Leveraging psychological reactance theory, this study seeks to explore the interactive effects between message features and source characteristics on psychological reactance and persuasion outcomes relating to flu vaccine intention through a between-subject experiment. The results indicate the significant impact of language style and source type on individuals’ attitudes toward flu vaccines, and the mediation roles of perceived autonomy, trust, and psychological reactance, along with moderation effect of choice type (single vs. multiple) and the interactive effects of language style and source type on flu vaccine intention. This study provides implication in vaccination persuasion and detailed strategies for practical campaign.
BirkhäuerJ.GaabJ.KossowskyJ.HaslerS.KrummenacherP.WernerC.GergerH. (2017). Trust in the health care professional and health outcome: A meta-analysis. PLOS ONE, 12(2), Article e0170988.
2.
BrehmJ. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. Academic Press.
CepedaJ. A.FederK. A.AstemborskiJ.SchluthC.KirkG. D.MehtaS. H.GenbergB. L. (2022). COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and vaccination status in a community-based cohort of people who inject drugs in Baltimore, Maryland, March–June 2021. Public Health Reports, 137(5), 1031–1040.
6.
ChaikenS. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), 752.
7.
ClaessensT.KrouwerS.VandeboschH.PoelsK. (2023). Pathways to informed choices: The impact of freedom of choice and two-sided messages on psychological reactance and vaccination intentions among individuals who express concerns. Vaccine, 41(42), 6272–6280.
8.
CuiY.ZhangX.PengX.ChuJ. (2018). How to use apology and compensation to repair competence-versus integrity-based trust violations in e-commerce. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 32, 37–48.
9.
DanV.DixonG. N. (2021). Fighting the infodemic on two fronts: Reducing false beliefs without increasing polarization. Science Communication, 43, 674–682.
10.
DeciE. L. (1980). The psychology of self-determination. Heath.
11.
DeciE. L.RyanR. M. (2012). Self-determination theory. Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology, 1(20), 416–436.
12.
DillardJ. P. (2014). Language, style, and persuasion. In HoltgravesT. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of language and social psychology (pp. 177–187). Oxford University Press.
13.
DillardJ. P.ShenL. (2005). On the nature of reactance and its role in persuasive health communication. Communication Monographs, 72(2), 144–168.
14.
ĐorđevićJ. M.MariS.VdovićM.MiloševićA. (2021). Links between conspiracy beliefs, vaccine knowledge, and trust: Anti-vaccine behavior of Serbian adults. Social Science & Medicine, 277, 113930.
15.
DunwoodyS. (2021). Science journalism: Prospects in the digital age. In BucchiM.TrenchB. (Eds.), Routledge handbook of public communication of science and technology (pp. 14–32). Routledge.
16.
Eshun-WilsonI.ModyA.TramK. H.BradleyC.SheveA.FoxB.GengE. H. (2021). Strategies that make vaccination easy and promote autonomy could increase COVID-19 vaccination in those who remain hesitant. medRxiv.
17.
EvansW. D.FrenchJ. (2021). Demand creation for COVID-19 vaccination: Overcoming vaccine hesitancy through social marketing. Vaccines, 9(4), 319.
18.
FaddaM.GalimbertiE.CarraroV.SchulzP. J. (2016). What are parents’ perspectives on psychological empowerment in the MMR vaccination decision? A focus group study. BMJ Open, 6(4), Article e010773.
19.
FiskeS. T.DupreeC. (2014). Gaining trust as well as respect in communicating to motivated audiences about science topics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(Suppl. 4), 13593–13597.
20.
FlanaginA. J.WinterS.MetzgerM. J. (2020). Making sense of credibility in complex information environments: The role of message sidedness, information source, and thinking styles in credibility evaluation online. Information, Communication & Society, 23(7), 1038–1056.
21.
FloresA.ColeJ. C.DickertS.EomK.Jiga-BoyG. M.KogutT.Van BovenL. (2022). Politicians polarize and experts depolarize public support for COVID-19 management policies across countries. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(3), Article e2117543119.
22.
GardnerL.LeshnerG. (2016). The role of narrative and other-referencing in attenuating psychological reactance to diabetes self-care messages. Health Communication, 31(6), 738–751.
23.
GibbonsP.BuschJ.BradacJ. J. (1991). Powerful versus powerless language: Consequences for persuasion, impression formation, and cognitive response. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 10(2), 115–133.
24.
GillisonF. B.RouseP.StandageM.SebireS. J.RyanR. M. (2019). A meta-analysis of techniques to promote motivation for health behaviour change from a self-determination theory perspective. Health Psychology Review, 13(1), 110–130.
25.
GlikD. C. (2007). Risk communication for public health emergencies. Annual Review of Public Health, 28, 33–54.
26.
GoE.JungE. H.WuM. (2014). The effects of source cues on online news perception. Computers in Human Behavior, 38, 358–367.
27.
GrandpreJ.AlvaroE. M.BurgoonM.MillerC. H.HallJ. R. (2003). Adolescent reactance and anti-smoking campaigns: A theoretical approach. Health Communication, 15(3), 349–366.
28.
GuptaA. S.MukherjeeJ. (2022). Decoding revenge buying in retail: Role of psychological reactance and perceived stress. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 50(11), 1378–1394.
29.
HagenL.FoxA.O’LearyH.DysonD.WalkerK.LengacherC. A.HernandezR. (2022). The role of influential actors in fostering the polarized covid-19 vaccine discourse on twitter: Mixed methods of machine learning and inductive coding. JMIR Infodemiology, 2(1), Article e34231.
30.
HamiltonM. A.StewartB. L. (1993). Extending an information processing model of language intensity effects. Communication Quarterly, 41(2), 231–246.
31.
HanQ.ZhengB.CristeaM.AgostiniM.BélangerJ. J.GützkowB., PsyCorona Collaboration, . (2023). Trust in government regarding COVID-19 and its associations with preventive health behaviour and prosocial behaviour during the pandemic: A cross-sectional and longitudinal study. Psychological Medicine, 53(1), 149–159.
32.
HayesA. F. (2018). Partial, conditional, and moderated moderated mediation: Quantification, inference, and interpretation. Communication Monographs, 85(1), 4–40.
33.
HayesA. F.PreacherK. J. (2014). Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical independent variable. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 67(3), 451–470.
34.
HongS. (2023). COVID-19 vaccine communication and advocacy strategy: A social marketing campaign for increasing COVID-19 vaccine uptake in South Korea. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10(1), 1–9.
35.
HuangY.LiuW. (2022). Promoting COVID-19 vaccination: The interplay of message framing, psychological uncertainty, and public agency as a message source. Science Communication, 44(1), 3–29.
36.
HuangY.SundarS. S. (2022). Do we trust the crowd? Effects of crowdsourcing on perceived credibility of online health information. Health Communication, 37(1), 93–102.
37.
HwangJ. (2020). Health information sources and the influenza vaccination: The mediating roles of perceived vaccine efficacy and safety. Journal of Health Communication, 25(9), 727–735.
38.
JanssenI.HendriksF.JucksR. (2021). Face masks might protect you from COVID-19: The communication of scientific uncertainty by scientists versus politicians in the context of policy in the making. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 40(5–6), 602–626.
KinnafickF. E.Thøgersen-NtoumaniC.DudaJ. (2016). The effect of need supportive text messages on motivation and physical activity behaviour. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 39, 574–586.
41.
KrepsS. E.KrinerD. L. (2020). Model uncertainty, political contestation, and public trust in science: Evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic. Science Advances, 6(43), Article eabd4563.
42.
KumkaleG. T.AlbarracínD.SeignourelP. J. (2010). The effects of source credibility in the presence or absence of prior attitudes: Implications for the design of persuasive communication campaigns. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40(6), 1325–1356.
43.
LaVoieN. R.QuickB. L.RilesJ. M.LambertN. J. (2017). Are graphic cigarette warning labels an effective message strategy? A test of psychological reactance theory and source appraisal. Communication Research, 44(3), 416–436.
44.
LeeD.Rundle-ThieleS.FongB. Y.LiG. (2022). The application and outcome evaluation of a social marketing intervention to increase seasonal influenza vaccination among university students. Vaccines, 10(10), 1671.
45.
LewinK. (1952). Group decision and social change. In SwansonG. E.NewcombT. M.HartleyE. L. (Eds.), Readings in social psychology (pp. 459–473). Holt.
46.
LiK.ZhouF. (2022). Influence of information sources on Chinese parents regarding COVID-19 vaccination for children: An online survey. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(12), 7037.
47.
LiR.SundarS. S. (2022). Can interactive media attenuate psychological reactance to health messages? A study of the role played by user commenting and audience metrics in persuasion. Health Communication, 37(11), 1355–1367.
48.
MaH.MillerC. (2022). “I felt completely turned off by the message”: The effects of controlling language, fear, and disgust appeals on responses to COVID-19 vaccination messages. Journal of Health Communication, 27(6), 427–438.
49.
McLaughlinB.ShutzC.WhiteD. (1980). Parental speech to five-year-old children in a game-playing situation. Child Development, 51, 580–582.
50.
MetzgerM. J.FlanaginA. J. (2013). Credibility and trust of information in online environments: The use of cognitive heuristics. Journal of Pragmatics, 59, 210–220.
51.
MetzgerM. J.FlanaginA. J.MeddersR. B. (2010). Social and heuristic approaches to credibility evaluation online. Journal of Communication, 60(3), 413–439.
52.
MillerC. H.LaneL. T.DeatrickL. M.YoungA. M.PottsK. A. (2007). Psychological reactance and promotional health messages: The effects of controlling language, lexical concreteness, and the restoration of freedom. Human Communication Research, 33(2), 219–240.
53.
MoonK.RiegeA.Gourdon-KanhukamweA.Vallée-TourangeauG. (2021). The moderating effect of autonomy on promotional health messages encouraging healthcare professionals to get the influenza vaccine. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 27(2), 187.
54.
NanX.MaddenK. (2014). The role of cultural worldviews and message framing in shaping public opinions toward the human papillomavirus vaccination mandate. Human Communication Research, 40(1), 30–53.
55.
NuwardaR. F.AlharbiA. A.KayserV. (2021). An overview of influenza viruses and vaccines. Vaccines, 9(9), 1032.
56.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2023). Health at a glance 2023: OECD indicators. OECD Publishing.
57.
OtisA. (2024). The effects of transparency cues on news source credibility online: An investigation of “opinion labels.”Journalism, 25(1), 198–217.
58.
PatallE. A.CooperH.RobinsonJ. C. (2008). The effects of choice on intrinsic motivation and related outcomes: A meta-analysis of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 134(2), 270.
59.
PaulE.SteptoeA.FancourtD. (2021). Attitudes towards vaccines and intention to vaccinate against COVID-19: Implications for public health communications. The Lancet Regional Health-Europe, 1, 100012.
60.
PaveyL. J.SparksP. (2012). Autonomy and defensiveness: Experimentally increasing adaptive responses to health-risk information via priming and self-affirmation. Psychology & Health, 27(3), 259–276.
61.
PenţaM. A.BăbanA. (2018). Message framing in vaccine communication: A systematic review of published literature. Health Communication, 33(3), 299–314.
62.
PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T. (Eds.), Communication and persuasion (pp. 1–24). Springer.
63.
PlohlN.MusilB. (2023). Trust in science moderates the effects of high/low threat communication on psychological reactance to COVID-19-related public health messages. Journal of Communication in Healthcare, 16(4), 401–411.
64.
Reynolds-TylusT. (2019). Psychological reactance and persuasive health communication: A review of the literature. Frontiers in Communication, 4, 56.
65.
RosenbergB. D.SiegelJ. T. (2018). A 50-year review of psychological reactance theory: Do not read this article. Motivation Science, 4(4), 281.
66.
RyanR. M.DeciE. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68.
67.
SchneiderC. R.DryhurstS.KerrJ.FreemanA. L.RecchiaG.SpiegelhalterD.van der LindenS. (2021). COVID-19 risk perception: A longitudinal analysis of its predictors and associations with health protective behaviours in the United Kingdom. Journal of Risk Research, 24(3-4), 294–313.
68.
SeoY.RavazzaniS.JunH.JinY.ButeraA.MazzeiA.ReberB. H. (2021). Unintended effects of risk communication: Impacts of message fatigue, risk tolerance, and trust in public health information on psychological reactance. Journal of International Crisis and Risk Communication Research, 4(3), 4.
69.
SetbonM.RaudeJ. (2010). Factors in vaccination intention against the pandemic influenza A/H1N1. European Journal of Public Health, 20(5), 490–494.
70.
ShenL. (2015). Antecedents to psychological reactance: The impact of threat, message frame, and choice. Health Communication, 30(10), 975–985.
71.
SongH.McComasK. A.SchulerK. L. (2018). Source effects on psychological reactance to regulatory policies: The role of trust and similarity. Science Communication, 40(5), 591–620.
72.
SprengholzP.BetschC.BöhmR. (2021). Reactance revisited: Consequences of mandatory and scarce vaccination in the case of COVID-19. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 13(4), 986–995.
73.
SprengholzP.TannertS.BetschC. (2023). Explaining boomerang effects in persuasive health communication: How psychological reactance to healthy eating messages elevates attention to unhealthy food. Journal of Health Communication, 28(6), 384–390.
74.
SrivastavaV.KalroA. D. (2019). Enhancing the helpfulness of online consumer reviews: The role of latent (content) factors. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 48(1), 33–50.
75.
SundarS. S. (2008). The MAIN model: A heuristic approach to understanding technology effects on credibility. In MetzgerM.J.FlanaginA.J. (Eds.), Digital media, youth, and credibility (pp. 73–100). MIT Press.
76.
SundarS. S.Knobloch-WesterwickS.HastallM. R. (2007). News cues: Information scent and cognitive heuristics. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58, 366–378.
77.
TrentM.SealeH.ChughtaiA. A.SalmonD.MacIntyreR. (2022). Trust in government, intention to vaccinate and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy: A comparative survey of five large cities in the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia. Vaccine, 40(17), 2498–2505.
78.
VisserO.HautvastJ. L.van der VeldenK.HulscherM. E. (2016). Intention to accept pertussis vaccination for cocooning: A qualitative study of the determinants. PLOS ONE, 11(6), Article e0155861.
79.
ViswanathK.BlakeK. D.MeerH. I.SaiontzN. G.MullC.FreemanC. S.CroyleR. T. (2008). Occupational practices and the making of health news: A national survey of US health and medical science journalists. Journal of Health Communication, 13(8), 759–777.
80.
VuH. T.ChenY. (2024). What influences audience susceptibility to fake health news: An experimental study using a dual model of information processing in credibility assessment. Health Communication, 39(6), 1113–1126.
81.
WalterN.BrooksJ. J.SaucierC. J.SureshS. (2021). Evaluating the impact of attempts to correct health misinformation on social media: A meta-analysis. Health Communication, 36(13), 1776–1784.
82.
WilliamsG. C.CoxE. M.KouidesR.DeciE. L. (1999). Presenting the facts about smoking to adolescents: Effects of an autonomy-supportive style. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 153, 959–964.
83.
WoodR. M.JuanchichM.RamirezM.ZhangS. (2023). Promoting COVID-19 vaccine confidence through public responses to misinformation: The joint influence of message source and message content. Social Science & Medicine, 324, 115863.
XuZ.EllisL.LaffidyM. (2022). News frames and news exposure predicting flu vaccination uptake: Evidence from US newspapers, 2011–2018 using computational methods. Health Communication, 37(1), 74–82.
86.
YounS.KimS. (2019). Understanding ad avoidance on Facebook: Antecedents and outcomes of psychological reactance. Computers in Human Behavior, 98, 232–244.
87.
YousefinaghaniS.DaraR.MubarekaS.PapadopoulosA.SharifS. (2021). An analysis of COVID-19 vaccine sentiments and opinions on Twitter. International Journal of Infectious Diseases, 108, 256–262.
88.
ZeinstraG. G.RenesR. J.KoelenM. A.KokF. J.de GraafC. (2010). Offering choice and its effect on Dutch children’s liking and consumption of vegetables: A randomized controlled trial. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 91(2), 349–356.
89.
ZhangX.ZhuR. (2022). How source-level and message-level factors influence journalists’ social media visibility during a public health crisis. Journalism, 23(12), 2627–2645.
90.
ZhengH.JiangS.WuQ. (2022). Factors influencing COVID-19 vaccination intention: The roles of vaccine knowledge, vaccine risk perception, and doctor-patient communication. Patient Education and Counseling, 105(2), 277–283.
91.
ZhouA.LiuW.YangA. (2022). Playing politics or straight talk of science?: Comparing politicization of COVID-19 vaccines by U.S. politicians, medical experts, and government agencies on social media [Preprint]. SocArXiv.
