This research investigates the moral frames employed by diverse Chinese-speaking “experts” on their Facebook public pages in relation to COVID-19 vaccines, leveraging Moral Foundations Theory for analysis. The analysis highlights that experts predominantly employ moral frames emphasizing care and authority in communicating COVID-19 vaccines. However, the moral frames of care, loyalty, and fairness are more effective in garnering public support. The research thus identifies a disparity between the moral rhetoric commonly espoused by different expert groups and the rhetoric that substantively influences public engagement. The implications of diverse experts’ moral framing in public health crises are also discussed.
AminABBednarczykRARayCEMelchioriKJGrahamJHuntsingerJR, et al. (2017) Association of moral values with vaccine hesitancy. Nature Human Behaviour1(12): 873–880.
2.
AndersonMSRonningEAVriesRDMartinsonBC (2010) Extending the Mertonian norms: Scientists’ subscription to norms of research. The Journal of Higher Education81(3): 366–393.
3.
AzharHAliSAhmedMSheharyarH (2018) The anti-vaccination movement: A regression in modern medicine. Cureus10(7): e2919.
4.
BesleyJCDudoAYuanS (2018) Scientists’ views about communication objectives. Public Understanding of Science27(6): 708–730.
5.
BesleyJCDudoADYuanSAbi GhannamN (2016) Qualitative interviews with science communication trainers about communication objectives and goals. Science Communication38(3): 356–381.
6.
BlackerSKimuraAHKinchyA (2021) When citizen science is public relations. Social Studies of Science51: 780–796.
7.
BorghoutsJHuangYGibbsSHopferSLiCMarkG (2023) Understanding underlying moral values and language use of COVID-19 vaccine attitudes on twitter. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America Nexus2(3): pgad013.
8.
BradyWJWillsJAJostJTTuckerJAVan BavelJJ (2017) Emotion shapes the diffusion of moralized content in social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America114(28): 7313–7318.
9.
ChanEY (2021) Moral foundations underlying behavioral compliance during the COVID-19 pandemic. Personality and Individual Differences171: 110463.
10.
ChenSWeiYHongW (2023a) COVID-19 making “idols”: The birth of celebrity scientists in China. East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International Journal17(2): 239–265.
11.
ChenYLongJJunJKimSHZainAPiacentineC (2023b) Anti-intellectualism amid the COVID-19 pandemic: The discursive elements and sources of anti-Fauci tweets. Public Understanding of Science32: 641–657.
12.
ChengCYZhangW (2023) C-MFD 2.0: Developing a Chinese moral foundation dictionary. Computational Communication Research5(2): 1.
13.
ChinnSHasellARodenJZichettellaB (2023) Threatening experts: Correlates of viewing scientists as a social threat. Public Understanding of Science33: 88–104.
14.
CollinsHEvansR (2019) Rethinking Expertise. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
15.
CollinsHMEvansR (2002) The third wave of science studies: Studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Science32(2): 235–296.
16.
ComfortSEGruszczynskiMBrowningN (2022) Building the science news agenda: The permeability of science journalism to public relations. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly101: 637–656.
17.
DahlstromMFHoSS (2012) Ethical considerations of using narrative to communicate science. Science Communication34(5): 592-617.
18.
Della GiustaMJaworskaSVukadinović GreethamD (2021) Expert communication on Twitter: Comparing economists’ and scientists’ social networks, topics and communicative styles. Public Understanding of Science30(1): 75–90.
19.
DesmondH (2024) The ethics of expert communication. Bioethics38(1): 33–43.
20.
DietheiDNiessJStellmacherCStefanidiESchöningJ (2021) Sharing heartbeats: Motivations of citizen scientists in times of crises. In: Proceedings of the 2021 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Yokohama, Japan, 8–13 May, pp. 1–15. New York: ACM.
21.
DudoABesleyJC (2016) Scientists’ prioritization of communication objectives for public engagement. PLoS ONE11(2): e0148867.
22.
ElliottKCRosenbergJ (2019) Philosophical foundations for citizen science. Citizen Science: Theory & Practice4(1): 1–9.
23.
EvansJHHargittaiE (2020) Who doesn’t trust Fauci? The public’s belief in the expertise and shared values of scientists in the COVID-19 pandemic. Socius6: 947337.
24.
EverettJAColombattoCChitucVBradyWJCrockettM (2020) The effectiveness of moral messages on public health behavioral intentions during the COVID-19 pandemic. PsyArXiv Preprints. DOI: 10.31234/osf.io/9yqs8.
25.
FisherR (2022) The translator versus the critic: A flawed dichotomy in the age of misinformation. Public Understanding of Science31(3): 273–281.
26.
FreedmanJB (2024) Science as charisma: Expert authority and state-society relations in contemporary China. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
27.
GardinerASullivanMGrandA (2018) Who are you writing for? Differences in response to blog design between scientists and nonscientists. Science Communication40(1): 109–123.
28.
GierynTF (1995) Boundary work. In: JasanoffSMarkleGEPetersenJCPinchT (eds) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 293–332.
29.
GierynTF (1999) Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
30.
GrahamJHaidtJNosekBA (2009) Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology96(5): 1029–1046.
31.
GuCFengY (2022) Influence of public engagement with science on scientific information literacy during the COVID-19 pandemic: Empirical evidence from college students in China. Science & Education31(3): 619–633.
32.
HaidtJ (2013) The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. London: Vintage Books.
HooverJJohnsonKBoghratiRGrahamJDehghaniM (2018) Moral framing and charitable donation: Integrating exploratory social media analyses and confirmatory experimentation. Collabra: Psychology4(1): 219.
35.
IyengarSMasseyDS (2019) Scientific communication in a post-truth society. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States America116(16): 7656–7661.
36.
KasperowskiDHagenNRohdenFG (2021) Ethical boundary work in citizen science. Nordic Journal of Science and Technology Studies100: 4318.
37.
KrepsGLSparksL (2008) Meeting the health literacy needs of immigrant populations. Patient Education and Counseling71(3): 328–332.
38.
LevinaM (2009) Exploring epistemic boundaries between scientific and popular cultures. Spontaneous Generations: A Journal for the History and Philosophy of Science3(1): 105–112.
39.
LiangJLiuXZhangW (2019) Scientists vs laypeople: How genetically modified food is discussed on a Chinese Q&A website. Public Understanding of Science28(8): 991–1004.
40.
LiuWXuWWTsaiJYJ (2020) Developing a multi-level organization-public dialogic communication framework to assess social media-mediated disaster communication and engagement outcomes. Public Relations Review46(4): 101949.
MartiniCBattistiDBinaFConsolandiM (2022) Knowledge brokers in crisis: Public communication of science during the COVID-19 pandemic. Social Epistemology36(5): 656–669.
43.
MayesEC (2024) Citizen science in news media: Boundary mediation of public participation in health expertise. Science, Technology, & Human Values49(2): 211–237.
44.
MedeNGSchäferMS (2020) Science-related populism: Conceptualizing populist demands toward science. Public Understanding of Science29(5): 473–491.
MeriAAhmadSAYusoffSMZakariaNSSarjonoFMarainingA, et al. (2022) Patterns of social media usage among Malaysians during the COVID-19 pandemic. Humanities and Social Sciences Letters10(1): 27–35.
47.
Molek-KozakowskaK (2017) Communicating environmental science beyond academia: Stylistic patterns of newsworthiness in popular science journalism. Discourse & Communication11(1): 69–88.
48.
NanXWangYThierKAdebamowoCQuinnSNtiriS (2022) Moral foundations predict COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy: Evidence from a national survey of Black Americans. Journal of Health Communication27(12): 801–811.
49.
PerreaultMFPerreaultGP (2021) Journalists on COVID-19 journalism: Communication ecology of pandemic reporting. American Behavioral Scientist65(7): 976–991.
50.
RossenIHurlstoneMJDunlopPDLawrenceC (2019) Accepters, fence sitters, or rejecters: Moral profiles of vaccination attitudes. Social Science & Medicine224: 23–27.
51.
ScannellDDesensLGuadagnoMTraYAckerESheridanK, et al. (2021) COVID-19 vaccine discourse on Twitter: A content analysis of persuasion techniques, sentiment and mis/disinformation. Journal of Health Communication26(7): 443–459.
UrkensJHoutmanD (2023) Prophets, puppets, and pinheads: Contesting the authority of science in the COVID-19 era. Public Understanding of Science32: 820–834.
54.
UtzSGaiserFWolfersLN (2022) Guidance in the chaos: Effects of science communication by virologists during the COVID-19 crisis in Germany and the role of parasocial phenomena. Public Understanding of Science31(6): 799–817.
WuSYangCZhangY (2019) The Chinese version of moral foundations dictionary: A brief introduction and pilot analysis. In: The nineteenth China national conference on computational linguistics, Haikou, China, 3 November, pp. 539–549. New York: ACM.
57.
YangZ (2022) The new stage of public engagement with science in the digital media environment: Citizen science communicators in the discussion of GMOs on Zhihu. New Genetics and Society41(2): 116–135.
58.
YangZ (2023) Who should be a science communicator? The struggle for “legitimate” status as science communicators between Chinese scientists and citizens on a Chinese knowledge-sharing platform. Public Understanding of Science32(3): 357–372.
59.
ZhangWWangRLiuH (2023) Moral expressions, sources, and frames: Examining COVID-19 vaccination posts by Facebook public pages. Computers in Human Behavior138: 107479.
60.
ZhouALiuWKimHMLeeEShinJZhangY, et al. (2022) Moral foundations, ideological divide, and public engagement with US government agencies’ COVID-19 vaccine communication on social media. Mass Communication and Society27: 739–746.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
