ABSTRACT
Efforts by universities to reduce the spread of COVID-19 include health campaigns intended to encourage students to wear masks. While well-intended, these efforts may produce counter-persuasion (e.g., decrease masking) if they are seen as threatening individuals' freedom to choose. In a rolling cross-sectional study of one university campaign (n = 681), we found that the presence of the campaign did instigate a form of resistance known as reactance and that reactance was negatively associated with masking behavior. Masking was also diminished by the frequency with which respondents observed others not wearing a mask (anti-masking descriptive norm) and the frequency with which respondents observed others expressing disdain for masking (anti-masking injunctive norm). Most of these findings were magnified among students who identified as politically conservative. There was no evidence that the frequency of seeing others speak in favor of masks (pro-masking injunctive norm) produced an increase in masking. The results provide valuable theoretical insights into the causes of reactance and empirical evidence of the risks associated with student-oriented COVID safety campaigns.
ABSTRACT
COVID-19 has caused tremendous consequences in the U.S., and combating the pandemic requires a significant number of Americans to receive COVID-19 vaccines. Guided by prominent health communication theories, this project took a formative evaluation approach and employed a national sample (N = 1,041) in the U.S. to explore the potential differences between vaccine-inclined vs. -hesitant individuals and to generate profiles of hesitant individuals as the foundation for audience segmentation and message targeting. Five distinct profiles emerged in the sample. Characteristics of each profile were described, and appropriate messaging strategies were identified to target each group. Theoretical and practical implications were discussed.
ABSTRACT
COVID-19 has caused tremendous consequences in the U.S., and combating the pandemic requires a significant number of Americans to receive COVID-19 vaccines. Guided by prominent health communication theories, this project took a formative evaluation approach and employed a national sample (N = 1041) in the U.S. to explore the potential differences between vaccine-inclined vs. -hesitant individuals and to generate profiles of hesitant individuals as the foundation for audience segmentation and message targeting. Five distinct profiles emerged in the sample. Characteristics of each profile were described, and appropriate messaging strategies were identified to target each group. Theoretical and practical implications were discussed.
ABSTRACT
Objective: The study tested potential factors that differentiated the COVID-19 vaccine-hesitant and -inclined college students and, based on these factors, identified subgroups of the vaccine-hesitant students. Participants: Participants were 1,183 U.S. college students attending four-year universities or community colleges recruited through Qualtrics between January 25 and March 3, 2021. Methods: Participants completed an online survey assessing their COVID-19 vaccination intention, perceived risks of COVID-19 and the COVID-19 vaccines, efficacy beliefs regarding COVID-19 and the COVID-19 vaccines, and emotions toward taking the COVID-19 vaccines. Results: Vaccine-hesitant and -inclined college students varied in their emotions, risk perceptions, and efficacy beliefs regarding the virus and the vaccines. Using these factors as indicators, vaccine-hesitant college students were classified into five latent subgroups with distinct characteristics. Conclusions: In identifying subgroups of the vaccine-hesitant college students, the study has important insights to offer regarding the design of vaccine-promotion messaging strategies targeting the college student population.
ABSTRACT
Message fatigue is the aversive motivational state that results from excessive exposure to campaign messages or similar information over an extended period of time. When fatigued, individuals become less attentive, less responsive, and more resistant to campaign messages and related information. Thus, understanding the bases and functioning of fatigue in persuasive health campaigns has obvious value. Despite considerable interest in this important topic, major questions remain under-studied. One such question hinges on the observation that campaigns are implemented in social systems, not laboratories. Apart from any direct effects that a campaign might produce, there is the potential for secondary exposure via individuals or other media that can yield distinct influences. How do these multiple sources work together to influence fatigue? Second, as explicated, message fatigue is the consequence of repeated exposure to campaign messages over time. With few exceptions, however, fatigue research has employed only cross-sectional designs, which preclude conclusions about the dynamic behavior of fatigue. How does fatigue change over the course of a campaign? Finally, the bases of fatigue are not entirely clear. Whereas fatigue is defined as a subjective judgment of excessive exposure, little is known about the affective processes underlying that judgment. How do emotional responses to a campaign amplify or attenuate fatigue? We examined these questions in the context of a campus COVID-19 safety behaviors campaign. [ FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of American Behavioral Scientist is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full . (Copyright applies to all s.)