We investigated the effectiveness of narrative vs non-narrative messages in changing COVID-19-related perceptions and intentions.
Design/Setting
The study employed a between-subjects two-group (narratives vs non-narratives) experimental design and was administered online.
Subjects/Intervention
1804 U.S. adults recruited via Amazon MTurk in September 2020 were randomly assigned to one of two experimental conditions and read either three narrative or three non-narrative messages about social distancing, vaccination, and unproven treatments.
Measures
Perceptions and intentions were assessed before and after message exposure (7-point scales).
Analysis
Using multivariable regression, we assessed main effects of the experimental condition (controlling for baseline measures) and interactions between the condition and pre-exposure perceptions/intentions in predicting post-exposure outcomes.
Results
Compared to non-narratives, narratives led to (1) less positive perceptions about the benefits of unproven treatments (Mnarrative = 3.60, Mnon-narrative = 3.77, P = .007); and (2) less willingness to receive an unproven drug (Mnarrative = 3.46, Mnon-narrative = 3.77, P < .001); this effect was stronger among individuals with higher baseline willingness to receive unproven drugs (baseline willingness = 2.09: b = −.06, P = .461; baseline willingness = 3.90: b = −.30, P < .001; baseline willingness = 5.71: b = −.55, P < .001). Narratives also led to more positive perceptions of vaccine safety/effectiveness, but only among individuals with lower baseline vaccine perceptions (baseline perceptions = 4.51: b = .10, P = .008; baseline perceptions = 5.89: b = .04, P = .167; baseline perceptions = 7: b = −.01, P = .688).
Conclusion
Narratives are a promising communication strategy, particularly for topics where views are not entrenched and among individuals who are more resistant to recommendations.
Van BavelJJBaickerKBoggioPS, et al.Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response. Nature Human Behaviour. 2020; 4: 460-471.
2.
RussMJSistiDWilnerPJ. When patients refuse COVID-19 testing, quarantine, and social distancing in inpatient psychiatry: Clinical and ethical challenges. J Med Ethics. 2020; 46(9): 579-580.
3.
World Health Organization. Managing the COVID-19 Infodemic: Promoting Healthy Behaviours and Mitigating the Harm from Misinformation and Disinformation - Joint Statement by WHO, UN, UNICEF, UNDP, UNESCO, UNAIDS, ITU, UN Global Pulse. IFRC; 2020.
4.
RomerDJamiesonKH. Conspiracy theories as barriers to controlling the spread of COVID-19 in the U.S. Soc Sci Med. 2020; 263: 113356.
Johnson FoundationRWHarvardTH. Chan School of Public Health. The Public's Perspective on the United States Public Health System2021.
7.
LalotFHeeringMSRulloMTravaglinoGAAbramsD. The Dangers of Distrustful Complacency: Low Concern and Low Political Trust Combine to Undermine Compliance with Governmental Restrictions in the Emerging Covid-19 Pandemic. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations. 2020; 25(1): 106–121.
8.
ForsythDR. Group-level resistance to health mandates during the COVID-19 pandemic: A groupthink approach. Group Dynam: Theory, Research, and Practice. 2020; 24(3): 139-152.
9.
MarmaroshCLForsythDRStraussBBurlingameGM. The psychology of the COVID-19 pandemic: A group-level perspective. Group Dynam: Theory, Research, and Practice. 2020; 24: 122-138.
10.
IslamMSSarkarTKhanSH, et al.COVID-19-related infodemic and its impact on public health: A global social media analysis. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2020; 103(4): 1621-1629.
11.
GuidryJPJinYOrrCAMessnerMMeganckS. Ebola on instagram and twitter: How health organizations address the health crisis in their social media engagement. Publ Relat Rev. 2017; 43(3): 477-486.
12.
ReynoldsBJ. When the facts are just not enough: Credibly communicating about risk is riskier when emotions run high and time is short. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2011; 254(2): 206-214.
13.
KreuterMWGreenMCCappellaJN, et al.Narrative communication in cancer prevention and control: a framework to guide research and application. Ann Behav Med. 2007; 33(3): 221-235.
14.
HinyardLJKreuterMW. Using narrative communication as a tool for health behavior change: A conceptual, theoretical, and empirical overview. Health Educ Behav. 2007; 34(5): 777-792.
15.
BraddockKDillardJP. Meta-analytic evidence for the persuasive effect of narratives on beliefs, attitudes, intentions, and behaviors. Commun Monogr. 2016; 83(4): 446-467.
16.
BallardAMDavisAHoffnerCA. The impact of health narratives on persuasion in African American women: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Health Commun. Mar. 2020; 2: 1-12.
17.
KimHKNiederdeppeJ. Effects of self-affirmation, narratives, and informational messages in reducing unrealistic optimism about alcohol-related problems among college students. Hum Commun Res. 2016; 42(2): 246-268.
18.
RatcliffCLSunY. Overcoming resistance through narratives: Findings from a meta-analytic review. Hum Commun Res. 2020; 46(4): 412-443.
19.
ShafferVAFocellaESHathawayASchererLDZikmund-FisherBJ. On the usefulness of narratives: an interdisciplinary review and theoretical model. Ann Behav Med. 2018; 52(5): 429-442.
20.
GerrieMPBelcherLEGarryM. 'Mind the gap’: False memories for missing aspects of an event. Appl Cognit Psychol. 2006; 20(5): 689-696.
21.
JohnsonHMSeifertCM. Sources of the continued influence effect: When misinformation in memory affects later inferences. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cognit. 1994; 20(6): 1420-1436.
22.
CappellaJNMaloneyEOphirYBrennanE. Interventions to correct misinformation about tobacco products. Tob Regul Sci. Jul. 2015; 1(2): 186-197.
23.
BekaluMABigmanCAMcCloudRFLinLKViswanathK. The relative persuasiveness of narrative versus non-narrative health messages in public health emergency communication: Evidence from a field experiment. Prev Med. 2018; 111: 284-290.
24.
KuruOSteculaDLuH, et al.The effects of scientific messages and narratives about vaccination. PLoS One. 2021; 16(3): e0248328.
25.
JarreauPBSuLYFChiangECL, et al.COVID issue: Visual narratives about COVID-19 improve message accessibility, self-efficacy, and health precautions. Frontiers in Communication. 2021; 6: 164.
26.
BuhrmesterMKwangTGoslingSD. Amazon's mechanical turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data?Perspect Psychol Sci. 2011; 6(1): 3-5.
27.
JeongMZhangDMorganJC, et al.Similarities and differences in tobacco control research findings from convenience and probability samples. Ann Behav Med. 2019; 53(5): 476-485.
LarsonHJde FigueiredoAXiahongZ, et al.The state of vaccine confidence 2016: Global insights through a 67-country survey. E Bio Medicine. 2016; 12: 295-301.
32.
AltmanDG. Covariate Imbalance, Adjustment for. Encyclopedia of Biostatistics; 2005.
33.
NoarSMAustinL. (Mis) communicating about COVID-19: Insights from health and crisis communication. Health communication. 2020; 35: 1-5.
34.
BodeLVragaEK. In related news, that was wrong: The correction of misinformation through related stories functionality in social media. J Commun. 2015; 65(4): 619-638.
35.
SlaterMDRounerD. Value-affirmative and value-protective processing of alcohol education messages that include statistical evidence or anecdotes. Commun Res. 1996; 23(2): 210-235.
36.
MerchantRMSouthECLurieN. Public health messaging in an era of social media. JAMA. 2021; 29: 223-224.
37.
BurkiT. The online anti-vaccine movement in the age of COVID-19. The Lancet Digital Health. 2020; 2(10): e504-e505.
Gesser-EdelsburgA. Using narrative evidence to convey health information on social media: The case of COVID-19. J Med Internet Res. 2021; 23(3): e24948.
41.
HurstKSternMJ. Messaging for environmental action: The role of moral framing and message source. J Environ Psychol. 2020; 68: 101394.
42.
RossenIHurlstoneMJDunlopPDLawrenceC. Accepters, fence sitters, or rejecters: Moral profiles of vaccination attitudes. Soc Sci Med. 2019; 224: 23-27.
NanXIlesIAYangBMaZ. Public health messaging during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond: Lessons from communication science. Health Commun. 2021; 37: 1-19.
45.
AppelMRichterT. Persuasive effects of fictional narratives increase over time. Media Psychol. 2007; 10(1): 113-134.
46.
PrenticeDAMillerDT. When small effects are impressive. Psychol Bull. 1992; 112(1): 160-164.
47.
WakefieldMALokenBHornikRC. Use of mass media campaigns to change health behaviour. Lancet (London, England). 2010; 376(9748): 1261-1271.
48.
ChandlerJRosenzweigCMossAJRobinsonJLitmanL. Online panels in social science research: Expanding sampling methods beyond mechanical Turk. Behav Res Methods. 2019; 51(5): 2022-2038.
