ABSTRACT
Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, many humorous videos on how to practice social distancing appeared on social media. However, the effect of using humor as a crisis communication strategy to persuade people to conform to social distancing rules is not known. Objective: Drawing on the literature on humorous message framing and crisis communication, this research explores the effectiveness of a humorous message in communicating social distancing rules in two crisis severity phases (low vs. high severity) and also evaluates how humor affects individuals' online and offline engagement intentions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: A 2 (message framing: humorous vs. non-humorous) x 2 (crisis severity phase: low vs. high) between-subjects design experiment was conducted to test the research questions during the first weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic in China from January 30 to February 2, 2020. Results: The results showed that the severity of the phase of a health crisis can significantly affect stakeholders' online and offline responses toward the disease. More specifically, in a low severity phase, humor led to increased source likability for the message, and more online and offline engagement intentions. However, no differences between a humorous and non-humorous message in perceived risk were observed. Whereas, in a high severity crisis phase, humor reduced individuals' offline engagement intentions and a decrease in perceived risk, no significant difference was found between a humorous and non-humorous message on source likeability. Conclusion: Humor can motivate both more online engagement and offline protective action intention when the crisis severity phase is low, while when crisis severity soars, a non-humorous message should be more desirable. More specifically, using humor in communicating information about an infectious disease can enhance the spokesperson's likeability in a low severity phase, and also helps to spread health information to a larger audience. While, the negative side of using humor in communicating an infectious disease appears in severe crisis phases, as it then decreased the public's perception of risk, and triggers less protective actions. Going beyond previous research, this study recognized that crisis severity changes in different phases of the spread of infectious disease, thereby providing actionable strategy selections for crisis practitioners in a dynamic communication environment.
ABSTRACT
During a public health crisis, the provision and dissemination of health-related information are important for the relevant authorities to keep the public informed. By using different types of message framing, the authorities can effectively guide and persuade people to adopt health-related behaviors (such as vaccination). In this study, a web-based experiment using a 2 × 2 (message framing: gain framing versus loss framing) × (message presentation: narrative versus non-narrative) design was conducted to investigate the effects of different message frames on vaccination promotion. In total, 298 college students were recruited to participate in this study. The results suggest that, for message framing, loss-framed (vs. gain-framed) messages lead to higher intentions to get vaccinated. Furthermore, compared with non-narrative messages, narrative messages are more persuasive in promoting vaccination behavior. However, the interaction effect between gain-loss message framing and narrative framing is not significant. Additionally, perceived severity, perceived benefits, and perceived costs mediate the effect of narrative framing on behavioral intentions. In other words, compared with non-narrative messages, narrative messages lead to higher levels of perceived severity and perceived benefits, and a lower level of perceived costs, which in turn increase intentions to get vaccinated. This paper provides insightful implications for both researchers and practitioners.