IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i15p7740-d598471.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effects of Message Framing, Sender Authority, and Recipients’ Self-Reported Trait Autonomy on Endorsement of Health and Safety Measures during the Early COVID-19 Pandemic

Author

Listed:
  • Elli Zey

    (Institute for Psychology, General Psychology II, Goethe University Frankfurt, 60323 Frankfurt am Main, Germany)

  • Sabine Windmann

    (Institute for Psychology, General Psychology II, Goethe University Frankfurt, 60323 Frankfurt am Main, Germany)

Abstract

In the COVID-19 pandemic, human solidarity plays a crucial role in meeting this maybe greatest modern societal challenge. Public health communication targets enhancing collective compliance with protective health and safety regulations. Here, we asked whether authoritarian/controlling message framing as compared to a neutral message framing may be more effective than moralizing/prosocial message framing and whether recipients’ self-rated trait autonomy might lessen these effects. In a German sample ( n = 708), we measured approval of seven regulations (e.g., reducing contact, wearing a mask) before and after presenting one of three Twitter messages (authoritarian, moralizing, neutral/control) presented by either a high-authority sender (state secretary) or a low-authority sender (social worker). We found that overall, the messages successfully increased participants’ endorsement of the regulations, but only weakly so because of ceiling effects. Highly autonomous participants showed more consistent responses across the two measurements, i.e., lower response shifting, in line with the concept of reactive autonomy. Specifically, when the sender was a social worker, response shifting correlated negatively with trait autonomy. We suggest that a trusted sender encourages more variable responses to imposed societal regulations in individuals low in autonomy, and we discuss several aspects that may improve health communication.

Suggested Citation

  • Elli Zey & Sabine Windmann, 2021. "Effects of Message Framing, Sender Authority, and Recipients’ Self-Reported Trait Autonomy on Endorsement of Health and Safety Measures during the Early COVID-19 Pandemic," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(15), pages 1-12, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:15:p:7740-:d:598471
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/15/7740/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/15/7740/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Roos, Patrick & Gelfand, Michele & Nau, Dana & Lun, Janetta, 2015. "Societal threat and cultural variation in the strength of social norms: An evolutionary basis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 14-23.
    2. Kuhn, Kristine M., 1997. "Communicating Uncertainty: Framing Effects on Responses to Vague Probabilities," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 55-83, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hunt, Melissa G. & Chiarodit, Daniel & Tieu, Tiffany & Baum, Julie, 2022. "Using core values and social influence to increase mask-wearing in non-compliant college students," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 314(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Joshua Conrad Jackson & Marieke van Egmond & Virginia K Choi & Carol R Ember & Jamin Halberstadt & Jovana Balanovic & Inger N Basker & Klaus Boehnke & Noemi Buki & Ronald Fischer & Marta Fulop & Ashle, 2019. "Ecological and cultural factors underlying the global distribution of prejudice," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(9), pages 1-17, September.
    2. Federico Contu & Daniela Di Santo & Conrad Baldner & Antonio Pierro, 2023. "Examining the Interaction between Perceived Cultural Tightness and Prevention Regulatory Focus on Life Satisfaction in Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-10, January.
    3. Bamieh, Omar & Cintolesi, Andrea, 2021. "Intergenerational transmission in regulated professions and the role of familism," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 192(C), pages 857-879.
    4. Théodora Dupont-Courtade, 2012. "Insurance demand under ambiguity and conflict for extreme risks: Evidence from a large representative survey," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 12020, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    5. Milos Borozan & Loreta Cannito & Barbara Luppi, 2022. "A tale of two ambiguities: A conceptual overview of findings from economics and psychology," Journal of Behavioral Economics for Policy, Society for the Advancement of Behavioral Economics (SABE), vol. 6(S1), pages 11-21, July.
    6. Paul K. J. Han & William M. P. Klein & Tom Lehman & Bill Killam & Holly Massett & Andrew N. Freedman, 2011. "Communication of Uncertainty Regarding Individualized Cancer Risk Estimates," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(2), pages 354-366, March.
    7. Tatiana Kostova & Sjoerd Beugelsdijk, 2021. "Integrating Diversity into Distance Research for Added Rigor, Parsimony, and Relevance," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(6), pages 1669-1689, September.
    8. Susann Fiedler & Dshamilja Marie Hellmann & Angela Rachael Dorrough & Andreas Glöckner, 2018. "Cross-national in-group favoritism in prosocial behavior: Evidence from Latin and North America," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 13(1), pages 42-60, January.
    9. Campbell Pryor & Amy Perfors & Piers D L Howe, 2019. "Conformity to the descriptive norms of people with opposing political or social beliefs," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(7), pages 1-16, July.
    10. repec:cup:judgdm:v:13:y:2018:i:1:p:42-60 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Budescu, David V. & Kuhn, Kristine M. & Kramer, Karen M. & Johnson, Timothy R., 2002. "Modeling certainty equivalents for imprecise gambles," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 88(2), pages 748-768, July.
    12. Kuhberger, Anton & Schulte-Mecklenbeck, Michael & Perner, Josef, 1999. "The Effects of Framing, Reflection, Probability, and Payoff on Risk Preference in Choice Tasks, ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 78(3), pages 204-231, June.
    13. Paul K. J. Han & William M. P. Klein & Thomas C. Lehman & Holly Massett & Simon C. Lee & Andrew N. Freedman, 2009. "Laypersons' Responses to the Communication of Uncertainty Regarding Cancer Risk Estimates," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 29(3), pages 391-403, May.
    14. Théodora Dupont-Courtade, 2012. "Insurance demand under ambiguity and conflict for extreme risks : Evidence from a large representative survey," Post-Print halshs-00718642, HAL.
    15. Jean Desrochers & J. Francois Outreville, 2013. "Uncertainty, Ambiguity and Risk Taking: an experimental investigation of consumer behavior and demand for insurance," ICER Working Papers 10-2013, ICER - International Centre for Economic Research.
    16. Kim, Jin Han & Kaemingk, Michael, 2021. "Persisting effects of social norm feedback letters in reducing household electricity usage in Post-Soviet Eastern Europe: A randomized controlled trial," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 191(C), pages 153-161.
    17. Kazuya Nakayachi & Branden B. Johnson & Kazuki Koketsu, 2018. "Effects of Acknowledging Uncertainty about Earthquake Risk Estimates on San Francisco Bay Area Residents’ Beliefs, Attitudes, and Intentions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(4), pages 666-679, April.
    18. Mary C. Politi & Paul K. J. Han & Nananda F. Col, 2007. "Communicating the Uncertainty of Harms and Benefits of Medical Interventions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(5), pages 681-695, September.
    19. Frank van Tubergen1,2, & Yuliya Kosyakova & Agnieszka Kanas, 2022. "Conflict intensity in the region of birth increases religiosity among refugees," RF Berlin - CReAM Discussion Paper Series 2222, Rockwool Foundation Berlin (RF Berlin) - Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration (CReAM).
    20. Théodora Dupont-Courtade, 2012. "Insurance demand under ambiguity and conflict for extreme risks : Evidence from a large representative survey," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-00718642, HAL.
    21. Dijke, Marius van & Cremer, David De, 2011. "When social accounts promote acceptance of unfair ultimatum offers: The role of the victim's stress responses to uncertainty and power position," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 468-479, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:15:p:7740-:d:598471. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.