The Individuals’ Willingness to Get the Vaccine for COVID-19 during the Third Wave: A Study on Trust in Mainstream Information Sources, Attitudes and Framing Effect

Message Effectiveness of Fear Appeals in Vaccination Communication Campaigns: A Systematic Review

This systematic review of 54 cross-disciplinary peer-reviewed causal empirical studies helps public health officials, researchers, and healthcare professionals better comprehend the effects of fear appeals in vaccine promotional campaigns on message processing, persuasion, vaccination attitudes, and vaccination intentions. This review documents inconsistent findings across studies, which it attempts to clarify by considering differences in research designs, sample populations, and outcomes measured. In general, we find that fear appeals increase risk perceptions, message involvement, and vaccination attitudes. However, fear appeals have less influence on vaccination intentions, especially among female and general adult populations or populations from the U.S. and other Western cultures. On the other hand, the effect of fear appeals on vaccination intentions is stronger among student populations and those from China (People's Republic of China and Hong Kong) and other non-Western cultures. Also, fear appeals are less persuasive when promoting COVID-19 vaccines and boosters than they are for other vaccines (e.g., HPV, influenza, MMR). Future research should compare fear appeal effectiveness in messages across vaccines or when combined with other executional elements, such as the endorser or type of evidence provided. Finally, future studies should explore other methodological approaches and measure underexplored message outcomes, such as vaccine uptake behavior, in more naturalistic settings.

Communication Strategies to Promote COVID-19 Vaccination Intention: How Effective are Source, Appeal, Framing, and Evidence Type Approaches?

This systematic review analyzed the effectiveness of key persuasive strategies - source, appeal, framing, and evidence (SAFE) - on COVID-19 vaccination intention. Quantitative studies were searched in Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed following the PRISMA guidelines. From the 61 studies that met inclusion criteria, source and framing are the most commonly applied SAFE strategies. However, source characteristics are a more consistent influence on vaccine intentions than message framing strategies, with expert sources and general practitioners emerging as the key sources contributing to greater vaccine intentions. In addition, a range of mediators and moderators influence the process through which SAFE message strategies impact vaccine intentions. Framing effects, in particular, are moderated by political identity, source characteristics, and vaccine perceptions. Tests of mediating processes highlight how health behavior judgments (e.g. perceived vaccine benefits, risks, trust in vaccination, perceived severity) and message response/perceptions (e.g. counterarguing, perceived similarity/empathy) operate as key intervening factors between SAFE message strategies and vaccine intentions. Overall, when practitioners apply various structural approaches (narrative elements, fear appeals, framing cues) to vaccine promotion campaigns, they should be cognizant of who is providing that appeal. Targeted populations may benefit most from different structural elements if they are integrated with sources that resonate with the audience.

How Information Framing Nudges Acceptance of China's Delayed Retirement Policy: A Moderated Mediation Model of Anchoring Effects and Perceived Fairness

China's delayed retirement policy will be prudently rolled out at the appropriate time, yet the public's acceptance of this policy is concerning. To address this issue, our endeavor explores the impact of framing and anchoring effects on policy acceptance, aiming to mitigate the populace's resistance to the new policy. We conducted two survey studies on the Chinese population aged 16-65. Achieved through an online survey, Study 1 (N = 225) demonstrated that information framing significantly influences the public's acceptance of the delayed retirement policy. It was found that perceived fairness plays a mediating role between information framing and policy acceptance. Notably, the positive frame had a more pronounced effect on acceptance than its negative counterpart, with the positive presentation being perceived as more fair. Study 2 (N = 383), utilizing a combination of online and offline approaches, revealed that the anchoring effect moderates the relationship between information framing and perceived fairness. The interaction of anchoring and framing effects significantly influences perceived fairness, subsequently promoting public policy acceptance. The interplay between anchoring and framing effects significantly shapes perceived fairness, in turn bolstering the public's receptiveness to policy. These insights offer reasonable communication strategies for the smooth advancement of new policies, further enriching the field of behavioral science.