IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v21y2024i2p207-d1336962.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Association between Message Framing and Intention to Vaccinate Predictive of Hepatitis A Vaccine Uptake

Author

Listed:
  • Nora Satybaldiyeva

    (Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92182, USA)

  • Lourdes S. Martinez

    (School of Communication, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92182, USA)

  • Brittany Cooper

    (Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92182, USA)

  • Eyal Oren

    (Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92182, USA)

Abstract

As ongoing, sporadic outbreaks of hepatitis A virus (HAV) infections present public health challenges, it is critical to understand public perceptions about HAV, especially regarding vaccination. This study examines whether message framing changes the intention to vaccinate against HAV and self-reported vaccine behavior. Using a randomized controlled trial (N = 472) in February 2019 via Amazon Mechanical Turk, participants were randomized to one of four HAV vaccination message groups or a no-message control group. The message groups varied in their emphasis on the nature of outcomes (gain versus loss) and for whom (individual versus collective). The message frames were compared by intention to vaccinate, differences in message characteristics, and behavioral determinants. There was no difference in intention to vaccinate between gain- versus loss-framed messages (MD = 0.1, 95% CI = −0.1, 0.3) and individual- versus collective-framed messages (MD = 0.1, 95% CI = −0.1, 0.3). The intention to vaccinate against HAV in the no-message control group was very similar to that in the message groups. However, gain-framed messages were rated more positively in valence than loss-framed messages (MD = −0.5, 95% CI = −0.7, −0.3), which may be helpful for cultivating a positive public perception of HAV vaccination. The study also highlights the importance of comparing message frames to a no-message control in designing health communication messaging promoting HAV vaccination.

Suggested Citation

  • Nora Satybaldiyeva & Lourdes S. Martinez & Brittany Cooper & Eyal Oren, 2024. "The Association between Message Framing and Intention to Vaccinate Predictive of Hepatitis A Vaccine Uptake," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 21(2), pages 1-12, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:21:y:2024:i:2:p:207-:d:1336962
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/21/2/207/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/21/2/207/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    2. Levin, Irwin P. & Schneider, Sandra L. & Gaeth, Gary J., 1998. "All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 149-188, November.
    3. WeiMing Ye & Qian Li & Shubin Yu, 2021. "Persuasive Effects of Message Framing and Narrative Format on Promoting COVID-19 Vaccination: A Study on Chinese College Students," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(18), pages 1-13, September.
    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. Jing-Yi Chen & Ming-Hui Wang, 2023. "A Study on Real Estate Purchase Decisions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-21, March.
    2. Todd McElroy & David L. Dickinson & Irwin P. Levin, 2019. "Thinking About Decisions: An Integrative Approach of Person and Task Factors," Working Papers 19-04, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    3. Gillitzer, Christian & Sinning, Mathias, 2020. "Nudging businesses to pay their taxes: Does timing matter?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 284-300.
    4. Gold, Natalie & List, Christian, 2004. "Framing as Path Dependence," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(2), pages 253-277, October.
    5. He, Haoran & Wu, Keyu, 2016. "Choice set, relative income, and inequity aversion: An experimental investigation," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 177-193.
    6. repec:cup:judgdm:v:13:y:2018:i:6:p:529-546 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Manel Baucells & Cristina Rata, 2006. "A Survey Study of Factors Influencing Risk-Taking Behavior in Real-World Decisions Under Uncertainty," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 3(3), pages 163-176, September.
    8. Cropanzano, Russell & Paddock, Layne & Rupp, Deborah E. & Bagger, Jessica & Baldwin, Amanda, 2008. "How regulatory focus impacts the process-by-outcome interaction for perceived fairness and emotions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 105(1), pages 36-51, January.
    9. Yang Li & Dandan Yang & Yingying Liu, 2021. "The Effect of Message Framing on Consumers’ Intentions to Purchase Recycling-Aiding Products in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-17, June.
    10. Wen, Tong & Leung, Xi Y. & Li, Bin & Hu, Lingyan, 2021. "Examining framing effect in travel package purchase: An application of double-entry mental accounting theory," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    11. Hyeong Kim & Thomas Kramer, 2006. "“Pay 80%” versus “get 20% off”: The effect of novel discount presentation on consumers’ deal perceptions," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 311-321, December.
    12. Freling, Traci H. & Vincent, Leslie H. & Henard, David H., 2014. "When not to accentuate the positive: Re-examining valence effects in attribute framing," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 124(2), pages 95-109.
    13. Robison, Lindon J. & Shupp, Robert S. & Myers, Robert J., 2010. "Expected utility paradoxes," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 187-193, April.
    14. repec:cup:judgdm:v:5:y:2010:i:2:p:110-115 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Austin, Chelsea Rae & Bobek, Donna D. & Jackson, Scott, 2021. "Does prospect theory explain ethical decision making? Evidence from tax compliance," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    16. Idris Adjerid & Alessandro Acquisti & George Loewenstein, 2019. "Choice Architecture, Framing, and Cascaded Privacy Choices," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(5), pages 2267-2290, May.
    17. repec:cup:judgdm:v:11:y:2016:i:5:p:424-440 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Diacon, Stephen & Hasseldine, John, 2007. "Framing effects and risk perception: The effect of prior performance presentation format on investment fund choice," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 31-52, January.
    19. Katharina Dowling & Daniel Guhl & Daniel Klapper & Martin Spann & Lucas Stich & Narine Yegoryan, 2020. "Behavioral biases in marketing," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 449-477, May.
    20. Kallbekken, Steffen & Kroll, Stephan & Cherry, Todd L., 2011. "Do you not like Pigou, or do you not understand him? Tax aversion and revenue recycling in the lab," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 53-64, July.
    21. Andor, Mark A. & Gerster, Andreas & Peters, Jörg, 2022. "Information campaigns for residential energy conservation," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    22. Krishnamoorthy, Ganesh & Maroney, James J. & Ó hÓgartaigh, Ciarán, 2008. "20-F reconciliations and investment recommendations by financial professionals," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 61(4), pages 355-362, April.
    23. Wong, Kin Fai Ellick & Kwong, Jessica Y.Y., 2005. "Comparing two tiny giants or two huge dwarfs? Preference reversals owing to number size framing," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 98(1), pages 54-65, September.

    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:21:y:2024:i:2:p:207-:d:1336962. 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.