BACKGROUND
The COVID-19 pandemic has engendered widespread fear and skepticism about recommended risk-reducing behaviors including vaccination. Health agencies have attempted to counter these negative effects with communication strategies that promote pro-social values and hope. However, there is little empirical evidence on the comparative effectiveness of these strategies.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the comparative effectiveness of pro-social and hope-promoting messages in reassuring the public and motivating COVID-19 risk-reducing behaviors.
METHODS
An online factorial experiment was conducted in which a diverse sample of the US public was randomized to read COVID-19 informational messages containing alternative framing language: pro-social (PS), hope-promoting (HP), or no additional framing (Control). Participants then completed surveys measuring COVID-19 worry and intentions for COVID-19 risk-reducing intentions and vaccination.
RESULTS
COVID-19 worry was unexpectedly higher in the HP than in the Control and PS conditions. Intentions for COVID-19 risk-reducing behaviors did not differ between groups; however, intentions for COVID-19 vaccination were higher in the HP than in the Control condition, and this effect was mediated by COVID-19 worry.
CONCLUSIONS
It appears that hope-promoting communication strategies may be more effective than Pro-social strategies in motivating risk-reducing behaviors, in some contexts, but with the paradoxical cost of promoting worry.