Public altruistic protective behavior is pivotal in public health emergencies, yet integrated evidence on how multidimensional risk communication shapes it is limited. Grounded in the protective action decision model (PADM) and risk communication theory, this study aims to construct a multidimensional communication strategy impact model encompassing information sources, communication content, narrative style, and communication media, with risk perception introduced as a mediating variable and trust in authoritative information sources as a moderating variable, to systematically examine how these factors affect public altruistic protective behavior. Taking the pandemic as a typical public health emergency scenario, a questionnaire survey of 1,417 respondents across 11 Chinese provinces revealed that (1) all dimensions of risk communication exert significant positive association with altruistic protective behavior, (2) risk perception mediates the relationship between risk communication and altruistic behavior, and (3) trust in authoritative sources negatively moderates the path from information sources to risk perception, displaying a “high-trust attenuation effect.” This study provides theoretical support for more precise governmental messaging and altruistic mobilization.
BavelJ. J. V.BaickerK.BoggioP.CapraroV.CichockaA.CikaraM.CrockettM.CrumA.DouglasK.DruckmanJ.DruryJ.DubeO.EllemersN.FinkelE.FowlerJ.GelfandM.HanS.HaslamS.JettenJ.. . .WillerR. (2020). Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(5), 460–471. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0884-z
2.
BesalúR.Pont-SorribesC. (2021). Credibility of digital political news in Spain: Comparison between traditional media and social media. Social Sciences-Basel, 10(5), 170. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci10050170
3.
Campos-MercadeP.MeierA. N.SchneiderF. H.WengströmE. (2021). Prosociality predicts health behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Public Economics, 195, 104367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2021.104367
4.
CandelarioD. M.VazquezV.JacksonW.ReillyT. (2017). Completeness, accuracy, and readability of Wikipedia as a reference for patient medication information. Journal of the American Pharmacists Association, 57(2), 197–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.japh.2016.12.063
5.
ChaeJ.LeeC. (2019). The psychological mechanism underlying communication effects on behavioral intention: Focusing on affect and cognition in the cancer context. Communication Research, 46(5), 597–618. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650216644021
6.
ChanM. S.WinnegK.HawkinsL.FarhadlooM.JamiesonK. H.AlbarracínD. (2018). Legacy and social media respectively influence risk perceptions and protective behaviors during emerging health threats: A multi-wave analysis of communications on Zika virus cases. Social Science & Medicine, 212, 50–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.07.007
DeYoungS. E.SuttonJ. N.FarmerA. K.NealD.NicholsK. A. (2019). “Death was not in the agenda for the day”: Emotions, behavioral reactions, and perceptions in response to the 2018 Hawaii Wireless Emergency Alert. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 36, 101078. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101078
10.
DongX.LianX.LianY. (2025). The moderating effects of 5W-based elements on rumor refutation strategies on social media during public health emergency: A case study of COVID-19 pandemic. Information Processing & Management, 62(4), 104131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2025.104131
11.
EiserJ.BostromA.BurtonI.JohnstonD.McClureJ.PatonD.van der PligtJ.WhiteM. (2012). Risk interpretation and action: A conceptual framework for responses to natural hazards. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 1, 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2012.05.002
GladwinC.GladwinH.PeacockW. (2001). Modelling hurricane evacuation decisions with ethnographic method. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 19, 117–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/028072700101900201
14.
GreenM.BrockT. (2000). The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5), 701–721. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.701
15.
GriffinR.DunwoodyS.ZabalaF. (1998). Public reliance on risk communication channels in the wake of a cryptosporidium outbreak. Risk Analysis, 18(4), 367–375. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1998.tb00350.x
16.
GrimaldaG.BuchanN. R.OzturkO. D.PinateA. C.UrsoG.BrewerM. B. (2021). Exposure to COVID-19 is associated with increased altruism, particularly at the local level. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 18950. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-97234-2
17.
HabibM.KaurP.SharmaV.TalwarS. (2023). Analyzing the food waste reduction intentions of UK households. A Value-Attitude-Behavior (VAB) theory perspective. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 75, 103486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2023.103486
18.
HearitK. M.CourtrightJ. L. (2003). A social constructionist approach to crisis management: Allegations of sudden acceleration in the Audi 5000. Communication Studies, 54(1), 79–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510970309363267
19.
HeydariS.ZareiL.SadatiA.MoradiN.AkbariM.MehralianG.LankaraniK. (2021). The effect of risk communication on preventive and protective behaviours during the COVID-19 outbreak: Mediating role of risk perception. BMC Public Health, 21(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-10125-5
20.
HongW.LiuR.DingY.HwangJ.WangJ.YangY. (2021). Cross-country differences in stay-at-home behaviors during peaks in the COVID-19 pandemic in China and the United States: The roles of health beliefs and behavioral intention. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(4), 2104. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18042104
21.
IckertJ.StewartI. (2016). Earthquake risk communication as dialogue–insights from a workshop in Istanbul’s urban renewal neighbourhoods. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 16(5), 1157–1173. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-16-1157-2016
22.
JinY. (2010). Making sense sensibly in crisis communication: How publics’ crisis appraisals influence their negative emotions, coping strategy preferences, and crisis response acceptance. Communication Research, 37(4), 522–552. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650210368256
23.
JonesA. M.OmerS. B.BednarczykR. A.HalseyN. A.MoultonL. H.SalmonD. A. (2012). Parents’ source of vaccine information and impact on vaccine attitudes, beliefs, and nonmedical exemptions. Advances in Preventive Medicine, 2012, 932741. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/932741
24.
JordanJ.YoeliE.RandD. (2021). Don’t get it or don’t spread it: Comparing self-interested versus prosocial motivations for COVID-19 prevention behaviors. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 20222. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-97617-5
KaziA.JafriL. (2016). The use of mobile phones in polio eradication. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 94(2), 153–154. https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.15.163683
27.
KimY.JungJ. (2017). SNS dependency and interpersonal storytelling: An extension of media system dependency theory. New Media & Society, 19(9), 1458–1475. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816636611
28.
LeeC. (2010). The interplay between media use and interpersonal communication in the context of healthy lifestyle behaviors: Reinforcing or substituting?Mass Communication and Society, 13(1), 48–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205430802694869
29.
LillieH. M.JensenJ. D.KrakowM. (2025). The importance of structural elements in narrative persuasion: Using the narrative immersion model to promote melanoma prevention. Risk Analysis, 45(9), 2895–2907. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.70063
30.
LindellM. K.MumpowerJ.HuangS.WuH.SamuelsonC.WeiH. (2017). Perceptions of protective actions for a water contamination emergency. Journal of Risk Research, 20(7), 887–908. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2015.1121906
31.
LindellM. K.PraterC. S.GreggC. E.ApatuE. J. I.HuangS.WuH. C. (2015). Households’ immediate responses to the 2009 American Samoa earthquake and tsunami. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 12, 328–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2015.03.003
32.
LiuB. F.AustinL.LeeY.JinY.KimS. (2020). Telling the tale: The role of narratives in helping people respond to crises. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 48(3), 328–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2020.1756377
33.
LiuZ.HuangX. (2005). Evaluating the credibility of scholarly information on the web: A cross cultural study. The International Information & Library Review, 37(2), 99–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iilr.2005.05.004
34.
LuttrellA.PettyR. (2021). Evaluations of self-focused versus other-focused arguments for social distancing: An extension of moral matching effects. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 12(6), 946–954. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550620947853
35.
MillerA. N.CollinsC.NeubergerL.ToddA.SellnowT. L.BoutemenL. (2021). Being first, being right, and being credible since 2002: A systematic review of Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication (CERC) research. Journal of International Crisis and Risk Communication Research, 4(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.30658/jicrcr.4.1.1
36.
MortonT.DuckJ. (2001). Communication and health beliefs–Mass and interpersonal influences on perceptions of risk to self and others. Communication Research, 28(5), 602–626. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365001028005002
37.
NaglerR. H.VogelR. I.RothmanA. J.YzerM. C.GollustS. E. (2023). Vulnerability to the effects of conflicting health information: Testing the moderating roles of trust in news media and research literacy. Health Education & Behavior, 50(2), 224–233. https://doi.org/10.1177/10901981221110832
38.
PaekH.OhS.HoveT. (2016). How fear-arousing news messages affect risk perceptions and intention to talk about risk. Health Communication, 31(9), 1051–1062. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2015.1037419
39.
PfattheicherS.NockurL.BöhmR.SassenrathC.PetersenM. B. (2020). The emotional path to action: Empathy promotes physical distancing and wearing of face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic. Psychological Science, 31(11), 1363–1373. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620964422
40.
RimalR.RealK. (2003). Perceived risk and efficacy beliefs as motivators of change: Use of the risk perception attitude (RPA) framework to understand health behaviors. Human Communication Research, 29(3), 370–399. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2003.tb00844.x
41.
RuohonenH.BackholmK. (2023). Matter of trust: How to include digital volunteers in crisis management. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 31(4), 843–852. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5973.12484
42.
RutsaertP.PieniakZ.ReganÁ.McConnonÁ.KuttschreuterM.LoresM.LozanoN.GuzzonA.SantareD.VerbekeW. (2014). Social media as a useful tool in food risk and benefit communication? A strategic orientation approach. Food Policy, 46, 84–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.02.003
43.
SeoM. (2021). Amplifying panic and facilitating prevention: Multifaceted effects of traditional and social media use during the 2015 MERS crisis in South Korea. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 1(98), 221–240. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699019857693
44.
SiegristM. (2021). Trust and risk perception: A critical review of the literature. Risk Analysis, 41(3), 480–490. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13325
45.
SiegristM.CvetkovichG.RothC. (2000). Salient value similarity, social trust, and risk/benefit perception. Risk Analysis, 20(3), 353–362. https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.203034
46.
SiegristM.GutscherH.EarleT. C. (2005). Perception of risk: The influence of general trust, and general confidence. Journal of Risk Research, 8(2), 145–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/1366987032000105315
SpitaleG.GermaniF.Biller-AndornoN. (2024). The PHERCC matrix. An ethical framework for planning, governing, and evaluating risk and crisis communication in the context of public health emergencies. American Journal of Bioethics, 24(4), 67–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2023.2201191
49.
TaiZ.SunT. (2007). Media dependencies in a changing media environment: The case of the 2003 SARS epidemic in China. New Media & Society, 6(9), 987–1009. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444807082691
50.
TerpstraT.LindellM. (2013). Citizens’ perceptions of flood hazard adjustments an application of the protective action decision model. Environment and Behavior, 45, 993–1018. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916512452427
51.
TummersL.BekkersV.VinkE.MushenoM. (2015). Coping during public service delivery: A conceptualization and systematic review of the literature. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(4), 1099–1126. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muu056
52.
ValenteT.SabaW. (2001). Campaign exposure and interpersonal communication as factors in contraceptive use in Bolivia. Journal of Health Communication, 6(4), 303–322. https://doi.org/10.1080/108107301317140805
53.
VaughanE.TinkerT. (2009). Effective health risk communication about pandemic influenza for vulnerable populations. American Journal of Public Health, 99, S324–S332. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2009.162537
54.
WangL.GraddyE. (2008). Social capital, volunteering, and charitable giving. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 19(1), 23–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-008-9055-y
55.
WangX.LuC.CaoY.ChenL.AbedinM. Z. (2023). Decomposition, decoupling, and future trends of environmental effects in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region: A regional heterogeneity-based analysis. Journal of Environmental Management, 331, 117124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.117124
56.
WestermanD.SpenceP.Van der HeideB. (2014). Social media as information source: Recency of updates and credibility of information. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(2), 171–183. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12041
57.
WilliamsL.RasmussenS.KleczkowskiA.MaharajS.CairnsN. (2015). Protection motivation theory and social distancing behaviour in response to a simulated infectious disease epidemic. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 20(7), 832–837. https://doi.org/10.1080/13548506.2015.1028946
WongL.AbuBakarS. (2013). Health beliefs and practices related to dengue fever: A focus group study. PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, 7(7), Article e2310. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0002310
60.
YangS. (2018). Effects of government dialogic competency: The MERS outbreak and implications for public health crises and political legitimacy. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 95, 582383804. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699017750360
61.
YangS.KangM.JohnsonP. (2010). Effects of narratives, openness to dialogic communication, and credibility on engagement in crisis communication through organizational blogs. Communication Research, 37(4), 473–497. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650210362682
62.
YeY.WangR.FengD.WuR.LiZ.LongC.FengZ.TangS. (2020). The recommended and excessive preventive behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic: A community-based online survey in China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(19), 6953. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17196953
63.
YooW.ChoiD.ParkK. (2016). The effects of SNS communication: How expressing and receiving information predict MERS-preventive behavioral intentions in South Korea. Computers in Human Behavior, 62, 34–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.058
64.
ZavyalovaA.PfarrerM.RegerR.ShapiroD. (2012). Managing the message: The effects of firm actions and industry spillovers on media coverage following wrongdoing. Academy of Management Journal, 55(5), 1079–1101. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0608
65.
ZebregsS.van den PutteB.NeijensP.de GraafA. (2015). The differential impact of statistical and narrative evidence on beliefs, attitude, and intention: A meta-analysis. Health Communication, 30(3), 282–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2013.842528
66.
ZhangH.YangC.DengX.LuoC. (2025). How authoritative media and personal social media influence policy compliance through trust in government and risk perception: Quantitative cross-sectional survey study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 27. https://doi.org/10.2196/64940
67.
ZhangX.DuL.HuangY.LuoX.WangF. (2024). COVID-19 information seeking and individuals’ protective behaviors: Examining the role of information sources and information content. BMC Public Health, 24(1), Article 316. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-17770-0
