IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i21p13737-d950424.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Appealing to Individual Fears or Social Norms: How Can the Public Be Persuaded to Accept COVID-19 Vaccination through Risk Communication?

Author

Listed:
  • Fangfei Wang

    (Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian 116024, China)

  • Sifan Zhang

    (Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian 116024, China)

  • Lei Lei

    (School of Journalism and Communication, Minzu University of China, Beijing 100081, China)

Abstract

In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, improving the public’s understanding of the increased efficacy and safety of the COVID-19 vaccines through scientific risk communication campaigns, promoting the public’s acceptance and willingness to receive COVID-19 vaccines, and forming collective actions at the social level will deeply impact on the effect of COVID-19 prevention in various countries, which is also a key factor that governments need to address urgently. Previous research on risk communication has mostly focused on microscopic perspectives of how to stimulate individual self-protection behaviors by awakening threat and efficacy perceptions; however, a lack of observation of social collective actions means there is a risk of failure regarding COVID-19 epidemic reduction and prevention. In this regard, this study was based on the issue of vaccination in the context of the COVID-19 epidemic through a highly regulated and controlled research experiment in China ( n = 165), which was designed to examine the impact of two risk communication frameworks, appealing to individual fears and appealing to social norms, on the public’s acceptance and recommendations of COVID-19 vaccines, thus outlining the path of action from individual protection to collective epidemic prevention. Both the “fear appeals” framework and the “social norms” framework were found to have a positive effect on the Chinese public’s vaccination acceptance. Specifically, social norms information may increase vaccination acceptance by enhancing the public’s perceptions of social responsibility, while fear appeals information may reduce their perceptions of threat and social pressure to get the vaccine. Female and highly educated groups were more likely to refuse to recommend vaccination after reading the risk communication information. These results can be a useful supplement to the theory and practice of risk communication.

Suggested Citation

  • Fangfei Wang & Sifan Zhang & Lei Lei, 2022. "Appealing to Individual Fears or Social Norms: How Can the Public Be Persuaded to Accept COVID-19 Vaccination through Risk Communication?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(21), pages 1-13, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:21:p:13737-:d:950424
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/21/13737/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/21/13737/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Agranov, Marina & Elliott, Matt & Ortoleva, Pietro, 2021. "The importance of Social Norms against Strategic Effects: The case of Covid-19 vaccine uptake," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 206(C).
    2. John R. Litaker & Naomi Tamez & Carlos Lopez Bray & Wesley Durkalski & Richard Taylor, 2021. "Sociodemographic Factors Associated with Vaccine Hesitancy in Central Texas Immediately Prior to COVID-19 Vaccine Availability," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(1), pages 1-14, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Michele Battisti & Ilpo Kauppinen & Britta Rude, 2022. "Twitter and Crime: The Effect of Social Movements on GenderBased Violence," ifo Working Paper Series 381, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich.
    2. Fanny Velardo & Verity Watson & Pierre Arwidson & François Alla & Stéphane Luchini & Michaël Schwarzinger, 2021. "Regional Differences in COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in December 2020: A Natural Experiment in the French Working-Age Population," Post-Print hal-03513452, HAL.
    3. Kumar, Viney & Bhattacharyya, Samit, 2023. "Nonlinear effect of sentiments and opinion sharing on vaccination decision in face of an outbreak: A multiplex network approach," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 175(P1).
    4. Paolo Buonanno & Sergio Galletta & Marcello Puca, 2023. "The role of civic capital on vaccination," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(5), pages 993-999, May.
    5. Nail Kashaev & Natalia Lazzati & Ruli Xiao, 2023. "Peer Effects in Consideration and Preferences," Papers 2310.12272, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2024.
    6. Silvia Angerer & Daniela Glätzle-Rützler & Philipp Lergetporer & Thomas Rittmannsberger, 2022. "Beliefs about social norms and (the polarization of) COVID-19 vaccination readiness," Working Papers 2022-20, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    7. Agranov, M. & Elliott, M. & Ortoleva, P., 2024. "I know best: Scepticism about the Knowledge of Experts and Peers on Economics Predictions," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 2423, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    8. Daziano, Ricardo & Budziński, Wiktor, 2023. "Evolution of preferences for COVID-19 vaccine throughout the pandemic – The choice experiment approach," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 332(C).
    9. Nadav Rakocz & Sindhu Ernala & Israel Nir & Udi Weinsberg & Amit Bahl, 2023. "The heterogeneous effects of social support on the adoption of Facebook’s vaccine profile frames feature," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-13, December.
    10. Moran Bodas & Bruria Adini & Eli Jaffe & Arielle Kaim & Kobi Peleg, 2022. "Lockdown Efficacy in Controlling the Spread of COVID-19 May Be Waning Due to Decline in Public Compliance, Especially among Unvaccinated Individuals: A Cross-Sectional Study in Israel," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(9), pages 1-11, April.
    11. Hein de Vries & Wouter Verputten & Christian Preissner & Gerjo Kok, 2022. "COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy: The Role of Information Sources and Beliefs in Dutch Adults," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(6), pages 1-17, March.
    12. Serrano-Alarcon, Manuel & Mckee, Martin & wang, Yuxi & Kentikelenis, Alexander & Stuckler, David, 2022. "The far-right and anti-vaccine attitudes: lessons from Spain’s mass COVID-19 vaccine roll-out," OSF Preprints cvq78, Center for Open Science.
    13. Silvia Angerer & Daniela Glätzle-Rützler & Philipp Lergetporer & Thomas Rittmannsberger, 2023. "Beliefs about social norms and (the polarization of) COVID-19 vaccination readiness," Munich Papers in Political Economy 26, Munich School of Politics and Public Policy and the School of Management at the Technical University of Munich.
    14. Sheena Moosa & Raheema Abdul Raheem & Aminath Riyaz & Hawwa Shiuna Musthafa & Aishath Zeen Naeem, 2022. "The role of social value orientation in modulating vaccine uptake in the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional study," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-7, December.
    15. Angerer, Silvia & Glätzle-Rützler, Daniela & Lergetporer, Philipp & Rittmannsberger, Thomas, 2024. "Beliefs about social norms and gender-based polarization of COVID-19 vaccination readiness," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).

    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:19:y:2022:i:21:p:13737-:d:950424. 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.