-572
40.
AllenJADukeJCDavisKCKimAENonnemakerJMFarrellyMC. Using mass media campaigns to reduce youth tobacco use: A review. Am J Health Promot. 2015;30(2):e71-e82. doi:10.4278/ajhp.130510-LIT-237
41.
MancoNHambyS. A meta-analytic review of interventions that promote meaning in life. Am J Health Promot. 2021;35(6):866-873. doi:10.1177/0890117121995736
42.
NiederdeppeJShapiroMAPorticellaN. Attributions of responsibility for obesity: Narrative communication reduces reactive counterarguing among liberals. Hum Commun Res. 2011;37(3):295-323. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2011.01409.x
43.
ShenFSheerVCLiR. Impact of narratives on persuasion in health communication: A meta-analysis. J Advert. 2015;44(2):105-113. doi:10.1080/00913367.2015.1018467
44.
ZebregsSvan den PutteBNeijensPde GraafA. The differential impact of statistical and narrative evidence on beliefs, attitude, and intention: A meta-analysis. Health Commun. 2015;30(3):282-289. doi:10.1080/10410236.2013.842528
45.
FordEWHuertaTRSchilhavyRAMenachemiN. Effective US health system websites: Establishing benchmarks and standards for effective consumer engagement. J Healthc Manag. 2012;57(1):47-65.
46.
HimelboimIXiaoXLeeDKLWangMYBorahP. A social networks approach to understanding vaccine conversations on Twitter: Network clusters, sentiment, and certainty in HPV social networks. Health Commun. 2020;35(5):607-615. doi:10.1080/10410236.2019.1573446
RidoutTNFowlerEFBranstetterJBorahP. Politics as usual? When and why traditional actors often dominate YouTube campaigning. J Inf Technol Polit. 2015;12(3):237-251. doi:10.1080/19331681.2015.1050750
49.
BorahPFowlerERidoutTN. Television vs YouTube: Political advertising in the 2012 presidential election. J Inf Technol Polit. 2018;15(3):230-244. doi:10.1080/19331681.2018.1476280
50.
AfifiWAWeinerJL. Seeking information about sexual health: Applying the theory of motivated information management. Hum Commun Res. 2006;32(1):35-57. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2006.00002.x
51.
JohnsonJDMeischkeH. A comprehensive model of cancer-related information seeking applied to magazines. Hum Commun Res. 1993;19(3):343-367. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1993.tb00305.x
52.
BroomA. Virtually he@lthy: The impact of internet use on disease experience and the doctor-patient relationship. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(3):325-345. doi:10.1177/1049732304272916
53.
KivitsJ. Researching the informed patient. Inf Commun Soc. 2004;7(4):510-530. doi:10.1080/1369118042000305629
BootCRMeijmanFJ. The public and the Internet: Multifaceted drives for seeking health information. Health Inf J. 2010;16(2):145-156. doi:10.1177/1460458210364786
56.
KimY-M. Is seeking health information online different from seeking general information online?J Inf Sci. 2015;41(2):228-241. doi:10.1177/0165551514561669
57.
BartschASchneiderFM. Entertainment and politics revisited: How non-escapist forms of entertainment can stimulate political interest and information seeking. J Commun. 2014;64(3):369-396. doi:10.1111/jcom.12095
58.
DuanRCrosswellLBarberK. Animation in environmental journalism: Effects on news perception and information seeking. J Broad Elect Media. 2021;65(2):205-227. doi:10.1080/08838151.2021.1923716
59.
LuongKTMoyer-GuséEMcKnightJ. Let’s go to the movies for science! The impact of entertainment narratives on science knowledge, interest, and information-seeking intention. J Media Psychol: Theories, Methods, App. 2020;32(4):200-215. doi:10.1027/1864-1105/a000272
DubéEGagnonDOuakkiM, et al.Measuring vaccine acceptance among Canadian parents: A survey of the Canadian immunization research network. Vaccine. 2018;36(4):545-552. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2017.12.005
62.
JarrettCWilsonRO’LearyMEckersbergerELarsonHJ. SAGE working group on vaccine hesitancy. Strategies for addressing vaccine hesitancy - A systematic review. Vaccine. 2015;33(34):4180-4190. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.04.040
63.
KimJ. The impact of narrative strategy on promoting HPV vaccination among college students in Korea: The role of anticipated regret. Vaccines. 2020;8(2):176. doi:10.3390/vaccines8020176
64.
XiaoXBorahP. Do norms matter? examining norm-based messages in HPV vaccination promotion. Health Commun. 2021;36(12):1476-1484. doi:10.1080/10410236.2020.1770506
65.
NanX. Relative persuasiveness of gain- vs loss-framed human papillomavirus vaccination messages for the present- and future-minded. Hum Commun Res. 2012;38(1):72-94. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2011.01419.x
66.
O’KeefeDJNanX. The relative persuasiveness of gain- and loss-framed messages for promoting vaccination: A meta-analytic review. Health Commun. 2012;27(8):776-783. doi:10.1080/10410236.2011.640974
67.
MacdonaldLCairnsGAngusKde AndradeM. Promotional communications for influenza vaccination: A systematic review. J Health Commun. 2013;18(12):1523-1549. doi:10.1080/10810730.2013.840697
68.
PenţaMABăbanA. Message framing in vaccine communication: A systematic review of published literature. Health Commun. 2018;33(3):299-314. doi:10.1080/10410236.2016.1266574
69.
XiaoXLeeDKLWongRMBorahP. The impact of theory in HPV vaccination promotion research: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Health Promot. 2021;35(7):1002-1014. doi:10.1177/08901171211012524
70.
FishbeinMAjzenI. Predicting and Changing Behavior: The Reasoned Action Approach. New York: Psychology Press; 2010.
71.
AjzenI. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1991;50(2):179-211. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t
72.
GerendMAShepherdJE. Predicting human papillomavirus vaccine uptake in young adult women: Comparing the health belief model and theory of planned behavior. Ann Behav Med. 2012;44(2):171-180. doi:10.1007/s12160-012-9366-5
73.
WheldonCWDaleyEMWalsh-BuhiERBaldwinJANyitrayAGGiulianoAR. An integrative theoretical framework for HPV vaccine promotion among male sexual minorities. Am J Men’s Health. 2018;12(5):1409-1420. doi:10.1177/1557988316652937
74.
CatalanoHPKnowldenAPBirchDALeeperJDPaschalAMUsdanSL. Using the theory of planned behavior to predict HPV vaccination intentions of college men. J Am Coll Health. 2017;65(3):197-207. doi:10.1080/07448481.2016.1269771
75.
BrittRKHattenKNChappuisSO. Perceived behavioral control, intention to get vaccinated, and usage of online information about the human papillomavirus vaccine. Health Psychol Behav Med. 2014;2(1):52-65. doi:10.1080/21642850.2013.869175
76.
CastanierCDerocheTWoodmanT. Theory of planned behaviour and road violations: The moderating influence of perceived behavioural control. Transport Res F Traffic Psychol Behav. 2013;18:148-158. doi:10.1016/j.trf.2012.12.014
77.
YzerM. Does perceived behavioral control moderate attitudinal and normative effects on intention? A review of conceptual and methodological issues. In: AjzenIAlbarracenDHornikR, eds Prediction and Change of Health Behavior: Applying the Reasoned Action Approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2007:107-123.
78.
ThomasKACliffordS. Validity and mechanical turk: An assessment of exclusion methods and interactive experiments. Comput Hum Behav. 2017;77:184-197. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.08.038
79.
BerinskyAJMargolisMFSancesMW. Separating the shirkers from the workers? making sure respondents pay attention on self-administered surveys. Am J Polit Sci. 2013;58(3):739-753. doi:10.1111/ajps.12081
80.
CliffordSJewellRMWaggonerPD. Are samples drawn from mechanical turk valid for research on political ideology?Research & Politics2015;2. doi:10.1177/2053168015622072.
81.
ErdfelderEFaulFBuchnerA. GPOWER: A general power analysis program. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 1996;28(1):1-11. doi:10.3758/bf03203630
82.
GerendMAShepherdJEMondayKA. Behavioral frequency moderates the effects of message framing on HPV vaccine acceptability. Ann Behav Med. 2008;35(2):221-229. doi:10.1007/s12160-008-9024-0
83.
XiaoXSuYLeeDKL. Who consumes new media content more wisely? Examining personality factors, SNS use, and new media literacy in the era of misinformation. Social Media and Society2021;7. doi:10.1177/2056305121990635.
84.
GollwitzerAMartelCBradyWJ, et al.Partisan differences in physical distancing are linked to health outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Nature Human Behav. 2020;4(11):1186-1197. doi:10.1038/s41562-020-00977-7
85.
de WitJBDasEVetR. What works best: Objective statistics or a personal testimonial? An assessment of the persuasive effects of different types of message evidence on risk perception. Health Psychol. 2008;27(1):110-115. doi:10.1037/0278-6133.27.1.110
86.
WilsonKMillsEJNormanGTomlinsonG. Changing attitudes towards polio vaccination: A randomized trial of an evidence-based presentation versus a presentation from a polio survivor. Vaccine. 2005;23(23):3010-3015. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2004.12.002
