persuasive essay about preventing covid 19

Our Writers
How to Order
Assignment Writing Service
Report Writing Service
Buy Coursework
Dissertation Writing Service
Research Paper Writing Service
All Essay Services
Buy Research Paper
Buy Term Paper
Buy Dissertation
Buy Case study
Buy Presentation
Buy Personal statement

Persuasive Essay Guide

Persuasive Essay About Covid19

How to Write a Persuasive Essay About Covid19 | Examples & Tips

11 min read

Steps to Write a Persuasive Essay About Covid-19

Here are the steps to help you write a persuasive essay on this topic, along with an example essay:

Step 1: Choose a Specific Thesis Statement

Your thesis statement should clearly state your position on a specific aspect of COVID-19. It should be debatable and clear. For example:

Step 2: Research and Gather Information

Collect reliable and up-to-date information from reputable sources to support your thesis statement. This may include statistics, expert opinions, and scientific studies. For instance:

COVID-19 vaccination effectiveness data
Information on vaccine mandates in different countries
Expert statements from health organizations like the WHO or CDC

Step 3: Outline Your Essay

Create a clear and organized outline to structure your essay. A persuasive essay typically follows this structure:

Introduction
Background Information
Body Paragraphs (with supporting evidence)
Counterarguments (addressing opposing views)

Step 4: Write the Introduction

In the introduction, grab your reader's attention and present your thesis statement. For example:

Step 5: Provide Background Information

Offer context and background information to help your readers understand the issue better. For instance:

Step 6: Develop Body Paragraphs

Each body paragraph should present a single point or piece of evidence that supports your thesis statement. Use clear topic sentences, evidence, and analysis. Here's an example:

Step 7: Address Counterarguments

Acknowledge opposing viewpoints and refute them with strong counterarguments. This demonstrates that you've considered different perspectives. For example:

Step 8: Write the Conclusion

Summarize your main points and restate your thesis statement in the conclusion. End with a strong call to action or thought-provoking statement. For instance:

Step 9: Revise and Proofread

Edit your essay for clarity, coherence, grammar, and spelling errors. Ensure that your argument flows logically.

Step 10: Cite Your Sources

Include proper citations and a bibliography page to give credit to your sources.

Remember to adjust your approach and arguments based on your target audience and the specific angle you want to take in your persuasive essay about COVID-19.

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That's our Job!

Examples of Persuasive Essay About Covid19

When writing a persuasive essay about the Covid-19 pandemic, it’s important to consider how you want to present your argument. To help you get started, here are some example essays for you to read:

Check out some more PDF examples below:

Persuasive Essay About Covid-19 Pandemic

Sample Of Persuasive Essay About Covid-19

Persuasive Essay About Covid-19 In The Philippines - Example

If you're in search of a compelling persuasive essay on business, don't miss out on our “ persuasive essay about business ” blog!

Examples of Persuasive Essay About Covid-19 Vaccine

Covid19 vaccines are one of the ways to prevent the spread of Covid-19, but they have been a source of controversy. Different sides argue about the benefits or dangers of the new vaccines. Whatever your point of view is, writing a persuasive essay about it is a good way of organizing your thoughts and persuading others.

A persuasive essay about the Covid-19 vaccine could consider the benefits of getting vaccinated as well as the potential side effects.

Below are some examples of persuasive essays on getting vaccinated for Covid-19.

Covid19 Vaccine Persuasive Essay

Persuasive Essay on Covid Vaccines

Interested in thought-provoking discussions on abortion? Read our persuasive essay about abortion blog to eplore arguments!

Examples of Persuasive Essay About Covid-19 Integration

Covid19 has drastically changed the way people interact in schools, markets, and workplaces. In short, it has affected all aspects of life. However, people have started to learn to live with Covid19.

Writing a persuasive essay about it shouldn't be stressful. Read the sample essay below to get idea for your own essay about Covid19 integration.

Persuasive Essay About Working From Home During Covid19

Searching for the topic of Online Education? Our persuasive essay about online education is a must-read.

Examples of Argumentative Essay About Covid 19

Covid-19 has been an ever-evolving issue, with new developments and discoveries being made on a daily basis.

Writing an argumentative essay about such an issue is both interesting and challenging. It allows you to evaluate different aspects of the pandemic, as well as consider potential solutions.

Here are some examples of argumentative essays on Covid19.

Argumentative Essay About Covid19 Sample

Argumentative Essay About Covid19 With Introduction Body and Conclusion

Looking for a persuasive take on the topic of smoking? You'll find it all related arguments in out Persuasive Essay About Smoking blog!

Examples of Persuasive Speeches About Covid-19

Do you need to prepare a speech about Covid19 and need examples? We have them for you!

Persuasive speeches about Covid-19 can provide the audience with valuable insights on how to best handle the pandemic. They can be used to advocate for specific changes in policies or simply raise awareness about the virus.

Check out some examples of persuasive speeches on Covid-19:

Persuasive Speech About Covid-19 Example

Persuasive Speech About Vaccine For Covid-19

You can also read persuasive essay examples on other topics to master your persuasive techniques!

Tips to Write a Persuasive Essay About Covid-19

Writing a persuasive essay about COVID-19 requires a thoughtful approach to present your arguments effectively.

Here are some tips to help you craft a compelling persuasive essay on this topic:

Choose a Specific Angle

Start by narrowing down your focus. COVID-19 is a broad topic, so selecting a specific aspect or issue related to it will make your essay more persuasive and manageable. For example, you could focus on vaccination, public health measures, the economic impact, or misinformation.

Provide Credible Sources

Support your arguments with credible sources such as scientific studies, government reports, and reputable news outlets. Reliable sources enhance the credibility of your essay.

Use Persuasive Language

Employ persuasive techniques, such as ethos (establishing credibility), pathos (appealing to emotions), and logos (using logic and evidence). Use vivid examples and anecdotes to make your points relatable.

Organize Your Essay

Structure your essay involves creating a persuasive essay outline and establishing a logical flow from one point to the next. Each paragraph should focus on a single point, and transitions between paragraphs should be smooth and logical.

Emphasize Benefits

Highlight the benefits of your proposed actions or viewpoints. Explain how your suggestions can improve public health, safety, or well-being. Make it clear why your audience should support your position.

Use Visuals -H3

Incorporate graphs, charts, and statistics when applicable. Visual aids can reinforce your arguments and make complex data more accessible to your readers.

Call to Action

End your essay with a strong call to action. Encourage your readers to take a specific step or consider your viewpoint. Make it clear what you want them to do or think after reading your essay.

Revise and Edit

Proofread your essay for grammar, spelling, and clarity. Make sure your arguments are well-structured and that your writing flows smoothly.

Seek Feedback

Have someone else read your essay to get feedback. They may offer valuable insights and help you identify areas where your persuasive techniques can be improved.

Tough Essay Due? Hire Tough Writers!

Common Topics for a Persuasive Essay on COVID-19

Here are some persuasive essay topics on COVID-19:

The Importance of Vaccination Mandates for COVID-19 Control
Balancing Public Health and Personal Freedom During a Pandemic
The Economic Impact of Lockdowns vs. Public Health Benefits
The Role of Misinformation in Fueling Vaccine Hesitancy
Remote Learning vs. In-Person Education: What's Best for Students?
The Ethics of Vaccine Distribution: Prioritizing Vulnerable Populations
The Mental Health Crisis Amidst the COVID-19 Pandemic
The Long-Term Effects of COVID-19 on Healthcare Systems
Global Cooperation vs. Vaccine Nationalism in Fighting the Pandemic
The Future of Telemedicine: Expanding Healthcare Access Post-COVID-19

In search of more inspiring topics for your next persuasive essay? Our persuasive essay topics blog has plenty of ideas!

To sum it up,

You have read good sample essays and got some helpful tips. You now have the tools you needed to write a persuasive essay about Covid-19. So don't let the doubts stop you, start writing!

If you need professional writing help, don't worry! We've got that for you as well.

MyPerfectWords.com is a professional persuasive essay writing service that can help you craft an excellent persuasive essay on Covid-19. Our experienced essay writer will create a well-structured, insightful paper in no time!

So don't hesitate and place your ' write my essay online ' request today!

Frequently Asked Questions

Are there any ethical considerations when writing a persuasive essay about covid-19.

Yes, there are ethical considerations when writing a persuasive essay about COVID-19. It's essential to ensure the information is accurate, not contribute to misinformation, and be sensitive to the pandemic's impact on individuals and communities. Additionally, respecting diverse viewpoints and emphasizing public health benefits can promote ethical communication.

What impact does COVID-19 have on society?

The impact of COVID-19 on society is far-reaching. It has led to job and economic losses, an increase in stress and mental health disorders, and changes in education systems. It has also had a negative effect on social interactions, as people have been asked to limit their contact with others.

Write Essay Within 60 Seconds!

Caleb S. has been providing writing services for over five years and has a Masters degree from Oxford University. He is an expert in his craft and takes great pride in helping students achieve their academic goals. Caleb is a dedicated professional who always puts his clients first.

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That’s our Job!

Keep reading

Persuasive Essay Writing

Persuasive Essay About Covid 19

Top Examples of Persuasive Essay about Covid-19

Published on: Jan 10, 2023

Last updated on: Jan 29, 2024

Examples of Persuasive Essay About Covid-19

The coronavirus pandemic has everyone on edge. You can expect your teachers to give you an essay about covid-19. You might be overwhelmed about what to write in an essay.

Worry no more!

Here are a few examples to help get you started.

Persuasive Essay About Covid-19 Pandemic

Sample Of Persuasive Essay About Covid-19

Persuasive Essay About Covid-19 In The Philippines - Example

Check out some more persuasive essay examples to get more inspiration and guidance.

Examples of Persuasive Essay About the Covid-19 Vaccine

With so much uncertainty surrounding the Covid-19 vaccine, it can be challenging for students to write a persuasive essay about getting vaccinated.

Here are a few examples of persuasive essays about vaccination against covid-19.

Check these out to learn more.

Persuasive essay on the covid-19 vaccine

Tough Essay Due? Hire a Writer!

Examples of Persuasive Essay About Covid-19 Integration

Writing a persuasive essay on Covid-19 integration doesn't have to be stressful or overwhelming.

With the right approach and preparation, you can write an essay that will get them top marks!

Here are a few samples of compelling persuasive essays. Give them a look and get inspiration for your next essay.

Integration of Covid-19 Persuasive essay

Integration of Covid-19 Persuasive essay sample

Examples of Argumentative Essay About Covid-19

Writing an argumentative essay can be a daunting task, especially when the topic is as broad as the novel coronavirus pandemic.

Read the following examples of how to make a compelling argument on covid-19.

Argumentative essay on Covid-19

Argumentative Essay On Covid-19

Examples of Persuasive Speeches About Covid-19

Writing a persuasive speech about anything can seem daunting. However, writing a persuasive speech about something as important as the Covid-19 pandemic doesnât have to be difficult.

So let's explore some examples of perfectly written persuasive essays.

Persuasive Speech About Covid-19 Example

Tips to Write a Persuasive Essay

Here are seven tips that can help you create a strong argument on the topic of covid-19.

Check out this informative video to learn more about effective tips and tricks for writing persuasive essays.

1. Start with an attention-grabbing hook:

Use a quote, statistic, or interesting fact related to your argument at the beginning of your essay to draw the reader in.

2. Make sure you have a clear thesis statement:

A thesis statement is one sentence that expresses the main idea of your essay. It should clearly state your stance on the topic and provide a strong foundation for the rest of your content.

3. Support each point with evidence:

To make an effective argument, you must back up each point with credible evidence from reputable sources. This will help build credibility and validate your claims throughout your paper.

4. Use emotional language and tone:

Emotional appeals are powerful tools to help make your argument more convincing. Use appropriate language for the audience and evokes emotion to draw them in and get them on board with your claims.

5. Anticipate counterarguments:

Use proper counterarguments to effectively address all point of views.

Acknowledge opposing viewpoints and address them directly by providing evidence or reasoning why they are wrong.

6. Stay focused:

Keep your main idea in mind throughout the essay, making sure all of your arguments support it. Donât stray off-topic or introduce unnecessary information that will distract from the purpose of your paper.

7. Conclude strongly:

Make sure you end on a strong note. Reemphasize your main points, restate your thesis statement, and challenge the reader to respond or take action in some way. This will leave a lasting impression in their minds and make them more likely to agree with you.

Writing an effective persuasive essay is a piece of cake with our guide and examples. Check them out to learn more!

Tough Essay Due? Hire Tough Writers!

We hope that you have found the inspiration to write your next persuasive essay about covid-19.

However, If you're overwhelmed by the task, don't worry - our professional essay writing service is here to help.

Our expert and experienced persuasive essay writer can help you write a persuasive essay on covid-19 that gets your readers' attention.

Our professional essay writer can provide you with all the resources and support you need to craft a well-written, well-researched essay. Our essay writing service offers top-notch quality and guaranteed results.

Frequently Asked Questions

How do you begin a persuasive essay.

To begin a persuasive essay, you must choose a topic you feel strongly about and formulate an argument or position. Start by researching your topic thoroughly and then formulating your thesis statement.

What are good topics for persuasive essays?

Good topics for persuasive essays include healthcare reform, gender issues, racial inequalities, animal rights, environmental protection, and political change. Other popular topics are social media addiction, internet censorship, gun control legislation, and education reform.

What impact does COVID-19 have on society?

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a major impact on society worldwide. It has changed the way we interact with one another. The pandemic has also caused economic disruption, forcing many businesses to close or downsize their operations.

Cathy A. (Literature, Education)

For more than five years now, Cathy has been one of our most hardworking authors on the platform. With a Masters degree in mass communication, she knows the ins and outs of professional writing. Clients often leave her glowing reviews for being an amazing writer who takes her work very seriously.

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That’s our Job!

Keep reading

Legal & Policies

Privacy Policy
Cookies Policy
Terms of Use
Refunds & Cancellations
Our Writers
Success Stories
Our Guarantees
Affiliate Program
Referral Program
AI Essay Writer

Disclaimer: All client orders are completed by our team of highly qualified human writers. The essays and papers provided by us are not to be used for submission but rather as learning models only.

Essay on Coronavirus Prevention

500+ words essay on coronavirus prevention.

The best way of coronavirus prevention is not getting it in the first place. After extensive research, there are now COVID-19 vaccines available to the public. Everyone must consider getting it to lead healthy lives. Further, we will look at some ways in this essay in how one can lower their chances of getting the virus or stopping it from spreading.

The Spread of Coronavirus

The COVID-19 virus spreads mainly via droplets that are sent out by people while talking, sneezing, or coughing. However, they do not generally stay in the air for long. Similarly, they cannot go farther than 6 feet.

However, this virus can also travel via tiny aerosol particles that have the capacity to linger for around three hours. Likewise, they may also travel farther away. Therefore, it is essential to wear a face covering.

The face mask can prevent you from getting the virus as it helps you to avoid breathing it in. Further, one can also catch this virus if they touch something that an infected person has touched and then they touch their eyes, mouth, or nose.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

How to Prevent Coronavirus

The first and foremost thing for coronavirus prevention is that everyone must do is get the vaccine as soon as it is their turn. It helps you avoid the virus or prevent you from falling seriously ill. Apart from this, we must not forget to take other steps as well to reduce the risk of getting the virus.

It includes avoiding close contact with people who are sick or are showing symptoms. Make sure you are at least 6 feet away from them. Similarly, you also remain at the same distance as others if you have contracted the virus.

What’s important to know is that you may have COVID-19 and spread it to others even if you are not showing any symptoms or aren’t aware that you have COVID-19. Moreover, we must avoid crowds and indoor places that are not well-ventilated.

Most importantly, keep washing your hands frequently with soap and water. If these are not present, carry an alcohol-based sanitiser with you. It must have a minimum amount of 60% alcohol.

In addition, wearing a face mask is of utmost importance in public spaces. Such places come with a higher risk of transmission of the virus. Thus, use surgical masks if they are available.

It is important to cover your mouth and nose when you are coughing or sneezing. If you don’t have a tissue, cover it with your elbow. Do not touch your eyes, nose and mouth. Likewise, do not share dishes, towels, glasses and other household items with a sick person.

Do not forget to clean and disinfect surfaces that people touch frequently like electronics, switchboards, counters, doorknobs, and more. Also, stay at home if you feel sick and do not take public transport as well.

To sum it up, coronavirus prevention can be done easily. We must work together to create a safe environment for everyone to live healthily. Make sure to do your bit so that everyone can stay safe and fit and things may return to normal like before.

FAQ of Essay on Coronavirus Prevention

Question 1: How long does it take for coronavirus symptoms to appear?

Answer 1: It may take around five to six days on average when someone gets infected with the virus. But, some people also take around 14 days.

Question 2: What are some coronavirus prevention tips?

Answer 2: One must get the vaccine as soon as possible. Further, always wear a mask properly and sanitize or wash your hands. Clean or disinfect areas that people touch frequently like door handles, electronics, and more. Always cover your mouth when sneezing or coughing and maintain physical distancing.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

Travelling Essay
Picnic Essay
Our Country Essay
My Parents Essay
Essay on Favourite Personality
Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
Essay on Knowledge is Power
Essay on Gurpurab
Essay on My Favourite Season
Essay on Types of Sports

Download the App

Find a Doctor
Our Services
More at NYP.org

Prevent COVID-19: How to Protect Yourself from the Coronavirus

Follow these simple precautions to reduce your chances of contracting covid-19..

Save this to read later.

The COVID-19 pandemic has been a part of our daily lives since March 2020, but with about 151,000 new cases a day in the United States, it remains as important as ever to stay vigilant and know how to protect yourself from coronavirus.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) , “The best way to prevent illness is to avoid being exposed to this virus.” As the vaccines continue their roll out, here are the simple steps you can take to help prevent the spread of COVID-19 and protect yourself and others.

Know how it spreads

Scientists are still learning about COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus, but according to the CDC, this highly contagious virus appears to be most commonly spread during close (within 6 feet) person-to-person contact through respiratory droplets.

“The means of transmission can be through respiratory droplets produced when a person coughs or sneezes, or by direct physical contact with an infected person, such as shaking hands,” says Dr. David Goldberg , an internist and infectious disease specialist at NewYork-Presbyterian Medical Group Westchester and an assistant professor of medicine at Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons.

The CDC also notes that COVID-19 can spread by airborne transmission , although this is less common than close contact with a person. “Some infections can be spread by exposure to virus in small droplets and particles that can linger in the air for minutes to hours,” the CDC states. “These viruses may be able to infect people who are further than 6 feet away from the person who is infected or after that person has left the space. These transmissions occurred within enclosed spaces that had inadequate ventilation.”

Finally, it’s possible for coronavirus to spread through contaminated surfaces, but this is also less likely. According to the CDC, “Based on data from lab studies on COVID-19 and what we know about similar respiratory diseases, it may be possible that a person can get COVID-19 by touching a surface or object that has the virus on it and then touching their own mouth, nose, or possibly their eyes, but this isn’t thought to be the main way the virus spreads.”

Practice social distancing

Since close person-to-person contact appears to be the main source of transmission, social distancing remains a key way to mitigate spread. The CDC recommends maintaining a distance of approximately 6 feet from others in public places. This distance will help you avoid direct contact with respiratory droplets produced by coughing or sneezing.

In addition, studies have found that outdoor settings with enough space to distance and good ventilation will reduce risk of exposure. “There is up to 80% less transmission of the virus happening outdoors versus indoors,” says Dr. Ashwin Vasan , an assistant attending physician in the Department of Medicine at NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center and an assistant professor at the Mailman School of Public Health and Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons. “One study found that of 318 outbreaks that accounted for 1,245 confirmed cases in China, only one outbreak occurred outdoors. That’s significant. I recommend spending time with others outside. We’re not talking about going to a sporting event or a concert. We’re talking about going for a walk or going to the park, or even having a conversation at a safe distance with someone outside.”

Wash your hands

Practicing good hygiene is an important habit that helps prevent the spread of COVID-19. Make these CDC recommendations part of your routine:

Wash your hands often with soap and water for at least 20 seconds, especially after you have been in a public place, or after blowing your nose, coughing, or sneezing.
Before eating or preparing food
Before touching your face
After using the restroom
After leaving a public place
After blowing your nose, coughing, or sneezing
After handling your mask
After changing a diaper
After caring for someone who’s sick
After touching animals or pets
If soap and water are not readily available, use a hand sanitizer that contains at least 60% alcohol. Cover all surfaces of your hands with the sanitizer and rub them together until they feel dry.
Avoid touching your eyes, nose, and mouth with unwashed hands.

Visit the CDC website for guidelines on how to properly wash your hands and use hand sanitizer . And see our video below on how soap kills the coronavirus. There’s plenty of science behind this basic habit. “Soap molecules disrupt the fatty layer or coat surrounding the virus, ” says Dr. Goldberg. “Once the viral coat is broken down, the virus is no longer able to function.”

In addition to hand-washing, disinfect frequently touched surfaces daily. This includes tables, doorknobs, light switches, countertops, handles, desks, phones, keyboards, toilets, faucets, and sinks.

Wear a mask

Face masks have become essential accessories in protecting yourself and others from contracting COVID-19. The CDC recommends that people wear face coverings in public settings, especially since studies have shown that individuals with the novel coronavirus could be asymptomatic or presymptomatic. (Face masks, however, do not replace social distancing recommendations.)

“Face masks are designed to provide a barrier between your airway and the outside world,” says Dr. Ole Vielemeyer , medical director of Weill Cornell ID Associates and Travel Medicine in the Division of Infectious Diseases at NewYork-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center and Weill Cornell Medicine. “By wearing a mask that covers your mouth and nose, you will reduce the risk of serving as the source of disease spread by trapping your own droplets in the mask, and also reduce the risk of getting sick via droplets that contain the coronavirus by blocking access to your own airways.”

Restrict your travel

Traveling can increase the spread of COVID-19 and put you at risk for contracting the disease. The CDC recommends avoiding non-essential travel to many international destinations during the pandemic. It also advises people to weigh the risks when it comes to domestic travel: “Travel increases your chance of getting and spreading COVID-19,” states the CDC. “Staying home is the best way to protect yourself and others from COVID-19.”

“For people at risk for the complications of COVID-19, such as those with underlying medical conditions or those who are older, it’s prudent to avoid travel,” says Dr. Goldberg.

If you must travel, take safety measures, consider your mode of transportation, and stay up to date on the restrictions that are in place at your destination. Adhering to your state’s quarantine rules after traveling will help prevent the spread of COVID-19.

Watch for symptoms

The symptoms of infection for the coronavirus are often similar to those of other respiratory virus infections, such as influenza. Symptoms can include:

Fever or chills
Shortness of breath or difficulty breathing
Muscle or body aches
New loss of taste or smell
Sore throat
Congestion or runny nose
Nausea or vomiting

With the COVID-19 pandemic now coinciding with flu season, it’s important to recognize the differences in symptoms — as well as get a flu shot. “The medical community is concerned that if we have an increased number of influenza cases, it will strain the hospital system on top of what’s already going on with the COVID-19 pandemic,” says Dr. Ting Ting Wong , an attending physician and infectious disease specialist at NewYork-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital.

If you think you may have been exposed to a person with COVID-19 and have symptoms, call ahead to a doctor’s office to see if you can get tested. You can also use a virtual care platform, such as NewYork-Presbyterian’s NYP OnDemand, to meet with a healthcare professional by videoconference. Avoid contact with others and wear a face mask if you need to leave your home when you are sick.

How NewYork-Presbyterian is prepared

NewYork-Presbyterian continues to follow the situation closely and implement the recommendations provided by our local and state departments of health and the CDC. Our medical staff is trained to recognize patients who may have the virus and will help prevent COVID-19 from spreading.

We understand how important the support of loved ones and friends is to patients during their hospital stay. Stay up to date with NewYork-Presbyterian’s visitor guidelines . It’s our priority to keep patients and visitors safe from infection.

For more information on the evolving situation and how to protect yourself from coronavirus, visit the CDC and check NewYork-Presbyterian for more updates.

View all of our COVID-19 outbreak articles here .

Additional Resources

If you have concerns regarding COVID-19, please call NewYork-Presbyterian’s hotline at 646-697-4000. This hotline is available as a public service to provide information only and not diagnose, treat, or render a medical opinion.

If you are not feeling well, consider using NewYork-Presbyterian’s Virtual Urgent Care for non-life-threatening symptoms such as fever, cough, upset stomach, or nausea. Learn more by visiting nyp.org/urgentcare .

At a Glance

Featured experts.

Internal Medicine, Infectious Disease

Internal Medicine

Infectious Disease

Share This Story

Get the latest health and wellness news.

Keep in touch with NewYork-Presbyterian and subscribe to our newsletter.

Privacy Notice

Students’ Essays on Infectious Disease Prevention, COVID-19 Published Nationwide

As part of the BIO 173: Global Change and Infectious Disease course, Professor Fred Cohan assigns students to write an essay persuading others to prevent future and mitigate present infectious diseases. If students submit their essay to a news outlet—and it’s published—Cohan awards them with extra credit.

As a result of this assignment, more than 25 students have had their work published in newspapers across the United States. Many of these essays cite and applaud the University’s Keep Wes Safe campaign and its COVID-19 testing protocols.

Cohan, professor of biology and Huffington Foundation Professor in the College of the Environment (COE), began teaching the Global Change and Infectious Disease course in 2009, when the COE was established. “I wanted very much to contribute a course to what I saw as a real game-changer in Wesleyan’s interest in the environment. The course is about all the ways that human demands on the environment have brought us infectious diseases, over past millennia and in the present, and why our environmental disturbances will continue to bring us infections into the future.”

Over the years, Cohan learned that he can sustainably teach about 170 students every year without running out of interested students. This fall, he had 207. Although he didn’t change the overall structure of his course to accommodate COVID-19 topics, he did add material on the current pandemic to various sections of the course.

“I wouldn’t say that the population of the class increased tremendously as a result of COVID-19, but I think the enthusiasm of the students for the material has increased substantially,” he said.

To accommodate online learning, Cohan shaved off 15 minutes from his normal 80-minute lectures to allow for discussion sections, led by Cohan and teaching assistants. “While the lectures mostly dealt with biology, the discussions focused on how changes in behavior and policy can solve the infectious disease problems brought by human disturbance of the environment,” he said.

Based on student responses to an introspective exam question, Cohan learned that many students enjoyed a new hope that we could each contribute to fighting infectious disease. “They discovered that the solution to infectious disease is not entirely a waiting game for the right technologies to come along,” he said. “Many enjoyed learning about fighting infectious disease from a moral and social perspective. And especially, the students enjoyed learning about the ‘socialism of the microbe,’ how preventing and curing others’ infections will prevent others’ infections from becoming our own. The students enjoyed seeing how this idea can drive both domestic and international health policies.”

A sampling of the published student essays are below:

Alexander Giummo ’22 and Mike Dunderdale’s ’23 op-ed titled “ A National Testing Proposal: Let’s Fight Back Against COVID-19 ” was published in the Journal Inquirer in Manchester, Conn.

They wrote: “With an expansive and increased testing plan for U.S. citizens, those who are COVID-positive could limit the number of contacts they have, and this would also help to enable more effective contact tracing. Testing could also allow for the return of some ‘normal’ events, such as small social gatherings, sports, and in-person class and work schedules.

“We propose a national testing strategy in line with the one that has kept Wesleyan students safe this year. The plan would require a strong push by the federal government to fund the initiative, but it is vital to successful containment of the virus.

“Twice a week, all people living in the U.S. should report to a local testing site staffed with professionals where the anterior nasal swab Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) test, used by Wesleyan and supported by the Broad Institute, would be implemented.”

Kalyani Mohan ’22 and Kalli Jackson ’22 penned an essay titled “ Where Public Health Meets Politics: COVID-19 in the United States ,” which was published in Wesleyan’s Arcadia Political Review .

They wrote: “While the U.S. would certainly benefit from a strengthened pandemic response team and structural changes to public health systems, that alone isn’t enough, as American society is immensely stratified, socially and culturally. The politicization of the COVID-19 pandemic shows that individualism, libertarianism and capitalism are deeply ingrained in American culture, to the extent that Americans often blind to the fact community welfare can be equivalent to personal welfare. Pandemics are multifaceted, and preventing them requires not just a cultural shift but an emotional one amongst the American people, one guided by empathy—towards other people, different communities and the planet. Politics should be a tool, not a weapon against its people.”

Sydnee Goyer ’21 and Marcel Thompson’s ’22 essay “ This Flu Season Will Be Decisive in the Fight Against COVID-19 ” also was published in Arcadia Political Review .

“With winter approaching all around the Northern Hemisphere, people are preparing for what has already been named a “twindemic,” meaning the joint threat of the coronavirus and the seasonal flu,” they wrote. “While it is known that seasonal vaccinations reduce the risk of getting the flu by up to 60% and also reduce the severity of the illness after the contamination, additional research has been conducted in order to know whether or not flu shots could reduce the risk of people getting COVID-19. In addition to the flu shot, it is essential that people remain vigilant in maintaining proper social distancing, washing your hands thoroughly, and continuing to wear masks in public spaces.”

An op-ed titled “ The Pandemic Has Shown Us How Workplace Culture Needs to Change ,” written by Adam Hickey ’22 and George Fuss ’21, was published in Park City, Utah’s The Park Record .

They wrote: “One review of academic surveys (most of which were conducted in the United States) conducted in 2019 found that between 35% and 97% of respondents in those surveys reported having attended work while they were ill, often because of workplace culture or policy which generated pressure to do so. Choosing to ignore sickness and return to the workplace while one is ill puts colleagues at risk, regardless of the perceived severity of your own illness; COVID-19 is an overbearing reminder that a disease that may cause mild, even cold-like symptoms for some can still carry fatal consequences for others.

“A mandatory paid sick leave policy for every worker, ideally across the globe, would allow essential workers to return to work when necessary while still providing enough wiggle room for economically impoverished employees to take time off without going broke if they believe they’ve contracted an illness so as not to infect the rest of their workplace and the public at large.”

Women’s cross country team members and classmates Jane Hollander ’23 and Sara Greene ’23 wrote a sports-themed essay titled “ This Season, High School Winter Sports Aren’t Worth the Risk ,” which was published in Tap into Scotch Plains/Fanwood , based in Scotch Plains, N.J. Their essay focused on the risks high school sports pose on student-athletes, their families, and the greater community.

“We don’t propose cutting off sports entirely— rather, we need to be realistic about the levels at which athletes should be participating. There are ways to make practices safer,” they wrote. “At [Wesleyan], we began the season in ‘cohorts,’ so the amount of people exposed to one another would be smaller. For non-contact sports, social distancing can be easily implemented, and for others, teams can focus on drills, strength and conditioning workouts, and skill-building exercises. Racing sports such as swim and track can compete virtually, comparing times with other schools, and team sports can focus their competition on intra-team scrimmages. These changes can allow for the continuation of a sense of normalcy and team camaraderie without the exposure to students from different geographic areas in confined, indoor spaces.”

Brook Guiffre ’23 and Maddie Clarke’s ’22 op-ed titled “ On the Pandemic ” was published in Hometown Weekly, based in Medfield, Mass.

“The first case of COVID-19 in the United States was recorded on January 20th, 2020. For the next month and a half, the U.S. continued operating normally, while many other countries began their lockdown,” they wrote. “One month later, on February 29th, 2020, the federal government approved a national testing program, but it was too little too late. The U.S. was already in pandemic mode, and completely unprepared. Frontline workers lacked access to N-95 masks, infected patients struggled to get tested, and national leaders informed the public that COVID-19 was nothing more than the common flu. Ultimately, this unpreparedness led to thousands of avoidable deaths and long-term changes to daily life. With the risk of novel infectious diseases emerging in the future being high, it is imperative that the U.S. learn from its failure and better prepare for future pandemics now. By strengthening our public health response and re-establishing government organizations specialized in disease control, we have the ability to prevent more years spent masked and six feet apart.”

In addition, their other essay, “ On Mass Extinction ,” was also published by Hometown Weekly .

“The sixth mass extinction—which scientists have coined as the Holocene Extinction—is upon us. According to the United Nations, around one million plant and animal species are currently in danger of extinction, and many more within the next decade. While other extinctions have occurred in Earth’s history, none have occurred at such a rapid rate,” they wrote. “For the sake of both biodiversity and infectious diseases, it is in our best interest to stop pushing this Holocene Extinction further.”

An essay titled “ Learning from Our Mistakes: How to Protect Ourselves and Our Communities from Diseases ,” written by Nicole Veru ’21 and Zoe Darmon ’21, was published in My Hometown Bronxville, based in Bronxville, N.Y.

“We can protect ourselves and others from future infectious diseases by ensuring that we are vaccinated,” they wrote. “Vaccines have high levels of success if enough people get them. Due to vaccines, society is no longer ravaged by childhood diseases such as mumps, rubella, measles, and smallpox. We have been able to eradicate diseases through vaccines; smallpox, one of the world’s most consequential diseases, was eradicated from the world in the 1970s.

“In 2000, the U.S. was nearly free of measles, yet, due to hesitations by anti-vaxxers, there continues to be cases. From 2000–2015 there were over 18 measles outbreaks in the U.S. This is because unless a disease is completely eradicated, there will be a new generation susceptible.

“Although vaccines are not 100% effective at preventing infection, if we continue to get vaccinated, we protect ourselves and those around us. If enough people are vaccinated, societies can develop herd immunity. The amount of people vaccinated to obtain herd immunity depends on the disease, but if this fraction is obtained, the spread of disease is contained. Through herd immunity, we protect those who may not be able to get vaccinated, such as people who are immunocompromised and the tiny portion of people for whom the vaccine is not effective.”

Dhruvi Rana ’22 and Bryce Gillis ’22 co-authored an op-ed titled “ We Must Educate Those Who Remain Skeptical of the Dangers of COVID-19 ,” which was published in Rhode Island Central .

“As Rhode Island enters the winter season, temperatures are beginning to drop and many studies have demonstrated that colder weather and lower humidity are correlated with higher transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19,” they wrote. “By simply talking or breathing, we release respiratory droplets and aerosols (tiny fluid particles which could carry the coronavirus pathogen), which can remain in the air for minutes to hours.

“In order to establish herd immunity in the US, we must educate those who remain skeptical of the dangers of COVID-19. Whether community-driven or state-funded, educational campaigns are needed to ensure that everyone fully comprehends how severe COVID-19 is and the significance of airborne transmission. While we await a vaccine, it is necessary now more than ever that we social distance, avoid crowds, and wear masks, given that colder temperatures will likely yield increased transmission of the virus.”

Danielle Rinaldi ’21 and Verónica Matos Socorro ’21 published their op-ed titled “ Community Forum: How Mask-Wearing Demands a Cultural Reset ” in the Ewing Observer , based in Lawrence, N.J.

“In their own attempt to change personal behavior during the pandemic, Wesleyan University has mandated mask-wearing in almost every facet of campus life,” they wrote. “As members of our community, we must recognize that mask-wearing is something we are all responsible and accountable for, not only because it is a form of protection for us, but just as important for others as well. However, it seems as though both Covid fatigue and complacency are dominating the mindsets of Americans, leading to even more unwillingness to mask up. Ultimately, it is inevitable that this pandemic will not be the last in our lifespan due to global warming creating irreversible losses in biodiversity. As a result, it is imperative that we adopt the norm of mask-wearing now and undergo a culture shift of the abandonment of an individualistic mindset, and instead, create a society that prioritizes taking care of others for the benefit of all.”

Shayna Dollinger ’22 and Hayley Lipson ’21 wrote an essay titled “ My Pandemic Year in College Has Brought Pride and Purpose. ” Dollinger submitted the piece, rewritten in first person, to Jewish News of Northern California . Read more about Dollinger’s publication in this News @ Wesleyan article .

“I lay in the dead grass, a 6-by-6-foot square all to myself. I cheer for my best friend, who is on the stage constructed at the bottom of Foss hill, dancing with her Bollywood dance group. Masks cover their ordinarily smiling faces as their bodies move in sync. Looking around at friends and classmates, each in their own 6-by-6 world, I feel an overwhelming sense of normalcy.

“One of the ways in which Wesleyan has prevented outbreaks on campus is by holding safe, socially distanced events that students want to attend. By giving us places to be and things to do on the weekends, we are discouraged from breaking rules and causing outbreaks at ‘super-spreader’ events.”

An op-ed written by Luna Mac-Williams ’22 and Daëlle Coriolan ’24 titled “ Collectivist Practices to Combat COVID-19 ” was published in the Wesleyan Argus .

“We are embroiled in a global pandemic that disproportionately affects poor communities of color, and in the midst of a higher cultural consciousness of systemic inequities,” they wrote. “A cultural shift to center collectivist thought and action not only would prove helpful in disease prevention, but also belongs in conversation with the Black Lives Matter movement. Collectivist models of thinking effectively target the needs of vulnerable populations including the sick, the disenfranchised, the systematically marginalized. Collectivist systems provide care, decentering the capitalist, individualist system, and focusing on how communities can work to be self-sufficient and uplift our own neighbors.”

An essay written by Maria Noto ’21 , titled “ U.S. Individualism Has Deadly Consequences ,” is published in the Oneonta Daily Star , based in Oneonta, N.Y.

She wrote, “When analyzing the cultures of certain East Asian countries, several differences stand out. For instance, when people are sick and during the cold and flu season, many East Asian cultures, including South Korea, use mask-wearing. What is considered a threat to freedom by some Americans is a preventive action and community obligation in this example. This, along with many other cultural differences, is insightful in understanding their ability to contain the virus.

“These differences are deeply seeded in the values of a culture. However, there is hope for the U.S. and other individualistic cultures in recognizing and adopting these community-centered approaches. Our mindset needs to be revolutionized with the help of federal and local assistance: mandating masks, passing another stimulus package, contact tracing, etc… However, these measures will be unsuccessful unless everyone participates for the good of a community.”

A published op-ed by Madison Szabo ’23 , Caitlyn Ferrante ’23 ran in the Two Rivers Times . The piece is titled “ Anxiety and Aspiration: Analyzing the Politicization of the Pandemic .”

John Lee ’21 and Taylor Goodman-Leong ’21 have published their op-ed titled “ Reassessing the media’s approach to COVID-19 ” in Weekly Monday Cafe 24 (Page 2).

An essay by Eleanor Raab ’21 and Elizabeth Nefferdorf ’22 titled “ Preventing the Next Epidemic ” was published in The Almanac .

Keep Wes Safe
student publications
Teaching during the pandemic

President Michael S. Roth ’78: “We Must Learn to Practice Freedom, Better”

Gallery: wesleyan’s 192nd commencement.

Wesleyan University Celebrated its 192nd Commencement, Sunday

Previous matesan's new book explores political violence, islamist mobilization in egypt and indonesia, next students launch fun, interactive virtual program for school-aged kids.

Select Your Interests

Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.

Academic Medicine
Acid Base, Electrolytes, Fluids
Allergy and Clinical Immunology
American Indian or Alaska Natives
Anesthesiology
Anticoagulation
Art and Images in Psychiatry
Artificial Intelligence
Assisted Reproduction
Bleeding and Transfusion
Caring for the Critically Ill Patient
Challenges in Clinical Electrocardiography
Climate and Health
Climate Change
Clinical Challenge
Clinical Decision Support
Clinical Implications of Basic Neuroscience
Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology
Complementary and Alternative Medicine
Consensus Statements
Coronavirus (COVID-19)
Critical Care Medicine
Cultural Competency
Dental Medicine
Dermatology
Diabetes and Endocrinology
Diagnostic Test Interpretation
Drug Development
Electronic Health Records
Emergency Medicine
End of Life, Hospice, Palliative Care
Environmental Health
Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion
Facial Plastic Surgery
Gastroenterology and Hepatology
Genetics and Genomics
Genomics and Precision Health
Global Health
Guide to Statistics and Methods
Hair Disorders
Health Care Delivery Models
Health Care Economics, Insurance, Payment
Health Care Quality
Health Care Reform
Health Care Safety
Health Care Workforce
Health Disparities
Health Inequities
Health Policy
Health Systems Science
History of Medicine
Hypertension
Images in Neurology
Implementation Science
Infectious Diseases
Innovations in Health Care Delivery
JAMA Infographic
Law and Medicine
Leading Change
Less is More
LGBTQIA Medicine
Lifestyle Behaviors
Medical Coding
Medical Devices and Equipment
Medical Education
Medical Education and Training
Medical Journals and Publishing
Mobile Health and Telemedicine
Narrative Medicine
Neuroscience and Psychiatry
Notable Notes
Nutrition, Obesity, Exercise
Obstetrics and Gynecology
Occupational Health
Ophthalmology
Orthopedics
Otolaryngology
Pain Medicine
Palliative Care
Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
Patient Care
Patient Information
Performance Improvement
Performance Measures
Perioperative Care and Consultation
Pharmacoeconomics
Pharmacoepidemiology
Pharmacogenetics
Pharmacy and Clinical Pharmacology
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Physical Therapy
Physician Leadership
Population Health
Primary Care
Professional Well-being
Professionalism
Psychiatry and Behavioral Health
Public Health
Pulmonary Medicine
Regulatory Agencies
Reproductive Health
Research, Methods, Statistics
Resuscitation
Rheumatology
Risk Management
Scientific Discovery and the Future of Medicine
Shared Decision Making and Communication
Sleep Medicine
Sports Medicine
Stem Cell Transplantation
Substance Use and Addiction Medicine
Surgical Innovation
Surgical Pearls
Teachable Moment
Technology and Finance
The Art of JAMA
The Arts and Medicine
The Rational Clinical Examination
Tobacco and e-Cigarettes
Translational Medicine
Trauma and Injury
Treatment Adherence
Ultrasonography
Users' Guide to the Medical Literature
Vaccination
Venous Thromboembolism
Veterans Health
Women's Health
Workflow and Process
Wound Care, Infection, Healing
Download PDF
Share X Facebook Email LinkedIn
Permissions

The Science of Persuasion Offers Lessons for COVID-19 Prevention

Hand washing, mask wearing, social distancing—experts agree these protective behaviors are key to stemming coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). But how should leaders encourage their uptake?

Look to the science of persuasion, says communications professor Dominique Brossard, PhD. Brossard is part of a new National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine group called the Societal Experts Action Network, or SEAN, whose recent report lays out research-based strategies to encourage COVID-19–mitigating behaviors.

Brossard says the changes must feel easy to do—and to repeat, which helps to form habits. Past public health campaigns also suggest it’s wise to know and understand one’s target audience, and to tailor messages and messengers accordingly.

“It’s difficult to change people’s behavior at the massive level,” Brossard, chair of the life sciences communications department at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said in a recent interview with JAMA. The following is an edited version of that conversation.

JAMA: You and your coauthors write that simply explaining the science of COVID-19 and its risks will rarely translate to a change in attitudes and behaviors, even if people understand and accept the facts. Why isn’t it enough to explain the science if you want to change health behaviors?

Dr Brossard: Because human beings rely more on the psychological dimensions of the risk than the quantitative aspect of the risk. If experts measure risk in numbers, such as the probability of getting harmed by something, human beings in general—you and me included—look at what we call the qualitative aspect of that risk: the potential magnitude of the effect, the potential dread, how much it may impact people [close] to us, and so on. So, psychological dimensions.

JAMA: How does that translate to people’s unwillingness to change their attitudes and behaviors?

Dr Brossard: If we’re asked to do something new, that will impact our willingness to do it for a variety of reasons. It might be because people around us, our social network, the norms around us tell us that this is something that’s not acceptable. It might be because it’s a little inconvenient. It might be because we forget about it. At the end of the day, when we perform certain behaviors, rarely do we think about the science that tells us why we shouldn’t do it and why this might be dangerous. We do it because, as social animals, we pay attention to cues that our minds tell us to pay attention to and our community and people around us tell us to pay attention to. Therefore, our behavior is really based on the psychological components rather than more quantifiable aspects.

JAMA: Your report recommends 5 habit-promoting strategies: make the behavior easy to start and repeat; make the behavior rewarding to repeat; tie the behavior to an existing habit; alert people to behaviors that conflict with existing habits and provide alternative behaviors; and provide specific descriptions of desired behaviors. How can these strategies be applied today?

Dr Brossard: People are more likely to act in healthy ways when it’s easy for them to perform that behavior. So let’s think in terms of hand washing, for example. It will be very important to have hand washing stations and hand sanitizer easily accessible to people. Making the behavior very easy to start and to repeat is very important. If you put a mask next to your front door, and it’s easy to grab when you go out the door, that’s going to be easy to implement and you may be more likely to actually do it again. If you want to encourage people to physically distance from other people around them, having signs on the floor is actually something that works. They don’t have to calculate in their mind: what does it mean to be physically distanced? How far am I from other people? They simply stand where the mark tells them. It makes the behavior easy to repeat and easy to perform.

JAMA: So you’re trying to take away any barriers to the behaviors?

Dr Brossard: Exactly. The idea is if you take away as many barriers as possible, you encourage people to repeat the behavior. And then you end up creating a habit.

JAMA: In your report you mentioned that having many hand sanitizer stations sets the norm—that it’s normal to hand sanitize.

Dr Brossard: Mask wearing and physically distancing are new habits we’re creating from scratch. As social animals, that’s not something we do, in general. However, hand washing is a habit that we would have hoped the population already had. The problem is it hasn’t been really implemented. People do it very inconsistently. If you have hand sanitizers everywhere, it’s very easy. As a matter of fact, in supermarkets, when you have the hand sanitizer at the door, people line up and do it. So it’s that idea of the social norm and making it sound like, this is something you do, it’s widely available, other people do it as well, and therefore, this is socially acceptable and highly encouraged, and we should just all do it.

JAMA: The report also discusses 10 strategies for communicating risk, like using clear, consistent, and transparent messaging. It feels like that’s the opposite of what we’ve had. What’s your take on the federal government’s messaging around COVID-19 mitigation?

Dr Brossard: I think that in this case what’s really crucial is the messaging at the local level. At the state level vs county level vs town level, having a consistent strategy, consistent messages, is very important. It’s clear that for public health–related issues, really what makes a difference is the action of local leaders. It’s really the community-based action that can change people’s behavior. At the local level people trust the doctors, the public health officials.

JAMA: Masks unfortunately have become politicized. Is it too late for universal masking to be accepted or do you think minds can still be changed?

Dr Brossard: You will always have extremes on both ends. The vast majority of the population will be somewhere in between. People that are extremely set on the attitude not to wear a mask, which is, by the way, a very, very small minority, are unlikely to change their views. However, all the others can change their views. People are reasonable in the sense that they want to protect their own, they want to protect the community, they want to have the economy reopen, and so on. So I would say, yes, there’s still hope. And we see it. Every week, our group at the SEAN Network publishes a summary of all the polls that address [COVID-19–related] behaviors. We see that mask wearing is increasing. It’s not yet at the level that we would like to make sure that we are protected, but it’s indeed increasing.

JAMA: You reported that highlighting crowded beaches or people who aren’t wearing masks can be counterproductive. Why? And what’s a better approach?

Dr Brossard: They end up thinking that it’s a more prevalent behavior than it actually is. Or it may actually prompt them to think, “Oh, I wish I was on the beach.” You want to highlight good behavior and make it sound like this is socially acceptable rather than highlighting undesirable behavior and making it sound like it’s more frequent than it actually is.

JAMA: So local leaders should emphasize that mask wearing is increasing, for example?

Dr Brossard: Exactly. The research on social norms is extremely, extremely important here. We tend to get cues based on the people around us. Human beings have something that we call fear of isolation. We don’t like to be the lonely person that is the only one doing a certain thing when the vast majority around us are doing another thing. So it’s very important to actually show, “Look, this is going in this direction. Political leaders from both sides of the spectrum are doing it.” To show that the desirable behavior is something that’s becoming prevalent and that this is the direction society is taking.

JAMA: One lesson in your report is that it’s important to concede uncertainty. Why should leaders say things like, “Based on what we know today…”?

Dr Brossard: This is a really key message of risk communication. If you highlight something as being certain and then the science changes and suddenly you say, “Well, wait a minute, actually this was wrong, and now it is this,” you destroy trust. Science evolves, particularly in the context of COVID-19. We are all discovering this virus. The social sciences have shown that acknowledging uncertainty will actually increase trust, much more than painting things as certain. So it’s very important to say, “Based on the science of today, this is what we should do.” It’s very important to show that it’s a work in progress.

JAMA: What about the messengers themselves? Have we tapped into social media influencers enough? And who are community influencers that have the power to change our collective behaviors?

Dr Brossard: It makes us think of the AIDS community, where the leaders of the communities were messengers in helping promote protective behaviors. Using messengers that are trusted by the target audiences and relying on social media is extremely important. And as far as influencers in the communities, this will depend from one community to the other. Let’s take Wisconsin, for example. Football is a sport that people enjoy regardless of their political ideology, age, and so on. So the [Green Bay] Packers are messengers that transcend potential barriers there. It’s important to find trusted messengers that can connect with the audience on social media but also face-to-face. That can be a trusted local business leader, for example.

JAMA: What have we learned from past public health campaigns, like antismoking and wearing seatbelts, that can be applied now?

Dr Brossard: In the ’70s, we had social marketing approaches that suggested that we needed to stop trying to educate people and actually adapt a marketing technique to social issues. The antismoking Truth campaign, as it was called, was a successful application of social marketing techniques. The idea that you need to segment your audience and tailor the message specifically to that audience is something that the Truth campaign very well illustrated. A specific audience that needed to be targeted was adolescents and teenagers, and one thing that adolescents do is rebel against authority. They don’t like people to force them to do things. So the Truth campaign tried to appeal to their drive for autonomy by showing them that the tobacco industry was taking advantage of the adolescent population. That was extremely powerful. The problem is that a mass media campaign like that can be extremely, extremely expensive. That’s why it’s very important also to rely on what we think of as organic dissemination of messaging through social media, which we couldn’t do when the Truth campaign was put together.

JAMA: How can physicians apply these strategies of persuasion with patients, in their communities, or on social networks?

Dr Brossard: We are all tempted to correct misinformation. And right now, we see it everywhere, right? However, we need to be careful because by repeating the misinformation itself, we make it more prevalent. When physicians want to communicate about COVID-19, it’s better to actually communicate the right information without repeating the misinformation itself. I think it’s very important to remember that all of us are part of the solution by making sure that those right behaviors get communicated to as many people as we can. I think physicians have a really, really big part to play in this organic dissemination.

JAMA: How will these strategies apply once we have a COVID-19 vaccine?

Dr Brossard: It goes back to that idea of targeting and audience segmentation to understand who has issues with the vaccine—in this case potentially COVID-19—and why. We actually do not know why people think the way they do. What we do know is that there’s no wrong concern. If people are concerned, they’re concerned. We need to listen and try to understand why and then address that.

See More About

Abbasi J. The Science of Persuasion Offers Lessons for COVID-19 Prevention. JAMA. 2020;324(13):1271–1272. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.15139

Manage citations:

Artificial Intelligence Resource Center

Cardiology in JAMA : Read the Latest

Browse and subscribe to JAMA Network podcasts!

Others Also Liked

Register for email alerts with links to free full-text articles
Access PDFs of free articles
Manage your interests
Save searches and receive search alerts

How to Write About Coronavirus in a College Essay

Students can share how they navigated life during the coronavirus pandemic in a full-length essay or an optional supplement.

Writing About COVID-19 in College Essays

Serious disabled woman concentrating on her work she sitting at her workplace and working on computer at office

Getty Images

Experts say students should be honest and not limit themselves to merely their experiences with the pandemic.

The global impact of COVID-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus, means colleges and prospective students alike are in for an admissions cycle like no other. Both face unprecedented challenges and questions as they grapple with their respective futures amid the ongoing fallout of the pandemic.

Colleges must examine applicants without the aid of standardized test scores for many – a factor that prompted many schools to go test-optional for now . Even grades, a significant component of a college application, may be hard to interpret with some high schools adopting pass-fail classes last spring due to the pandemic. Major college admissions factors are suddenly skewed.

"I can't help but think other (admissions) factors are going to matter more," says Ethan Sawyer, founder of the College Essay Guy, a website that offers free and paid essay-writing resources.

College essays and letters of recommendation , Sawyer says, are likely to carry more weight than ever in this admissions cycle. And many essays will likely focus on how the pandemic shaped students' lives throughout an often tumultuous 2020.

But before writing a college essay focused on the coronavirus, students should explore whether it's the best topic for them.

Writing About COVID-19 for a College Application

Much of daily life has been colored by the coronavirus. Virtual learning is the norm at many colleges and high schools, many extracurriculars have vanished and social lives have stalled for students complying with measures to stop the spread of COVID-19.

"For some young people, the pandemic took away what they envisioned as their senior year," says Robert Alexander, dean of admissions, financial aid and enrollment management at the University of Rochester in New York. "Maybe that's a spot on a varsity athletic team or the lead role in the fall play. And it's OK for them to mourn what should have been and what they feel like they lost, but more important is how are they making the most of the opportunities they do have?"

That question, Alexander says, is what colleges want answered if students choose to address COVID-19 in their college essay.

But the question of whether a student should write about the coronavirus is tricky. The answer depends largely on the student.

"In general, I don't think students should write about COVID-19 in their main personal statement for their application," Robin Miller, master college admissions counselor at IvyWise, a college counseling company, wrote in an email.

"Certainly, there may be exceptions to this based on a student's individual experience, but since the personal essay is the main place in the application where the student can really allow their voice to be heard and share insight into who they are as an individual, there are likely many other topics they can choose to write about that are more distinctive and unique than COVID-19," Miller says.

Opinions among admissions experts vary on whether to write about the likely popular topic of the pandemic.

"If your essay communicates something positive, unique, and compelling about you in an interesting and eloquent way, go for it," Carolyn Pippen, principal college admissions counselor at IvyWise, wrote in an email. She adds that students shouldn't be dissuaded from writing about a topic merely because it's common, noting that "topics are bound to repeat, no matter how hard we try to avoid it."

Above all, she urges honesty.

"If your experience within the context of the pandemic has been truly unique, then write about that experience, and the standing out will take care of itself," Pippen says. "If your experience has been generally the same as most other students in your context, then trying to find a unique angle can easily cross the line into exploiting a tragedy, or at least appearing as though you have."

But focusing entirely on the pandemic can limit a student to a single story and narrow who they are in an application, Sawyer says. "There are so many wonderful possibilities for what you can say about yourself outside of your experience within the pandemic."

He notes that passions, strengths, career interests and personal identity are among the multitude of essay topic options available to applicants and encourages them to probe their values to help determine the topic that matters most to them – and write about it.

That doesn't mean the pandemic experience has to be ignored if applicants feel the need to write about it.

Writing About Coronavirus in Main and Supplemental Essays

Students can choose to write a full-length college essay on the coronavirus or summarize their experience in a shorter form.

To help students explain how the pandemic affected them, The Common App has added an optional section to address this topic. Applicants have 250 words to describe their pandemic experience and the personal and academic impact of COVID-19.

"That's not a trick question, and there's no right or wrong answer," Alexander says. Colleges want to know, he adds, how students navigated the pandemic, how they prioritized their time, what responsibilities they took on and what they learned along the way.

If students can distill all of the above information into 250 words, there's likely no need to write about it in a full-length college essay, experts say. And applicants whose lives were not heavily altered by the pandemic may even choose to skip the optional COVID-19 question.

"This space is best used to discuss hardship and/or significant challenges that the student and/or the student's family experienced as a result of COVID-19 and how they have responded to those difficulties," Miller notes. Using the section to acknowledge a lack of impact, she adds, "could be perceived as trite and lacking insight, despite the good intentions of the applicant."

To guard against this lack of awareness, Sawyer encourages students to tap someone they trust to review their writing , whether it's the 250-word Common App response or the full-length essay.

Experts tend to agree that the short-form approach to this as an essay topic works better, but there are exceptions. And if a student does have a coronavirus story that he or she feels must be told, Alexander encourages the writer to be authentic in the essay.

"My advice for an essay about COVID-19 is the same as my advice about an essay for any topic – and that is, don't write what you think we want to read or hear," Alexander says. "Write what really changed you and that story that now is yours and yours alone to tell."

Sawyer urges students to ask themselves, "What's the sentence that only I can write?" He also encourages students to remember that the pandemic is only a chapter of their lives and not the whole book.

Miller, who cautions against writing a full-length essay on the coronavirus, says that if students choose to do so they should have a conversation with their high school counselor about whether that's the right move. And if students choose to proceed with COVID-19 as a topic, she says they need to be clear, detailed and insightful about what they learned and how they adapted along the way.

"Approaching the essay in this manner will provide important balance while demonstrating personal growth and vulnerability," Miller says.

Pippen encourages students to remember that they are in an unprecedented time for college admissions.

"It is important to keep in mind with all of these (admission) factors that no colleges have ever had to consider them this way in the selection process, if at all," Pippen says. "They have had very little time to calibrate their evaluations of different application components within their offices, let alone across institutions. This means that colleges will all be handling the admissions process a little bit differently, and their approaches may even evolve over the course of the admissions cycle."

Searching for a college? Get our complete rankings of Best Colleges.

10 Ways to Discover College Essay Ideas

Tags: students , colleges , college admissions , college applications , college search , Coronavirus

2024 Best Colleges

Search for your perfect fit with the U.S. News rankings of colleges and universities.

College Admissions: Get a Step Ahead!

Sign up to receive the latest updates from U.S. News & World Report and our trusted partners and sponsors. By clicking submit, you are agreeing to our Terms and Conditions & Privacy Policy .

Ask an Alum: Making the Most Out of College

States' Responses to FAFSA Delays

Sarah Wood May 30, 2024

Nonacademic Factors in College Searches

Sarah Wood May 28, 2024

Takeaways From the NCAA’s Settlement

Laura Mannweiler May 24, 2024

New Best Engineering Rankings June 18

Robert Morse and Eric Brooks May 24, 2024

Premedical Programs: What to Know

Sarah Wood May 21, 2024

How Geography Affects College Admissions

Cole Claybourn May 21, 2024

Q&A: College Alumni Engagement

LaMont Jones, Jr. May 20, 2024

10 Destination West Coast College Towns

Cole Claybourn May 16, 2024

Scholarships for Lesser-Known Sports

Sarah Wood May 15, 2024

Official websites use .gov

A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS

A lock ( ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

How to Protect Yourself and Others

CDC’s Respiratory Virus Guidance provides strategies you can use to help protect yourself and others from health risks caused by COVID-19 and other respiratory viruses. These actions can help you lower the risk of COVID-19 transmission (spreading or catching COVID-19) and lower the risk of severe illness if you get sick.

Core Prevention Strategies

CDC recommends that all people use core prevention strategies to protect themselves and others from COVID-19:

Although vaccinated people sometimes get infected with the virus that causes COVID-19, staying up to date on COVID-19 vaccines significantly lowers the risk of getting very sick, being hospitalized, or dying from COVID-19.
Practice good hygiene (practices that improve cleanliness)
Take steps for cleaner air

When you are sick:

Learn when you can go back to your normal activities .
Seek health care promptly for testing and/or treatment if you have risk factors for severe illness . Treatment may help lower your risk of severe illness, but it needs to be started within a few days of when your symptoms begin.

Additional Prevention Strategies

In addition, there are other prevention strategies that you can choose to further protect yourself and others.

Wearing a mask and putting distance between yourself and others can help lower the risk of COVID-19 transmission.
Testing for COVID-19 can help you decide what to do next, like getting treatment to reduce your risk of severe illness and taking steps to lower your chances of spreading COVID-19 to others.

Key Times for Prevention

Using these prevention strategies can be especially helpful when:

Respiratory viruses, such as COVID-19, flu, and RSV, are causing a lot of illness in your community
You or those around you have risk factors for severe illness
You or those around you were recently exposed to a respiratory virus, are sick, or are recovering

Check Your Community

Find out if respiratory viruses are causing a lot of illness in your community. Data updated weekly.

Learn more about all three of these respiratory viruses, who is most at risk, and how they are affecting your state right now. You can use some of the same strategies to protect yourself from all three viruses.

Get the Latest on COVID-19, Flu, and RSV

COVID-19 Testing
COVID-19 Vaccines
COVID-19 Treatments and Medications
Preventing Respiratory Viruses
Protect Yourself from COVID-19, Flu, and RSV

Additional Resources

Respirators and Masks
Improving Ventilation in Your Home
Improving Ventilation In Buildings

Search for and find historical COVID-19 pages and files. Please note the content on these pages and files is no longer being updated and may be out of date.

Visit archive.cdc.gov for a historical snapshot of the COVID-19 website, capturing the end of the Federal Public Health Emergency on June 28, 2023.
Visit the dynamic COVID-19 collection to search the COVID-19 website as far back as July 30, 2021.

To receive email updates about COVID-19, enter your email address:

Exit Notification / Disclaimer Policy

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) cannot attest to the accuracy of a non-federal website.
Linking to a non-federal website does not constitute an endorsement by CDC or any of its employees of the sponsors or the information and products presented on the website.
You will be subject to the destination website's privacy policy when you follow the link.
CDC is not responsible for Section 508 compliance (accessibility) on other federal or private website.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

View all journals
Explore content
About the journal
Publish with us
Sign up for alerts
26 October 2022

Mastering the art of persuasion during a pandemic

Elizabeth Svoboda 0

Elizabeth Svoboda is a science writer in San Jose, California.

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Credit: Sam Falconer

When Robb Willer looks back on the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic — when leaders still had a chance to stop the virus from bringing the world to a halt — there’s a fateful moment that stands out. In February 2020, global health authorities spoke in one voice, advising the public not to wear masks to prevent infection.

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Nature 610 , S34-S36 (2022)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-03354-8

This article is part of Nature Outlook: Pandemic preparedness , an editorially independent supplement produced with the financial support of third parties. About this content .

Cure, L. & Van Enk, R. Am. J. Infect. Control 43 , 917–921 (2015).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Milkman, K. L. et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118 , e2101165118 (2021).

Law, A. C. et al. JAMA Intern Med. 182 , 235–237 (2022).

Brewer, N. T. et al. Lancet Reg. Health Am. 8 , 100205 (2022).

PubMed Google Scholar

Milkman, K. L. et al. Nature Hum. Behav . https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01437-0 (2022).

Article Google Scholar

Pfattheicher, S. et al. Psychol Sci. 31 , 1363–1373 (2020).

Galasso, V. et al. NBER Working Paper 29741 https://doi.org/10.3386/w29741 (2022).

Basol, M., Roozenbeek, J. & van der Linden, S. J. Cogn. 3 , 2 (2020).

Larsen, B. et al. NBER Working Paper 29896 https://doi.org/10.3386/w29896 (2022).

Barari, S. et al. Preprint at medRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.03.27.20042820 (2020).

Krpan, D. et al. Behav. Public Policy. 5 , 153–179 (2021).

COVID-19 National Preparedness Collaborators Lancet 399 , 1489–1512 (2022).

Download references

Sponsor feature: Enabling rapid responses to infectious diseases

Sponsor feature: How to build an mRNA arsenal for pandemic prevention

Public health
Human behaviour

‘Preposterous’: Anthony Fauci denies cover-up of COVID origins during tense hearing

News 03 JUN 24

Hope for global pandemic treaty rises — despite missed deadline

Chance of heatwaves in India rising with climate change

News Explainer 29 MAY 24

Japan’s push to make all research open access is taking shape

News 30 MAY 24

Mexico’s next president will be a scientist — researchers are split in their support

Adopt stricter regulation to stop ‘critical mineral’ greenwashing

Correspondence 28 MAY 24

How a tree-hugging protest transformed Indian environmentalism

Comment 26 MAR 24

Scientists under arrest: the researchers taking action over climate change

News Feature 21 FEB 24

Gender bias is more exaggerated in online images than in text

News & Views 14 FEB 24

Open Faculty Position in Mathematical and Information Security

We are now seeking outstanding candidates in all areas of mathematics and information security.

Dongguan, Guangdong, China

GREAT BAY INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED STUDY： Institute of Mathematical and Information Security

Faculty Positions & Postdocs at Institute of Physics (IOP), Chinese Academy of Sciences

IOP is the leading research institute in China in condensed matter physics and related fields. Through the steadfast efforts of generations of scie...

Beijing, China

Institute of Physics (IOP), Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS)

2024 Recruitment notice Shenzhen Institute of Synthetic Biology: Shenzhen, China

The wide-ranging expertise drawing from technical, engineering or science professions...

Shenzhen,China

Shenzhen Institute of Synthetic Biology

Multi-Disciplinary Studies of Biomolecular Condensates

Dallas, Texas (US)

The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (UT Southwestern Medical Center)

Research assistant (Postdoc) (m/f/d) - Department of Biology, Chemistry, Pharmacy - Institute of Bio

Department of Biology, Chemistry, Pharmacy - Institute of Biology Plant Physiology Research assistant (Postdoc) (m/f/d) full-time-job limited for u...

14195, Berlin Dahlem (DE)

Freie Universität Berlin

Quick links

Explore articles by subject
Guide to authors
Editorial policies

About Stanford GSB

The Leadership
Dean’s Updates
School News & History
Commencement
Business, Government & Society
Centers & Institutes
Center for Entrepreneurial Studies
Center for Social Innovation
Stanford Seed

About the Experience

Learning at Stanford GSB
Experiential Learning
Guest Speakers
Entrepreneurship
Social Innovation
Communication
Life at Stanford GSB
Collaborative Environment
Activities & Organizations
Student Services
Housing Options
International Students

Full-Time Degree Programs

Why Stanford MBA
Academic Experience
Financial Aid
Why Stanford MSx
Research Fellows Program
See All Programs

Non-Degree & Certificate Programs

Executive Education
Stanford Executive Program
Programs for Organizations
The Difference
Online Programs
Stanford LEAD
Seed Transformation Program
Aspire Program
Seed Spark Program
Faculty Profiles
Academic Areas
Awards & Honors
Conferences

Faculty Research

Publications
Working Papers
Case Studies

Research Hub

Research Labs & Initiatives
Business Library
Data, Analytics & Research Computing
Behavioral Lab

Research Labs

Cities, Housing & Society Lab
Golub Capital Social Impact Lab

Research Initiatives

Corporate Governance Research Initiative
Corporations and Society Initiative
Policy and Innovation Initiative
Rapid Decarbonization Initiative
Stanford Latino Entrepreneurship Initiative
Value Chain Innovation Initiative
Venture Capital Initiative
Career & Success
Climate & Sustainability
Corporate Governance
Culture & Society
Finance & Investing
Government & Politics
Leadership & Management
Markets and Trade
Operations & Logistics
Opportunity & Access
Technology & AI
Opinion & Analysis
Email Newsletter

Welcome, Alumni

Communities
Digital Communities & Tools
Regional Chapters
Women’s Programs
Identity Chapters
Find Your Reunion
Career Resources
Job Search Resources
Career & Life Transitions
Programs & Services
Career Video Library
Alumni Education
Research Resources
Volunteering
Alumni News
Class Notes
Alumni Voices
Contact Alumni Relations
Upcoming Events

Admission Events & Information Sessions

MBA Program
MSx Program
PhD Program
Alumni Events
All Other Events
Operations, Information & Technology
Organizational Behavior
Political Economy
Classical Liberalism
The Eddie Lunch
Accounting Summer Camp
Videos, Code & Data
California Econometrics Conference
California Quantitative Marketing PhD Conference
California School Conference
China India Insights Conference
Homo economicus, Evolving
Political Economics (2023–24)
Scaling Geologic Storage of CO2 (2023–24)
A Resilient Pacific: Building Connections, Envisioning Solutions
Adaptation and Innovation
Changing Climate
Civil Society
Climate Impact Summit
Climate Science
Corporate Carbon Disclosures
Earth’s Seafloor
Environmental Justice
Operations and Information Technology
Organizations
Sustainability Reporting and Control
Taking the Pulse of the Planet
Urban Infrastructure
Watershed Restoration
Junior Faculty Workshop on Financial Regulation and Banking
Ken Singleton Celebration
Marketing Camp
Quantitative Marketing PhD Alumni Conference
Presentations
Theory and Inference in Accounting Research
Stanford Closer Look Series
Quick Guides
Core Concepts
Journal Articles
Glossary of Terms
Faculty & Staff
Researchers & Students
Research Approach
Charitable Giving
Financial Health
Government Services
Workers & Careers
Short Course
Adaptive & Iterative Experimentation
Incentive Design
Social Sciences & Behavioral Nudges
Bandit Experiment Application
Conferences & Events
Get Involved
Reading Materials
Teaching & Curriculum
Energy Entrepreneurship
Faculty & Affiliates
SOLE Report
Responsible Supply Chains
Current Study Usage
Pre-Registration Information
Participate in a Study

Misdirecting Persuasive Efforts During the Covid-19 Pandemic: The Targets People Choose May Not Be the Most Likely to Change

Persuading people to engage in specific health behaviors is critical to prevent the spread of and mitigate the harm caused by COVID-19. Most of the research and practice around this issue focuses on developing effective message content. Importantly, though, persuasion is often critically dependent on choosing appropriate targets — that is, on selecting the best audience for one’s message. Three experiments conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic explore this target selection process and demonstrate misalignment between who persuaders target and who will display the greatest attitude and behavior change. Although people prefer to send messages encouraging COVID-19 prevention behaviors to targets with slightly negative attitudes toward the behaviors in question, their messages can often have more impact when sent to targets whose attitudes are slightly favorable. Recent insights in categorical perception and message positioning effects in persuasion help explain this misalignment.

Priorities for the GSB's Future
See the Current DEI Report
Supporting Data
Research & Insights
Share Your Thoughts
Search Fund Primer
Affiliated Faculty
Faculty Advisors
Louis W. Foster Resource Center
Defining Social Innovation
Impact Compass
Global Health Innovation Insights
Faculty Affiliates
Student Awards & Certificates
Changemakers
Dean Jonathan Levin
Dean Garth Saloner
Dean Robert Joss
Dean Michael Spence
Dean Robert Jaedicke
Dean Rene McPherson
Dean Arjay Miller
Dean Ernest Arbuckle
Dean Jacob Hugh Jackson
Dean Willard Hotchkiss
Faculty in Memoriam
Stanford GSB Firsts
Certificate & Award Recipients
Teaching Approach
Analysis and Measurement of Impact
The Corporate Entrepreneur: Startup in a Grown-Up Enterprise
Data-Driven Impact
Designing Experiments for Impact
Digital Business Transformation
The Founder’s Right Hand
Marketing for Measurable Change
Product Management
Public Policy Lab: Financial Challenges Facing US Cities
Public Policy Lab: Homelessness in California
Lab Features
Curricular Integration
View From The Top
Formation of New Ventures
Managing Growing Enterprises
Startup Garage
Explore Beyond the Classroom
Stanford Venture Studio
Summer Program
Workshops & Events
The Five Lenses of Entrepreneurship
Leadership Labs
Executive Challenge
Arbuckle Leadership Fellows Program
Selection Process
Training Schedule
Time Commitment
Learning Expectations
Post-Training Opportunities
Who Should Apply
Introductory T-Groups
Leadership for Society Program
Certificate
2023 Awardees
2022 Awardees
2021 Awardees
2020 Awardees
2019 Awardees
2018 Awardees
Social Management Immersion Fund
Stanford Impact Founder Fellowships and Prizes
Stanford Impact Leader Prizes
Social Entrepreneurship
Stanford GSB Impact Fund
Economic Development
Energy & Environment
Stanford GSB Residences
Environmental Leadership
Stanford GSB Artwork
A Closer Look
California & the Bay Area
Voices of Stanford GSB
Business & Beneficial Technology
Business & Sustainability
Business & Free Markets
Business, Government, and Society Forum
Second Year
Global Experiences
JD/MBA Joint Degree
MA Education/MBA Joint Degree
MD/MBA Dual Degree
MPP/MBA Joint Degree
MS Computer Science/MBA Joint Degree
MS Electrical Engineering/MBA Joint Degree
MS Environment and Resources (E-IPER)/MBA Joint Degree
Academic Calendar
Clubs & Activities
LGBTQ+ Students
Military Veterans
Minorities & People of Color
Partners & Families
Students with Disabilities
Student Support
Residential Life
Student Voices
MBA Alumni Voices
A Week in the Life
Career Support
Employment Outcomes
Cost of Attendance
Knight-Hennessy Scholars Program
Yellow Ribbon Program
BOLD Fellows Fund
Application Process
Loan Forgiveness
Contact the Financial Aid Office
Evaluation Criteria
GMAT & GRE
English Language Proficiency
Personal Information, Activities & Awards
Professional Experience
Letters of Recommendation
Optional Short Answer Questions
Application Fee
Reapplication
Deferred Enrollment
Joint & Dual Degrees
Entering Class Profile
Event Schedule
Ambassadors
New & Noteworthy
Ask a Question
See Why Stanford MSx
Is MSx Right for You?
MSx Stories
Leadership Development
Career Advancement
Career Change
How You Will Learn
Admission Events
Personal Information
Information for Recommenders
GMAT, GRE & EA
English Proficiency Tests
After You’re Admitted
Daycare, Schools & Camps
U.S. Citizens and Permanent Residents
Requirements
Requirements: Behavioral
Requirements: Quantitative
Requirements: Macro
Requirements: Micro
Annual Evaluations
Field Examination
Research Activities
Research Papers
Dissertation
Oral Examination
Current Students
Education & CV
International Applicants
Statement of Purpose
Reapplicants
Application Fee Waiver
Deadline & Decisions
Job Market Candidates
Academic Placements
Stay in Touch
Faculty Mentors
Current Fellows
Standard Track
Fellowship & Benefits
Group Enrollment
Program Formats
Developing a Program
Diversity & Inclusion
Strategic Transformation
Program Experience
Contact Client Services
Campus Experience
Live Online Experience
Silicon Valley & Bay Area
Digital Credentials
Faculty Spotlights
Participant Spotlights
Eligibility
International Participants
Stanford Ignite
Frequently Asked Questions
Founding Donors
Location Information
Participant Profile
Network Membership
Program Impact
Collaborators
Entrepreneur Profiles
Company Spotlights
Seed Transformation Network
Responsibilities
Current Coaches
How to Apply
Meet the Consultants
Meet the Interns
Intern Profiles
Collaborate
Research Library
News & Insights
Program Contacts
Databases & Datasets
Research Guides
Consultations
Research Workshops
Career Research
Research Data Services
Course Reserves
Course Research Guides
Material Loan Periods
Fines & Other Charges
Document Delivery
Interlibrary Loan
Equipment Checkout
Print & Scan
MBA & MSx Students
PhD Students
Other Stanford Students
Faculty Assistants
Research Assistants
Stanford GSB Alumni
Telling Our Story
Staff Directory
Site Registration
Alumni Directory
Alumni Email
Privacy Settings & My Profile
Success Stories
The Story of Circles
Support Women’s Circles
Stanford Women on Boards Initiative
Alumnae Spotlights
Insights & Research
Industry & Professional
Entrepreneurial Commitment Group
Recent Alumni
Half-Century Club
Fall Reunions
Spring Reunions
MBA 25th Reunion
Half-Century Club Reunion
Faculty Lectures
Ernest C. Arbuckle Award
Alison Elliott Exceptional Achievement Award
ENCORE Award
Excellence in Leadership Award
John W. Gardner Volunteer Leadership Award
Robert K. Jaedicke Faculty Award
Jack McDonald Military Service Appreciation Award
Jerry I. Porras Latino Leadership Award
Tapestry Award
Student & Alumni Events
Executive Recruiters
Interviewing
Land the Perfect Job with LinkedIn
Negotiating
Elevator Pitch
Email Best Practices
Resumes & Cover Letters
Self-Assessment
Whitney Birdwell Ball
Margaret Brooks
Bryn Panee Burkhart
Margaret Chan
Ricki Frankel
Peter Gandolfo
Cindy W. Greig
Natalie Guillen
Carly Janson
Sloan Klein
Sherri Appel Lassila
Stuart Meyer
Tanisha Parrish
Virginia Roberson
Philippe Taieb
Michael Takagawa
Terra Winston
Johanna Wise
Debbie Wolter
Rebecca Zucker
Complimentary Coaching
Changing Careers
Work-Life Integration
Career Breaks
Flexible Work
Encore Careers
Join a Board
D&B Hoovers
Data Axle (ReferenceUSA)
EBSCO Business Source
Global Newsstream
Market Share Reporter
ProQuest One Business
Student Clubs
Entrepreneurial Students
Stanford GSB Trust
Alumni Community
How to Volunteer
Springboard Sessions
Consulting Projects
2020 – 2029
2010 – 2019
2000 – 2009
1990 – 1999
1980 – 1989
1970 – 1979
1960 – 1969
1950 – 1959
1940 – 1949
Service Areas
ACT History
ACT Awards Celebration
ACT Governance Structure
Building Leadership for ACT
Individual Leadership Positions
Leadership Role Overview
Purpose of the ACT Management Board
Contact ACT
Business & Nonprofit Communities
Reunion Volunteers
Ways to Give
Fiscal Year Report
Business School Fund Leadership Council
Planned Giving Options
Planned Giving Benefits
Planned Gifts and Reunions
Legacy Partners
Giving News & Stories
Giving Deadlines
Development Staff
Submit Class Notes
Class Secretaries
Board of Directors
Health Care
Sustainability
Class Takeaways
All Else Equal: Making Better Decisions
If/Then: Business, Leadership, Society
Grit & Growth
Think Fast, Talk Smart
Spring 2022
Spring 2021
Autumn 2020
Summer 2020
Winter 2020
In the Media
For Journalists
DCI Fellows
Other Auditors
Academic Calendar & Deadlines
Course Materials
Entrepreneurial Resources
Campus Drive Grove
Campus Drive Lawn
CEMEX Auditorium
King Community Court
Seawell Family Boardroom
Stanford GSB Bowl
Stanford Investors Common
Town Square
Vidalakis Courtyard
Vidalakis Dining Hall
Catering Services
Policies & Guidelines
Reservations
Contact Faculty Recruiting
Lecturer Positions
Postdoctoral Positions
Accommodations
CMC-Managed Interviews
Recruiter-Managed Interviews
Virtual Interviews
Campus & Virtual
Search for Candidates
Think Globally
Recruiting Calendar
Recruiting Policies
Full-Time Employment
Summer Employment
Entrepreneurial Summer Program
Global Management Immersion Experience
Social-Purpose Summer Internships
Process Overview
Project Types
Client Eligibility Criteria
Client Screening
ACT Leadership
Social Innovation & Nonprofit Management Resources
Develop Your Organization’s Talent
Centers & Initiatives
Student Fellowships

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
Elsevier - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Persuasive messaging to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake intentions

Erin k. james.

a Yale Institute for Global Health, New Haven, CT, USA

b Department of Internal Medicine, Section of Infectious Diseases, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA

Scott E. Bokemper

c Institution for Social and Policy Studies, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA

d Center for the Study of American Politics, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA

Alan S. Gerber

e Department of Political Science, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA

Saad B. Omer

f Department of Epidemiology of Microbial Diseases, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT, USA

g Yale School of Nursing, West Haven, CT, USA

Gregory A. Huber

Associated data.

Widespread vaccination remains the best option for controlling the spread of COVID-19 and ending the pandemic. Despite the considerable disruption the virus has caused to people’s lives, many people are still hesitant to receive a vaccine. Without high rates of uptake, however, the pandemic is likely to be prolonged. Here we use two survey experiments to study how persuasive messaging affects COVID-19 vaccine uptake intentions. In the first experiment, we test a large number of treatment messages. One subgroup of messages draws on the idea that mass vaccination is a collective action problem and highlighting the prosocial benefit of vaccination or the reputational costs that one might incur if one chooses not to vaccinate. Another subgroup of messages built on contemporary concerns about the pandemic, like issues of restricting personal freedom or economic security. We find that persuasive messaging that invokes prosocial vaccination and social image concerns is effective at increasing intended uptake and also the willingness to persuade others and judgments of non-vaccinators. We replicate this result on a nationally representative sample of Americans and observe that prosocial messaging is robust across subgroups, including those who are most hesitant about vaccines generally. The experiments demonstrate how persuasive messaging can induce individuals to be more likely to vaccinate and also create spillover effects to persuade others to do so as well.

The first experiment in this study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov and can be found under the ID number {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT04460703","term_id":"NCT04460703"}} NCT04460703 . This study was registered at Open Science Framework (OSF) at: https://osf.io/qu8nb/?view_only=82f06ecad77f4e54b02e8581a65047d7.

1. Introduction

The global spread of COVID-19 created an urgent need for safe and effective vaccines against the disease. However, even though several successful vaccines have become available, vaccine hesitancy in the general population has the potential to limit the efficacy of vaccines as a tool for ending the pandemic. For instance, in the United States, the public’s willingness to receive a vaccine has declined from 72 % saying they would be likely to get a COVID-19 vaccine in May 2020 to 60 % of people reporting that they would receive a vaccine as of November 2020 [ 1 ]. Given the considerable amount of skepticism about the safety and efficacy of a COVID-19 vaccine, it has become increasingly important to understand how public health communication can play a role in increasing COVID-19 vaccine uptake.

Vaccination is both a self-interested and a prosocial action [ [2] , [3] , [4] , [5] , [6] , [7] , [8] , [9] ]. By getting vaccinated, people protect themselves from a disease, but they also reduce the chance that they become a vector through which the disease spreads to others. If enough people receive a vaccine, the population gains protection through herd immunity, but this also creates an incentive for an individual to not get vaccinated because they can forgo vaccination and receive protection from others who do vaccinate. Recent research on vaccination in general has demonstrated that people view vaccination as a social contract and are less willing to cooperate with those who choose not to get inoculated [ 10 ]. This work also implies that highlighting the reputational costs of choosing not to vaccinate could be an effective strategy for increasing uptake. Further, appeals to herd immunity and the prosocial aspect of vaccination have been shown to increase uptake intentions [ [11] , [12] , [13] ], but emphasizing the possibility of free riding on other’s immunity reduces the willingness to get vaccinated [ 14 ].

Focusing specifically on vaccination against COVID-19, recent studies have found that messages that explain herd immunity increase willingness to receive a vaccine [ 15 ] and reduces the time that people would wait to get vaccinated when a vaccine becomes available to them [ 16 ]. However, other work has found that prosocial appeals did not increase average COVID-19 vaccination intentions [ 17 ] and the effect of prosocial concerns was present in sparsely populated places, but absent in more densely populated ones [ 18 ]. Given the current state of evidence, it is unclear whether appealing to getting a COVID-19 vaccine as a way to protect others will increase willingness to vaccinate.

Viewing vaccination through the lens of a collective action problem suggests that in addition to increasing individuals’ intentions to receive a vaccine, effective public health messages would also increase people’s willingness to encourage those close to them to vaccinate and to hold negative judgments of those who do not vaccinate. By encouraging those close to them to vaccinate, people are both promoting compliance with social norms and increasing their own level of protection against the disease. Also, by judging those who do not vaccinate more negatively, they apply social pressure to others to promote cooperative behavior. This would be consistent with theories of cooperation, like indirect reciprocity or partner choice, that rely on free riders being punished or ostracized for their past actions to encourage prosocial outcomes [ [19] , [20] , [21] , [22] , [23] ]. Thus, effective messaging could have outsized effects on promoting vaccination if it both causes people to vaccinate themselves and to encourage those around them to do so.

We conducted two pre-registered experiments to study how different persuasive messages affect intentions to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, willingness to persuade friends and relatives to receive one, and negative judgments of people who choose not to vaccinate. In the first experiment, we tested the efficacy of a large number of messages against an untreated control condition (see Table 1 for full text of messages). A subgroup of the messages in Experiment 1 drew on this collective action framework of vaccination and emphasized who benefits from vaccination or how choosing not to vaccinate hurts one’s social image. A second subgroup drew on contemporary arguments about restrictions on liberty and economic activity during the COVID-19 pandemic. In Experiment 2, we retested the most effective messages from Experiment 1 on a nationally representative sample of American adults. By utilizing this test and re-test design, we guard against false positive results that are observed by chance among the large number of messages tested in Experiment 1. In our analysis of both experiments, we examined whether specific messages were more effective among certain subgroups of the population.

Experimental treatment messages for Experiment 1 and Experiment 2. All messages add the prose in the table to the content of the Baseline informational control. All of the messages in the table were tested in Experiment 1. The messages that are bolded were retested in Experiment 2.

Experiment 1 was fielded in early July 2020. Participants were randomly assigned to either a placebo control condition in which they read a story about the effectiveness of bird feeders or one of eleven treatment messages. The first message is a Baseline informational control condition that describes how it is important to receive a vaccine to reduce your risk of contracting COVID-19 or spreading it to others. Informational messages have been shown to be effective at increasing COVID-19 vaccine uptake intentions [ 24 ]. This message also emphasized that vaccines are safe and estimated to save millions of lives per year. The other messages add additional content to this baseline message.

The subgroup of messages that emphasized collective action varied who would benefit from vaccination or what other people might think of someone who chooses to be a free rider by not vaccinating. Focusing on who benefits from vaccination, the second message invoked Self Interest and reinforced the idea that vaccination is a self-protecting action (“Remember, getting vaccinated against COVID-19 is the single best way to protect yourself from getting sick.”). The third message, Community Interest, instead argued that vaccination is a cooperative action to protect other people (“Stopping COVID-19 is important because it reduces the risk that members of your family and community could get sick and die.”). This message also invoked reciprocity by emphasizing the importance of every-one working together to protect others.

The fourth, fifth, and sixth messages added an invocation of an emotion, Guilt, Embarrassment, or Anger, to the Community Interest message. These messages prompted people to think about how they would feel if they chose not to get vaccinated and spread COVID-19 to someone else in the future. Emotions are thought to play a role in cooperation, either by motivating an individual to take an action because of a feeling that they experience or restraining them from taking an action because of the emotional response it would provoke in others [ [25] , [26] , [27] ]. Further, anticipated emotional states have been shown to promote various health behaviors, like vaccination [ [28] , [29] ].

The seventh and eighth messages evoked concerns about one’s reputation and social image, which influences their attractiveness as a cooperative partner to others. The seventh, a Not Bravery message, reframed the idea that being unafraid of the virus is not a brave action, but instead selfish, and that the way to demonstrate bravery is by getting vaccinated because it shows strength and concern for others (“To show strength get the vaccine so you don’t get sick and take resources from other people who need them more”). The eighth message was a Trust in Science message that highlights that scientists believe a vaccine will be an effective way of limiting the spread of COVID-19. This message suggests that those who do not get vaccinated do not understand science and signal this ignorance to others (“Not getting vaccinated will show people that you are probably the sort of person who doesn’t understand how infection spreads and who ignores or are confused about science.”).

The final three messages drew on concerns about restrictions on freedom and economic activity that were widespread during the COVID-19 pandemic. A pair of messages focused on how vaccination would allow for a restoration of Personal Freedom (“Government policies to prevent the spread of COVID-19 limit our freedom of association and movement”) or Economic Freedom (“Government policies to prevent the spread of COVID-19 have stopped businesses from opening up”). These messages take a value that is commonly invoked in individuals’ decision to not vaccinate [ [30] , [31] ] and reframed vaccination as something that would actually restore freedoms that had been taken away. The final message, Community Economic Benefit, argues that a vaccine will help return people’s financial security and strengthen the economy This message is similar to the Community Interest messages that are described above, but instead focuses on cooperating to restore the economy (“We can all end this outbreak and strengthen the national economy by working together and getting vaccinated”).

2.1. Experiment 1 results

Panel A of Fig. 1 plots the effect of each vaccine message relative to the untreated control group on intention to vaccinate. The intention to vaccinate measure was formed by combining responses to a question about the likelihood of getting a COVID-19 vaccine within the first 3 months that one is available with a question about getting a vaccine within the first year that one is available. Specifically, for respondents who did not answer that they were very likely to vaccinate within the first three months that a vaccine is available to them, we asked how likely they would be to vaccinate within a year. This measure coded those who are very likely in the first three months at the highest value on the scale followed by very likely within a year descending down to very unlikely within the first year. Analyzing the vaccination item separately does not substantively change the results. All outcome variables were scored 0 to 1, with higher values indicating greater willingness to endorse the pro-vaccine action or belief (Underlying regressions appear in Table S1 and unless otherwise noted, all analyses were pre-registered).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is gr1_lrg.jpg

Experiment 1. Messages that frame vaccination as a cooperative action to protect others or emphasize how non-vaccination might negatively affect one’s social image increase reported willingness to advise a friend, and judgment of non-vaccinators. Panel A displays treatment effects for the combined measure of intention to vaccinate, Panel B displays the advise a friend outcome, and Panel C displays the judging a non-vaccinator outcome. Treatment effects for both panels were estimated using OLS regression that included covariates. The effects displayed are a comparison against the placebo control baseline and are presented with 95% confidence intervals. The dashed vertical line is the effect of the Baseline informational control for each outcome.

Compared to the untreated control, the Baseline informational message was associated with modest increases in intention to vaccinate by 0.034 units (95 % CI:0.002, 0.065; p < .05). This effect represents an increase of approximately 6 % in the scale score compared to the outcome in the control condition.

By comparison, the Community Interest, Community Interest + Guilt, Embarrassment, or Anger, Not Bravery, Trust in Science and Personal Freedom messages all produce larger effects, at least qualitatively, than the Baseline informational message on the intention to vaccinate outcome. Effects for the Self-Interest, Economic Freedom, and Community Economic benefit messages were not consistently distinguishable from the untreated control group outcomes, and their effects were indistinguishable from the effects of the Baseline informational message.

The most promising messages were the Not Bravery, Community Interest, and Community Interest + Embarrassment messages. These messages were associated with effects that were statistically distinguishable from the untreated control group (Not Bravery: 0.077 units, 95 % CI: 0.035, 0.119; p < .01, Community Interest: 0.090 units, 95 % CI: 0.050, 0.129; p < .01, Community Interest + Embarrassment: 0.094 units, 95 % CI: 0.054, 0.134; p < .01) at p < .01. Moreover, their effects were always more than twice as large as the Baseline informational treatment and these differences were significant at p < .05 (two-tailed tests). The effects of the Trust in Science message and the Personal Freedom message were not statistically significant when compared to the Baseline informational message.

To put the magnitudes of the effects into context, we re-estimated our analysis after dichotomizing the intended vaccine uptake measure such that those who report they were “somewhat” or “very” likely to get the vaccine, either with three months or a year, are coded as 1 and those who do not are coded 0 (this analysis was not pre-registered). This produced a predicted rate of intended vaccination in the control group of 58.2 %. Respondents who read the Baseline informational message were 7.4 percentage points (95 % CI: 2.9 pp, 12.0 pp; p < .01) more likely to receive a vaccine. Among those assigned to the Not Bravery or Community Interest messages it was predicted to increase by 10.4 percentage points and 12.7 percentage points (Not Bravery: 95 % CI: 4.3 pp, 16.4 pp; p < .01, Community Interest: 95 % CI: 6.7 pp, 18.7 pp; p < .01) respectively, while among those assigned to the Community Interest + Embarrassment message it was predicted to increases by 15.9 percentage points (95 % CI: 10.2 pp, 21.6 pp; p < .01). This last difference was substantively large, representing a proportional increase of 27 % (0.159/0.582) compared to the control condition and a 13 % increase compared to the Baseline informational condition (0.159-0.074)/(0.582 + 0.074).

Turning to the other regarding outcomes that focused on spurring action by others, Panel B plots the effects of each vaccine message relative to the untreated control for advising a friend to receive a vaccine and Panel C plots the effects for negatively judging someone who refuses to receive one. Here, the effect of the Baseline informational intervention was modest and statistically insignificant. However, the Not Bravery, Trust in Science, Personal Freedom, Community Interest, Community Interest + Guilt, and Community Interest + Embarrassment messages had larger effects on both outcomes that were statistically distinguishable from the control outcome.

The most promising message was the Community Interest + Embarrassment message for the advise a friend outcome, which was associated with a 0.09 unit increase in the scale outcome (95 % CI: 0.049, 0.132; p < .01 two-tailed test), an effect that represents an increase of 27 % compared to the mean scale score in the control group. The effect was 0.067 units compared to the Baseline informational message (95 % CI: 0.027, 0.105; p = .001, two-tailed test). We conducted a similar exercise to the one describe above to gauge the relative magnitude of these treatment effects. For the Community Interest + Embarrassment message we estimated a 15 percentage point increase (95 % CI: 0.088, 0.209; p < .01, two tailed test,) in a binary intention to advise others to vaccinate outcome, a proportional increase of 27 % compared to the control group baseline of 53 % (0.15/0.53). This effect was also 6 percentage points larger than the effect of the baseline message (95 % CI: 0.008, 0.121; p = .03, two-tailed test).

The most promising outcome for the negative judgment of non-vaccinators was the Not Bravery message, which had an effect of 0.09 scale points (95 % CI: 0.052, 0.126; p < .01, two-tailed test) compared to the untreated control and 0.072 scale points versus the Baseline information (95 % CI: 0.037, 0.106; p < .01 Baseline message, two-tailed tests). This corresponded to a 21 % increase compared to the scale outcome in the control group (0.09/0.43). These are both substantively and statistically meaningful effects. The Community Interest, Community Interest + Guilt, Community Interest + Embarrassment, Trust in Science, and Personal Freedom messages all produced effects that were statistically distinguishable from the control condition.

We also investigated the robustness of these findings to sample restrictions and whether certain subgroups were more responsive to specific treatment messages (reported in Figures S2-S12 ). Results were generally robust to restricting the sample to those who were over the 10th percentile and under the 90th percentile for completion time. For subgroup analyses, those scoring low in liberty endorsement appeared more responsive to the Baseline treatment and to the Not Bravery message than are those who scored high in liberty endorsement. Those who report being less likely to take risks appeared robustly more responsive to the Not Bravery message than those who were high in risk taking. Those who were high in risk taking appear more responsive to the Personal Freedom message with regard to their own behavioral intentions. Certain groups appeared generically easier to persuade (Democrats rather than Republicans, an important divide that has emerged during the pandemic [ 32 ], and Women rather than Men), but there were no clear differences in which treatments appeared most effective across these groups. We explored the robustness of these subgroup differences in Experiment 2.

Taken together, the most successful messages in Experiment 1 were those that were theoretically motivated by viewing vaccination as a collective action problem. Consistent with previous work that demonstrates that prosocial appeals are effective in promoting vaccination, the Community Interest message and Community Interest + Guilt, Embarrassment, or Anger messages increased COVID-19 vaccine uptake intentions. Moving beyond who benefits from vaccination, the Not Bravery and Trust in Science messages that invoked concerns about one’s social image if they choose not to vaccinate also increased uptake intentions. All of the collective action oriented messages increased intentions to advise a friend to vaccinate and negative judgments of those who do not, potentially creating spillover effects that induce others to vaccinate. In addition to this subgroup of messages, we found that reframing vaccination as a way to restore freedom was also effective, though the other messages motivated by contemporary debates about the pandemic were generally no more effective than the Baseline condition.

2.2. Experiment 2 results

Experiment 2 tested the subset of the best performing messages from Experiment 1 on a nationally representative sample in September 2020. Notably, in the several month period between Experiment 1 and Experiment 2, the public had grown increasingly skeptical of a potential COVID-19 vaccine [ 1 ]. Panel A of Fig. 2 plots the effect of each vaccine message, relative to the untreated control group, on the same measure of intention to vaccinate used in Experiment 1. (The model specifications shown in the figure were from our pre-registered specifications, underlying regression appear in Table S2.). Given that we observed the messages from Experiment 1 were effective at increasing vaccine uptake, we pre-registered directional hypotheses for Experiment 2 that tested whether the effects could be replicated on a nationally representative sample. Accordingly, we report one-tailed hypothesis tests and 90 % confidence intervals in the results presented below. Results largely confirmed the patterns observed in Experiment 1.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is gr2_lrg.jpg

Experiment 2. The Not Bravery, Community Interest, and Community Interest + Embarrassment messages increase both intentions to vaccinate and other-regarding outcomes. Panel A displays treatment effects for intentions to vaccinate, Panel B displays the advise a friend, and Panel C displays the judging a non-vaccinator outcomes. Treatment effects for both panels were estimated using OLS regression that included covariates. The effects displayed are a comparison against the placebo control baseline and are presented with 90 % confidence intervals. The dashed vertical line is the effect of the Baseline informational control for each outcome.

The Baseline informational treatment was associated with a modest increase, 0.029 units, in intention to vaccinate (90 % CI: 0.011, 0.046; p < .01, one-tailed test). This effect was a 6 % increase of the observed scale outcome in the untreated control group.

The Community Interest and Community Interest + Embarrassment messages were associated with qualitatively larger effects on intended vaccine uptake. These messages were associated with increases of 0.045 units (90 % CI: 0.021, 0.070; p < .01, one-tailed test) and 0.043 units (90 % CI: 0.019, 0.067; p < .01, one-tailed test), respectively. As with Experiment 1, we recoded those who stated they were “somewhat” or “very” likely to receive the vaccine as 1 and those who did not report that they were likely to receive it as 0 (this analysis was not pre-registered: for consistency we report 90 % confidence intervals). This binary measure produced a predicted rate of intended vaccination in the control group of 51.4 %. Intended uptake was 3.3 percentage points higher in the Baseline information condition (90 % CI: 0.5 pp, 6.0 pp; p < .05, one-tailed test), 3.5 percentage points higher in the Community Interest + Embarrassment condition (90 % CI: −0.1 pp, 7.0 pp; p = .06, one-tailed test), and 5 percentage points higher in the Community Interest condition (90 % CI: 1.3 pp, 0.8.7 pp; p < .05, one-tailed test). The latter effect was proportionally large—10 % compared to the baseline predict rate in the control group (0.050/0.514).

On average, the Not Bravery, Trust in Science, and Personal Freedom messages were approximately as effective as the informational content to which they were added in increasing intention to vaccinate, which differs from Experiment 1 where they modestly outperformed the Baseline informational condition.

Turning to other regarding outcomes, Panel B of Fig. 2 plots effects for advice given to others and Panel C does so for negative judgments of non-vaccinators. The Baseline informational treatment was again associated with statistically significant increases in each outcome. For these outcomes, the Not Bravery, Trust in Science, and both Community Interest messages produced effects that were at least descriptively larger than the Baseline treatment. The effects for the Personal Freedom message were smaller than the Baseline informational treatment, a result that again diverged from Experiment 1.

In terms of advising others to vaccinate, the most effective message was the Community Interest + Embarrassment message, which was also the most effective message in Experiment 1. This effect was 0.07 scale points (90 % CI: 0.043, 0.095; p < .01, one-tailed test), an increase of 14 % compared to the control group average scale score of 0.51 (0.07/0.51). This effect was also statistically distinguishable from the effect of the Baseline informational treatment (difference = 0.045; 90 % CI: 0.020, 0.069; p < .01, one-tailed test). When dichotomizing the advise a friend outcome to better describe the magnitude of the effect, we estimated that the Community interest + Embarrassment message was associated with a 10 percentage point increase (90 % CI: 0.064, 0.140; p < .01, one-tailed test) in intention to advise others to vaccinate compared to the control group, a proportional increase of 27 % compared to the control group baseline of 38 % (0.10/0.38). This effect was approximately 6 points larger than the effect of the Baseline message (90 % CI: 0.026, 0.099; p < .01, one-tailed test).

In terms of judging non-vaccinators, the largest effects were for the Not Bravery and Trust in Science messages, with each effect also statistically distinguishable from the Baseline message. Notably, in this sample the Trust in Science message had large effects on beliefs and actions toward others but appeared ineffective in changing an individual’s own intended vaccination behavior. The Not Bravery message was also the most effective message in this regard in Experiment 1.

We examined three pre-registered differences in subgroup treatment effects to test the patterns observed in Experiment 1. First, confirming Experiment 1 we found that those who did not endorse liberty values were more responsive to the Not Bravery message (compared to the baseline message) than those who endorsed liberty values for the three outcome measures. Second, we did not confirm either preregistered prediction with regard to differences in treatment effects by risk taking that were observed in Experiment 1.

The remaining subgroup comparisons were not pre-registered. Beginning with gender, in comparison to the untreated control, women responded more to the Trust in Science and Community Interest + Embarrassment message than did men (all five outcomes), while men responded more to the Not Bravery and Community Interest (without embarrassment) messages. Democrats were more responsive than Republicans across the board to the different treatment messages, while Republicans appeared to react only to the Community Interest and Community Interest + Embarrassment messages (magnitudes similar to those of Democrats). We observed a similar pattern for differences by baseline vaccine confidence, measured pre-treatment with a multi-item battery of questions [ 33 ]. Those high in vaccine confidence responded to all messages, while those low in confidence responded reliably only to the Community Interest messages.

3. Discussion

Overall, the results point both to a set of effective messages and the potential efficacy of specific messages for some particular subgroups. On average, a simple informational intervention is effective, but it is even more effective to add language framing vaccine uptake as protecting others and as a cooperative action. Not only does emphasizing that vaccination is a prosocial action increase uptake, but it also increases people’s willingness to pressure others to do so, both by direct persuasion and negative judgment of non-vaccinators. The latter social pressure effects may be enhanced by highlighting how embarrassing it would be to infect someone else after failing to vaccinate. The Not Bravery and Trust in Science messages had substantial effects on other regarding outcomes and for some subgroups, but do not appear to be as effective as the Community Interest messages in promoting own vaccination behavior. Importantly, in distinct samples fielded several months apart, the Community Interest, Community Interest + Embarrassment, and the Not Bravery messages produced substantively meaningful increases for all outcomes measures relative to the untreated control, and in some instances did so in comparison to the Baseline information condition.

Our findings are consistent with the idea that vaccination is often treated as a social contract in which people are expected to vaccinate and those who do not are sanctioned [ 10 ]. In addition to messages emphasizing the prosocial element of vaccination, we observed that messages that invoked reputational concerns were successful at altering judgment of those who would free ride on the contributions of others. This work could also help explain why social norm effects appear to overwhelm the incentive to free ride when vaccination rates are higher [ [34] , [35] ]. That is, messages that increased intentions to vaccinate also increased the moralization of non-vaccinators suggesting that they are fundamentally linked to one another. These messages will need to be adapted in specific cultural contexts with relevant partners, such as community leaders.

The robust effect of the Community Interest message advances our current understanding of whether public health messaging that deploys prosocial concerns could be effective at increasing COVID-19 vaccine uptake. The results of both experiments presented here support prior work that demonstrated the effectiveness of communication that explains herd immunity on promoting vaccination [ [15] , [16] ]. It also suggests that a detailed explanation of herd immunity may not be necessary to induce prosocial behavior.

Beyond the theoretical contribution, the results have practical implications for vaccine communication strategies for increasing COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. We identified multiple effective messages that provide several evidence-based options to immunization programs as they develop their vaccine communication strategies. Importantly, the insights into differential effectiveness of various messages by subgroup (e.g. men vs women) could inform messaging targeted to specific groups. Understanding heterogeneous treatment effects and the mechanisms that cause differential responses to persuasive messaging strategies requires additional testing and theoretical development. We view this as a promising avenue for future work.

The experiments presented here are not without limitations. First, we measured intentions to vaccinate at a time when a vaccine was not currently available and the effectiveness and side effects of potential vaccines were not known. This also meant that we could not observe actual vaccination behavior, which is ultimately the outcome of interest. While intentions predict behavior in many contexts [ [36] , [37] ] including vaccination [ [38] , [39] , [40] ], past research examining the effect of behavioral nudges on COVID-19 vaccine uptake has produced divergent evidence when testing the effect of the same treatments in the field on behavior and in a survey experiment on a behavioral intention [ 41 ]. This observation highlights the need for field testing messages that have shown to be successful on increasing uptake intentions in survey experiments to ascertain whether they also increase vaccine uptake. It may be that field tests reveal certain messages are particularly less effective than in the survey context, or that messages are uniformly less effective. Second, given the rapidly evolving nature of the COVID-19 pandemic, attitudes about vaccines may have changed since the experiments were fielded which could also change the efficacy of the messages that we tested. Third, we cannot be sure whether, or how long, the effects we observe here persist. Finally, we only tested text-based messages, but public health messaging is delivered through many mediums, like public service announcements, videos, and images. Future work can adapt the successful messaging strategies found here and test their efficacy when delivered in alternative formats.

Efforts to vaccinate individuals against COVID-19 are currently underway in the United States and it remains important to convince the mass public of the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines to ensure that the threshold for herd immunity is reached. Our experiments provide robust evidence that appealing to protecting others has effects on intentions to get vaccinated and to apply social pressure to others to do so as well.

4. Materials and methods

4.1. ethics statement.

The experiments reported here were fielded under an exemption granted by the Yale University IRB. Informed consent was obtained from participants and they were informed that they could stop the study at any time. Data was collected anonymously and contained no personally identifiable information.

4.2. Experiment 1

Participants and Procedure. Participants were recruited by the vendor Luc.id to take a survey. Of those who were recruited, 4,361 participants completed the survey. An examination of attrition during the survey reveals that attrition was balanced across groups which minimizes concerns that the treatment effects estimated in the main manuscript are affected by attrition. The survey was programmed using the survey software Qualtrics. The survey was fielded between July 3, 2020 and July 8, 2020.

Experimental Design. Participants first completed basic demographic and pre-treatment attitudinal questions and were asked about their experience with COVID-19. After this, participants read a treatment message. They were required to spend at least 20 s on the survey page that contained the message to given them an adequate amount of time to read it. We allocated 2/15 of the sample to the untreated control condition and 1/5 of the sample to the Information baseline condition due to the number of comparisons that would utilize these conditions. Each of the remaining conditions received 1/15 of the sample. The design and analysis were pre-registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (protocol ID: 2000027983).

Outcome Measures. For COVID-19 vaccine uptake intentions, participants were asked “How likely are you to get a COVID-19 vaccine within the first 3 months that it is available to you?” and “How likely are you to get a COVID-19 vaccine in the first year that it is available to you?” Respondents answered this question on a five-point scale with end points of “Extremely unlikely” and “Extremely likely.” The main text describes how these items were combined for analysis. Turning to the likelihood of advising someone to vaccinate, respondents were asked “How likely are you to advise a close friend or relative to get vaccinated against COVID-19 once a vaccine becomes available?” Respondents also answered this question on a five-point scale with end points of “Extremely unlikely” and “Extremely likely.” Finally, for judging someone who chooses not to vaccinate, respondents read “we would like you to think about a friend or relative who chose not to receive a COVID-19 vaccine when it is available. What would you think about this person? Are they…”. This prompt was followed by four traits: trustworthy, selfish, likeable, and competent. The response options were “not at all”, “slightly”, “somewhat”, “mostly”, and “very.”

Analysis. We used OLS regression with robust Huber-White standard errors and indicators for assigned treatment to estimate treatment effects. We use robust standard errors to address the heteroscedasticity observed when estimating our primary analysis models without them. We included covariates as described in the Supplementary Materials . Comparisons across treatments are from linear combination of coefficients tests. For the subgroup analyses, we restricted the sample to the stated criteria and estimate the model specified here on the subsample. For liberty endorsement and risk taking, we determined who was high and low by splitting the sample at the mean.

4.3. Experiment 2

Participants and Procedure. Participants ( n = 5,014) were recruited by the vendor YouGov/Polimetrix. YouGov provides subjects using a sampling procedure that is designed to match a number of Census demographics. To determine the sample size, we conducted a power analysis to detect effects that were 80 % as large as those observed in Experiment 1. The experiment was fielded between September 9, 2020 and September 22, 2020.

Experimental Design. Participants first completed basic demographic and pre-treatment attitudinal questions and were asked about their experience with COVID-19. Participants were randomly assigned to one of seven conditions: the untreated control, the Information baseline control, Community Interest, Community Interest + Anticipated Embarrassment, Not Bravery, Trust in Science, or Personal Freedom. As in Experiment 1, more participants were assigned to the untreated control condition and the Baseline information control condition, 1/5 and 3/10 of the sample respectively. The remaining five conditions each received 1/10 of the sample. Participants were required to spend at least 30 s on the survey page that had the treatment message. The design and analysis were pre-registered at Open Science Framework.

Outcome Measures. The outcome measurement was the same as described in Experiment 1 with the exception of intelligent being added to the judgment of a non-vaccinator scale.

Analysis. We used the same modeling approach described above to produce the results displayed in Fig. 2 . We included covariates as described in the Supplementary Materials . For subgroup analyses, we estimated OLS regression models with an indicator variable if a person was a member of a subgroup (e.g. high endorsement of liberty) and zero otherwise.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Erin K. James: Conceptualization, Writing- original draft, Writing- review and editing. Scott E. Bokemper: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analyses. Alan S. Gerber: Conceptualization, Writing- review and editing. Saad B. Omer: Conceptualization, Writing- review and editing. Gregory A. Huber: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analyses, Writing- original draft, Writing- review and editing.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge support for the Tobin Center for Economic Policy at Yale University. EKJ and SBO were supported by the Yale Institute for Global Health.

SEB, ASG, and GAH received support from the Institution for Social and Policy Studies and the Center for the Study of American Politics at Yale University.

Appendix A Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.10.039 .

Appendix A. Supplementary material

The following are the Supplementary data to this article:

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

The effect of persuasive messages in promoting home-based physical activity during covid-19 pandemic.

$\nValentina Carfora &#x;$

Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Milan, Italy

We tested the plausibility of a persuasion model to understand the effects of messages framed in terms of gain, non-loss, loss, and non-gain, and related to the physical, mental and social consequences of doing physical activity at home during the lockdown restrictions. 272 Italian participants responded to a questionnaire on their attitude and intention at Time 1, frequency of past behavior, and self-efficacy related to exercising at home. Then, participants were randomly assigned to four different message conditions: (a) gain messages focused on the positive outcomes associated with doing physical activity at home; (b) non-loss messages focused on the avoided negative outcomes associated with doing physical activity at home; (d) loss messages focused on the negative outcomes associated with not doing physical activity at home; (c) non-gain messages focused on the missed positive outcomes associated with not doing physical activity at home. After reading the messages, participants answered a series of questions regarding their perception of threat and fear, their evaluation of the messages, and their attitude and intention toward exercising at home at Time 2. Using multigroup structural equation modeling, we compared message conditions, and tested whether the effects of the messages on attitude and intention at Time 2 were mediated by message-induced threat, message-induced fear, and message evaluation. Results showed that the perception of the messages as not threatening was the key point to activate a positive evaluation of the recommendation. The highest persuasive effect was observed in the case of the non-loss frame, which did not threaten the receivers, triggered a moderated fear and, in turn, activated a positive evaluation of the recommendation, as well as higher attitude and intention to do home-based physical activity at Time 2. Overall, these results advance our comprehension of the effects of message framing on receivers' attitudes and intentions toward home-based physical activity.

Introduction

The Coronavirus (Covid-19) appeared in December 2019 in China (Wuhan) and the infection rapidly spread throughout the world. Three months later, Covid-19 became a worldwide pandemic with more than 1,728,878 cases confirmed on December 07th, 2020 and 60,078 deaths in Italy ( Coronavirus Statistiques, 2020 ). At the beginning of the pandemic, Italy was one of the most seriously affected countries and, on March 08th, 2020, the Italian Government implemented extraordinary measures to limit viral transmission, including social and physical distancing measures, lockdown of industry, school, and overall social life. Although these measures have proven to be the best option to reduce the rapid spread of infections, this has produced collateral effects on other dimensions, determining a radical change in the lifestyle of the Italian population ( Cancello et al., 2020 ; Cavallo et al., 2020 ; Odone et al., 2020 ).

Requiring a large-scale behavior change, the COVID-19 pandemic has raised the importance to apply the insights from psycho-social and behavioral sciences to promote people's adherence to the recommendations of epidemiologists and public health experts. In particular, this event has highlighted the relevance of the use of persuasive communication to educate people around preventive health behaviors. Evidence for the effectiveness of persuasive messages to promote health behaviors has been built over the last decades (e.g., Gallagher and Updegraff, 2012 ), but it has also received confirmation during the COVID-19 pandemic. Many scholars have shown that persuasive messages can facilitate policy-makers to promote prevention behaviors during a global public health crisis, and have confirmed the importance of finding efficient messages, as an easy and potentially scalable public intervention (e.g., Bilancini et al., 2020 ; Capraro and Barcelo, 2020 ; Heffner et al., 2020 ; Jordan et al., 2020 ; Lunn et al., 2020 ; Søraa et al., 2020 ). However, there do not seem to be any studies specifying how to formulate persuasive messages to promote home-based physical activity during the lockdown, even if one of the major changes regarded a reduction in the level of physical activity and sport, due to the closure of gyms, stadiums, pools, dance and fitness studios, physiotherapy centers, parks, and playgrounds ( Serafini et al., 2020 ).

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many health communication practitioners designed persuasive messages to reduce the negative effects of the imposed restrictions on physical and mental health, such as the unhealthy consequences of sedentary behavior. For this reason, the evaluation of how persuasive messages impact on people' behavior appears as more necessary than ever. Even if health communication campaigns are often effective at changing individuals' behaviors ( Anker et al., 2016 ), in some cases they can also have a “boomerang effect” that results in receivers adopting behaviors opposite to the health recommendation ( Byrne and Hart, 2009 ). This counterproductive effect may be generated when receivers perceive health messages as too fearful or threatening.

To overcome this possible counterproductive effect of health communication, in the present study we aimed at clarifying the role of threat and fear induced by messages promoting home-based physical activity during the COVID-19 outbreak. We specifically tested whether differently framed messages can differently involve receivers both cognitively and emotionally, thus influencing their attitude and intention toward home-based physical activity. Generally, health guidelines recommend that all adults should engage in at least 150–300 min a week of moderate-intensity exercise ( Piercy et al., 2018 ) and this recommendation was even more valid during the quarantine for at least two reasons. First, regular exercise may reduce the risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome, a major cause of death in patients COVID-19 ( University of Virginia Health System, 2020 ). Second, regular exercise is associated with emotional resilience to stress ( Childs and de Wit, 2014 ), one of the positive psychological responses observed during times of pandemics ( Taylor et al., 2020 ). However, physical activity guidelines alone are unlikely to increase physical activity levels of the population ( Milton et al., 2020 ). Appropriate and effective communication is key to maximizing the impact of such guidelines. In the present study, we tested whether differently framed messages can differently involve receivers both cognitively and emotionally, influencing their attitude and intention toward indoor home-based physical activity.

Message Framing

Under given conditions, persuasive messages stimulate attitude change, and consequent change in intention and behavior regarding physical activity (e.g., Ajzen, 1991 ; Eagly and Chaiken, 1993 ; Petty and Cacioppo, 2012 ; Petty and Briñol, 2015 ). Research has shown that the persuasive effect depends, at least in part, on how message recommendations are framed ( Davis, 1995 ; Chong and Druckman, 2007 ; Spence and Pidgeon, 2010 ). For example, recommendation messages can differ as to their valence frame, that is, their stress on either the positive or the negative consequences of a given behavior (e.g., Rothman et al., 2006 ). While a positively framed message presents the positive outcomes associated with the implementation of the recommended behavior, a negatively framed message presents the negative outcomes associated with not performing the recommended behavior.

Existing evidence suggests that positively framed messages regarding various outcomes of physical activity are more effective than negatively framed messages (e.g., Jones et al., 2003 ; Kozak et al., 2013 ; for a review: Williamson et al., 2020 ). For example, found that gain-framed messages were more effective in increasing participants' action planning regarding physical activity. Similarly, van't Riet et al. (2010) showed that gain-framed messages were more persuasive than loss-framed messages in advocating physical activity.

Messages can be framed not only as regards their gain or loss valence, but also as regards a further level of framing, namely, the outcome sensitivities level of message framing ( Cesario et al., 2013 ). According to this framing level, gain-framed messages can be further diversified in messages focused on actual gain , when they describe the presence of positive outcomes (e.g., ≪If you eat well, you will improve your health≫), and messages focused on non-loss , when they focus on the absence of negative outcomes (e.g., ≪If you eat well, you will avoid damaging your health≫). Likewise, loss-framed messages can be further diversified in messages focused on actual loss , when they emphasize the presence of negative outcomes (e.g., ≪If you eat badly, you will damage your health≫) and messages focused on non-gain , when they focus on the absence of positive outcomes (e.g., ≪If you eat badly, you will miss the opportunity to improve your health≫).

The different effects of gain, non-loss, non-gain and loss messages have been studied in communication advocating different types of healthy behavior (e.g., Dijkstra et al., 2011 ; Carfora et al., 2020 ). For example, Carfora et al. (2021) considered the aforementioned four types of messages to promote healthy eating and showed that they induce different message evaluations, which in turn influences attitude and intention, via a cognitive or emotional elaboration. Besides, Carfora et al. (2020) showed that gain and non-loss messages activate an integrated emotional and cognitive processing of the health recommendation, while loss and non-gain messages mainly activate emotional shortcuts toward attitude and intention. Finally, the differential influence of these four message frames on attitude and intention has been shown to vary according to some baseline psychosocial features, such as self-efficacy (e.g., Di Massimo et al., 2019 ; Carfora et al., 2020 ).

To the best of our knowledge, so far research on the promotion of physical activity has ignored the distinction among gain, non-loss, non-gain, and loss message framing. For example, Strachan et al. (2020) compared the effects of gain- and loss-framed messages to promote physical activity, including non-loss outcomes in the gain-framed messages (e.g., reduced risk of diseases, less anxiety) and non-gain outcomes in the loss-framed messages (e.g., decreased attractiveness through reduced muscle tone). To move further in the comprehension of the factors that may underly the different effectiveness of the four types of messages, in the present study we submitted these messages to different groups of participants and explored the reactions receivers have when they are exposed to these messages. We aimed to assess the cognitive and emotional mechanisms underlying message influence on attitude and intention toward increased home-based physical activity, as well as possible differences in the role played by these mechanisms according to the message type. Below, the cognitive and emotional mechanisms investigated in the study are discussed in detail.

Message-Induced Threat

The basic premise of persuasion models is that attitude and intention changes depend upon the likelihood that a persuasive issue or argument will be positively evaluated by the receiver ( Petty and Cacioppo, 1986 ; Eagly and Chaiken, 1993 ). Message evaluation has a direct effect on receivers' attitude and intention toward the behavior recommended in the message (e.g., Cauberghe et al., 2009 ; Fernando et al., 2016 ), and this effect has been demonstrated also when the recommended behavior regards physical activity ( Jones et al., 2003 ). In the present study, we moved from the assumption that the effect of message framing on attitude and intention would at least partially depend on how differently framed messages would be evaluated.

One of the aspects influencing the evaluation of a health recommendation message is the extent to which receivers perceive the message as threatening. According to psychological reactance theory, when individuals feel that someone or something is pressuring them to accept a certain view or attitude that limit their freedom, they activate psychological reactance to restore the lost freedom ( Brehm and Brehm, 1981 ). Since recommendation messages in health communication aim to shape, reinforce, or change attitudes and behaviors, this attempt can be therefore perceived as a threat to freedom ( Shen, 2015 ). As regards physical activity, receivers may perceive a message recommending it as threatening. Thus, they may not process it accurately and instead respond defensively ( Liberman and Chaiken, 1992 ), for example downplaying its recommendation ( Falk et al., 2015 ; Howe and Krosnick, 2017 ). According to self-affirmation theory ( Steele, 1988 ; Sherman and Cohen, 2006 ), people may react defensively to threatening messages because they seek to maintain self-integrity, i.e., a perception of being capable of controlling important outcomes. When self-integrity is threatened, people seek to protect or restore it, often rejecting or denigrating threatening information ( Cohen and Sherman, 2014 ). Thus, exposure to physical activity messages may threaten the self-integrity of individuals ( McQueen and Klein, 2006 ; Jessop et al., 2014 ). In this threatened state, the ability to process a message recommending increased physical activity may be compromised because people, in order to maintain self-integrity, may question or reject the validity of the recommendation, or direct attention away from it ( Sherman, 2013 ; Strachan et al., 2020 ). However, so far, no research has analyzed how perceived threat after exposure to differently framed messages recommending physical activity may negatively influence receivers' attitudes and intentions.

Message-Induced Fear

Receivers' processing and evaluation of health recommendation messages is also influenced by affective responses triggered by messages themselves (e.g., Gross and D'ambrosio, 2004 ; Dillard and Nabi, 2006 ; Peters et al., 2006 ; Kühne et al., 2015 ). This is also the case when the recommendation message regards physical activity ( Michalovic et al., 2018 ), and fear is one of the emotions that is more likely to influence the evaluation and the effect of a health recommendation message. There is overwhelming evidence of a positive fear–persuasion relationship (e.g., King and Reid, 1990 ; LaTour and Rotfeld, 1997 ; Dillard and Anderson, 2004 ). Messages evoking fear lead people to rely on systematic processing, which in turn stimulates many issue-relevant thoughts, and thus a positive message evaluation (e.g., Meijnders et al., 2001 ; Slater et al., 2002 ; Meyers-Levy and Maheswaran, 2004 ). Consistently, a long history of research has led to the general conclusion that messages inducing fear are more effective than those that do not (for a meta-analysis, see De Hoog et al., 2007 ), and the investigated effects include attitude and intention change toward a variety of health-related behaviors (for a meta-analysis, see Tannenbaum et al., 2015 ). Once said that, some research has also shown that messages inducing fear can be counterproductive. Fear can induce people to enact defensive strategies to reduce the potential emotional distress associated with the message. These strategies can include directing attention away from the message, reinterpreting or disregarding it ( Witte, 1992 ; Ruiter et al., 2001 ). In the case of differently framed messages recommending increased physical activity, the different frames are likely to trigger different levels of fear in the receivers. However, we lack empirical evidence of whether and how far this is the case, as well as of related effects on attitude and intention.

Starting from the above, in the present study we examined whether and how far physical activity recommendations framed as gain, non-loss, non-gain, or loss (i.e., varying according to the outcome sensitivities level of message framing) would be perceived as threatening or induce fear. We also examined whether perceived threat or fear would have an impact on message evaluation toward home-based physical activity. Self-efficacy, frequency of past behavior and habit to exercise regularly have found to be some of the main predictors of physical activity, in general and also during the lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic ( Carriedo et al., 2020 ; Rhodes et al., 2020 ), in addition to attitude and intention ( Kaushal and Srivastava, 2020 ). Consistently, in the present research we tested the effects of differently framed messages not only on message evaluation, but also on attitude and intention toward home-based physical activity. Finally, we controlled for the independent effects of self-efficacy and frequency of past behavior regarding physical activity before the pandemic.

The Present Study

Based on the above literature on the influence of perceived threat and fear on the evaluation of recommendation messages, in the present study we proposed and tested a theoretical model to understand receivers' reactions to gain, non-loss, non-gain and loss messages focused on home-based physical activity. We first measured attitude and intention We examined whether perceived threat or fear would have an impact on message evaluation, and thus would influence attitude and intention toward home-based physical activity at Time 2 differently, in the case of a recommendation framed as gain, non-loss, non-gain or loss .

Given that literature on threat and fear triggered by the four different message frames is scarce, we did not make specific hypotheses about the various relationships among the study variables, but only a series of research questions.

Research Question 1, RQ1 : To what extent does message-induced threat influence message evaluation, attitude and intention regarding home-based activity at Time 2 in the four different message conditions?

Research Question 2, RQ2 : To what extent does message-induced fear influence message evaluation, attitude and intention regarding home-based activity at Time 2 in the four different message conditions?

Research Question 3, RQ3 : How far attitude and intention at Time 1, frequency of past behavior and self-efficacy influence message evaluation, attitude and intention at Time 2 regarding home-based activity in the four different message conditions?

Procedure and Participants

In April 2020, a sample of Italian citizens was invited to participate in a university study on public communication. Participants were recruited by students of the Department of Psychology of the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart (Italy), and received an email with a link to an online survey developed through the Qualtrics platform. Through the online survey, participants:

- completed the first part of a questionnaire measuring the psychological antecedents of home-based physical activity (Time 1);

- were then automatically and randomly assigned to four different conditions (gain, non-loss, non-gain, and loss messages) and were invited to read an infographic reporting a series of messages on the physical and psychological consequences of exercising at home;

- after reading the messages, were required to fill in the second part of the questionnaire (Time 2).

The initial sample was made of N = 280 participants. Participants who did not fully or accurately complete the questionnaire were then excluded ( N = 8). So, the final sample consisted of 272 participants (126 males, 142 females, 4 other; mean age = 42.97, SD = 14.98, age range = 18–70), distributed in the four message conditions as follows: gain message condition N = 70; non-loss message condition N = 67; non-gain message condition N = 67; loss message condition N = 68.

Pre-test Measures

At the beginning of the questionnaire, participants provided their informed consent and read the following statement: “We are interested in understanding what drives people to do physical exercises at home in the absence of alternatives (i.e., in the impossibility of accessing parks, gyms and open spaces). By physical activity at home we mean, for example: bodyweight workout, such as stretching, aerobics, push-ups, and abs; walking for at least 30 min (6,000 steps per day); training with weights and machines, such as stationary bikes and treadmills.” After that, participants responded to a series of questions aimed at measuring their frequency of past behavior, attitude and intention toward home-based physical activity, and self-efficacy.

Frequency of past behavior related to physical activity was measured with 2 items regarding how often participants engaged in physical activity away from home and at home before the lockdown restrictions: “Before this period of restrictions, on average how many times a week did you engage in moderate or intense physical activity outdoor - e.g., fast walking, climbing stairs, cycling, swimming, going to the gym, going for a run etc.?”; “Before this period of restrictions, on average how many times a week did you exercise at home?.” Answers were given on a seven-point Likert scale, from never (1) to every day (7). Higher scores indicated a higher frequency of physical activity before the lockdown restrictions.

Intention at Time 1 toward doing home-based physical activity was assessed with 3 items on a seven-point Likert scale [completely disagree (1) – completely agree (7)] (e.g., “I intend to do physical exercises at home regularly in the next month”; Clark and Bassett, 2014 ). Higher scores indicated a greater intention to exercise at home at Time 1.

Attitude at Time 1 toward home-based physical activity was measured using 5 items on a semantic differential scale ranging from “1” to “7” (e.g., “I believe that doing physical exercises at home regularly is… useless – useful”; Caso et al., 2020 ). Higher values indicated a more positive attitude toward exercising at home at Time 1.

Self-efficacy related to regular physical activity was measured using 6 items on a seven-point Likert scale [completely disagree (1) – completely agree(7)] (e.g., “If I wanted, I would be able to do the physical activity regularly when I am feeling tired”; Bandura, 1977 ). Higher values indicated a more positive self-efficacy toward exercising at home.

Message Intervention

After completing the first questionnaire, all participants were invited to read one infographic including 6 messages (~14 words each) describing the physical, mental and social consequences of doing physical activity at home, and formulated in prefactual terms (i.e., “If only…”; see Carfora et al., 2019 ; Bertolotti et al., 2020 ). Participants read different messages according to the experimental condition to which they had been randomly assigned. Participants in the gain message condition read messages on the positive outcomes associated with doing home-based physical activity (e.g., “If you do physical activity at home, you will improve your fitness.”). Participants in the non-loss message condition read messages informing about how doing home-based physical activity relates to preventing negative outcomes (e.g., “If you do physical activity at home, you will avoid worsening your fitness.”). Participants in the non-gain message condition read messages emphasizing how doing home-based physical activity is related to missing out positive consequences (e.g., “If you do not do physical activity at home, you will lose the chance to improve your fitness.”). Finally, participants in the loss message condition read messages on the negative outcomes of not doing home-based physical activity (e.g., “If you do not do physical activity at home, you will worsen your fitness.”). The full list of messages is reported in Appendix 1 in Supplementary Material .

Post-test Measures

After reading the messages, participants completed the second part of the questionnaire, which measured the dimensions described below.

Message-induced fear was measured with five items pertaining to the degree to which reading messages had made participants feel fearful (e.g., “To what extent reading these messages made you feel scared?”; adapted from Brown and Smith, 2007 ). Answers were given on a 7-point Likert scale, from (1) “not at all” to (7) “completely.” Higher values indicated higher fear after reading the messages.

Message-induced threat was measured with four items related to how much reading messages had made participants feel their freedom threatened (e.g., “The messages have tried to pressure me”; adapted from Shen, 2015 ). Answers were given on a 7-point Likert scale, from (1) “strongly disagree” to (7) “strongly agree.” Higher values indicated higher perceived threat.

Message evaluation was measured with three items asking participants to state how involved they had been in the messages (e.g., “Messages were very interesting”; adapted from Godinho et al., 2016 ). Answers were given on a 7-point Likert scale, from (1) “strongly disagree” to (7) strongly agree.” Higher values indicated a more positive evaluation of the messages.

Finally, we again measured receivers' attitude and intention toward home-based physical activity at Time 2 after message exposure, using the same scale and items used at Time 1.

At the end of the second part of the questionnaire, participants reported their age and gender.

Data Analysis

As a first step of our analysis, we assessed the variance inflation factor (VIF) to compute multicollinearity. The VIF results, which are below threshold value of 5.0, indicate that collinearity issues among the study variables is absent ( Hair et al., 2016 ).

Then, we used confirmatory factor analysis to verify the measurement model. To verify the internal consistency among the measurement items for each variable, we used composite reliability. We also tested convergent and discriminant validities among our variables.

The adequacy of fit of the measurement and structural models were estimated using a chi-square test and recommended incremental goodness-of-fit indices: the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), the comparative fit index (CFI), and the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI). A nonsignificant chi-square test indicates that the model fits the data well ( Iacobucci, 2010 ). RMSEA value of 0.05 or less indicates a good fit and values up to 0.10 represent errors that approximate those expected in the population ( Iacobucci, 2010 ). Finally, CFI and TLI cut-off values of at least 0.90 are generally considered to represent an acceptable fit ( Iacobucci, 2010 ).

After confirming the adequacy of fit of our structural model, we used it as a base model to test the invariance of the relationship between study variables across groups. We first applied a multi-group Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) to observe the relationships among study variables in each group. We then constrained the main significant paths of each group to be equal in the other groups, while we left the other path coefficients free to vary across groups. By disconfirming the equality (or invariance) of the main significant paths, we would be able to establish that the diverse messages read by participants moderated the relationship among the psychological antecedents of home-based physical activity, the reactions to the messages, and attitude and intention regarding home-based physical activity at Time 2. We evaluated the null hypothesis of the equalities of such paths across message groups through a Wald test.

Preliminary Analyses

Table 1 shows means, standard deviations, composite reliability and average variance extracted (AVE) of each study variable, plus standard loadings of each item employed to measure the variable. Table 2 reports the estimates relevant to convergent and discriminant validity.

Table 1 . Results of the confirmatory factor analysis.

Table 2 . Convergent and discriminant validity.

The VIF results for each dependent variable were below threshold value of 5.0 (message-induced threat = 1.00; message-induced fear = 1.03; message evaluation = 1.30; attitude at Time 2 = 2.80; intention at Time 2 = 4.13). This result indicated that collinearity issues among the study variables were absent from this study.

Confirmatory factor analysis showed that the measurement model fit the data satisfactorily ( χ ( 2 ) 2 = 3.58, p = 0.17; RMSEA = 0.05, CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.97, SRMR = 0.02). Results revealed that all the composite reliability values were greater than the minimum threshold of 0.60 ( Bagozzi and Yi, 1988 ), ranging from 0.76–0.98. Thus, the reliability of the measurement model was confirmed. The standardized item loadings of all observed variables on their corresponding latent constructs varied from 0.68–0.98 ( Table 1 ), except for one of the two items measuring frequency of past behavior. Thus, standardized item loadings were mainly significant. The AVE from latent constructs ranged from 0.61 to 0.96. Therefore, all AVE values were above the recommended threshold of.50 ( Anderson and Gerbing, 1988 ). These findings showed that all measurement items presented a high convergent validity. Discriminant validity was also confirmed, because all AVEs were higher than squared correlations between latent constructs ( Fornell and Larcker, 1981 ). Finally, we confirmed the adequacy of fit of our structural model ( χ ( 524 ) 2 = 1018.51, p = 0.001; RMSEA = 0.03, CFI = 0.94, TLI = 0.94, SRMR = 0.05).

Main Analyses

Multi-group sem model.

In the main analyses, we used the tested model to disconfirm the null hypothesis of the invariance of the relationships among the study variables across groups. We did so by computing a multi-group SEM model with the message groups. The goodness-of-fit statistics for the model were acceptable. The chi-square test was not significant (χ 2 = 13.78, df = 8, p = 0.09) and also the other indices pointed to an acceptable fit ( RMSEA = 0.10; CFI = 0.99; TLI = 0.90; χ 2 gain message group = 3.34; χ 2 loss message group = 7.20; χ 2 non-gain message group = 0.01; χ 2 non-loss message group = 3.22), indicating that dataset had overall a good model fit.

We then analyzed the parameter estimates of the model in the four message conditions (gain, non-loss, non-gain, loss). All parameter estimates are reported in Appendix 3 in Supplementary Material . Below, we will consider the predictors of all dependent variables related to our three main research questions, namely, how message-induced threat predicted message evaluation, attitude and intention (RQ1), how message-induced fear predicted message evaluation, attitude and intention at Time 2 (RQ2), and how the psychological antecedents of home-based activity influenced message evaluation, attitude and intention at Time 2 (RQ3).

As showed in Figure 1 , when participants were exposed to gain messages the perception that the messages were not threatening increased the positive evaluation of the messages (β = −0.25; p = 0.04), as well as the intention to do home-based physical activity at Time 2 (β = −0.17; p = 0.05). Message-induced fear did not predict message evaluation, attitude at Time 2, or intention at Time 2, but a high level of self-efficacy reduced the perception of the gain messages as being fearful (β = −0.24; p = 0.05). Positive attitude at Time 1 had a direct effect on positive attitude at Time 2 (β = 0.88; p = 0.001), and in turn attitude at Time 2 determined a higher intention to exercise at home at Time 2 (β = 0.25; p = 0.05). Actually, the effect of attitude at Time 1 on intention at Time 2 was fully mediated by attitude at Time 2 ( Ind . = 0.2 2; p = 0.05). When participants had higher intention to do physical activity before message exposure they also gave a more positive evaluation of the gain messages (β = −0.22; p = 0.05) and had higher intention at Time 2 (β = 0.81 p = 0.05). To sum up, these results showed that gain messages had an impact on intention at Time 2 mainly because this message frame was not perceived as threatening. Moreover, there was an increase in intention at Time 2 especially when participants had a positive attitude toward home-based physical activity both at Time 1 and Time 2.

Figure 1 . Standardized factor loadings of the relationships among study variables in the gain message group. ** p < 0.05; *** p < 0.001.

In the case of participants exposed to non - loss messages ( Figure 2 ), the perception of the messages as not threatening predicted a positive message evaluation (β = −0.32; p = 0.001), which in turn influenced attitude at Time 2 (β = 0.43; p = 0.001) and then intention at Time 2 (β = 0.30; p = 0.001). Positive message evaluation also had a direct effect on intention at Time 2 (β = 0.30; p = 0.001). Consistently, mediation analyses confirmed that the negative impact of threat on intention at Time 2 was fully mediated by the participants' positive evaluation of the messages ( Ind . = −0.11; p = 0.01) and by the effect of this positive evaluation on attitude at Time 2 ( Ind . = −0.05; p = 0.03). Moreover, in this group message-induced fear increased a positive message evaluation (β = 0.20; p = 0.05), which in turn marginally increased attitude at Time 2 and then intention at Time 2 ( Ind . = −0.06; p = 0.10). As to the other antecedents of physical activity, a higher level of self-efficacy predicted both a more positive message evaluation (β = 0.31; p = 0.001) and a higher attitude at Time 2 (β = 0.17; p = 0.05). Moreover, mediation results showed that receivers' with higher self-efficacy had higher intention to exercise at home at Time 2 thanks to the effect of a more positive message evaluation ( Ind . = 0.1 3; p = 0.01) on their attitude at Time 2 ( Ind . = 0.0 6; p = 0.02). Attitude at Time 1 had a direct effect on participants' attitude at Time 2 (β = 0.52; p = 0.001) and an indirect effect on intention at Time 2 that was fully mediated by attitude at Time 2 ( Ind . = 0.1 6; p = 0.05). In addition, intention at Time 1 (β = 0.43; p = 0.001) and frequency of past behavior (β = 0.14; p = 0.03) determined receivers' intention to do home-based physical activity at Time 2. To sum up, these results showed that non-loss messages were effective in increasing intention at Time 2 when the messages were perceived as not threatening, but triggered some fear, especially when participants had a high self-efficacy.

Figure 2 . Standardized factor loadings of the relationships among study variables in the non-loss message group. ** p < 0.05; *** p < 0.001.

In the case of participants exposed to non-gain messages ( Figure 3 ), a higher perception that the messages were not threatening determined a more positive message evaluation (β = −0.54; p = 0.001), and mediation analyses showed that there was also an indirect effect of message-induced threat on attitude at Time 2 through message evaluation ( Ind . = −0.09; p = 0.03). As in the case of non-loss messages, also in the case of non-gain messages a higher perception that the messages were fearful increased the positive evaluation of the messages (β = 0.25; p = 0.001) and the impact of message-induced fear on attitude at Time 2 was mediated by message evaluation ( Ind . = 0.0 9; p = 0.05). A more positive evaluation of the messages increased attitude at Time 2 (β = 0.16; p = 0.02), which in turn marginally influenced intention at Time 2 (β = 0.21; p = 0.10). As to the influence of baseline variables, a higher attitude at Time 1 influenced their attitude at Time 2 (β = 0.80; p = 0.001), strongly decreased perceived message-induced threat (β = −0.34; p = 0.001), and increased a positive message evaluation (β = 0.20; p = 0.03). This chain was also marginally confirmed by a mediation analysis ( Ind . = 0.03; p = 0.10). In turn, a higher level of intention at Time 1 influenced intention at Time 2 (β = 0.83; p = 0.001), but it also increased message-induced fear (β = 0.32; p = 0.001). However, the indirect impact of intention at Time 1 on attitude at Time 2 through message-induced fear was only marginally confirmed (β = 0.04; p = 0.08). To sum up, these findings indicated that in the case of non-gain messages the impact of message processing on attitude and intention at Time 2 was rather limited. Intention at Time 2 was only marginally predicted by attitude at Time 2, which in turn was only marginally influenced by message evaluation.

Figure 3 . Standardized factor loadings of the relationships among study variables in the non-gain message group. * p < 0.10; ** p < 0.05; *** p < 0.001.

Finally, in the case of participants exposed to loss messages ( Figure 4 ), message-induced threat had a marginal effect both on message evaluation (β = −0.22; p = 0.07) and intention at Time 2 (β = −0.11; p = 0.08). As to message-induced fear, it stimulated a positive message evaluation (β = 0.25; p = 0.04). A more positive evaluation of the messages increased attitude at Time 2 (β = 0.16; p = 0.05), which in turn influenced intention to do physical activity at home at Time 2 (β = 0.35; p = 0.001). In this message group, positive attitude at Time 1 (β = 0.57; p = 0.001) increased attitude at Time 2 and had an indirect effect on intention at Time 2 through attitude at Time 2 ( Ind . = 0.2 0; p = 0.001). However, loss messages were counterproductive for people with a high level of positive attitude at Time 1, who did not perceive the messages as fearful (β = −0.39; p = 0.001) and showed a lower intention at Time 2 after reading these messages (β = −0.27; p = 0.001). A higher intention at Time 1 predicted both a higher intention at Time 2 (β = 0.73; p = 0.001) and a higher message-induced fear (β = 0.33; p = 0.001). Instead, participants with high self-efficacy perceived the loss messages as less threatening (β = −0.28; p = 0.05) and had a more positive attitude at Time 2(β = 0.21; p = 0.04) and intention (β = 0.18; p = 0.02) toward home-based physical activity. Self-efficacy had also a positive indirect effect on intention at Time 2 via attitude at Time 2 ( Ind . = 0.0 7; p = 0.05). Regarding the role of the frequency of past behavior, people with high frequency of past behavior perceived messages as more threatening (β = 0.27; p = 0.03). However, there was not a significant mediation effect from frequency of past behavior to intention at Time 2. To sum up, the perception and the consequences of loss messages were differently affected by the baseline antecedents of physical activity. If a high level of self-efficacy increased their persuasiveness, a high level of attitude at Time 1 and frequency of past behavior decreased it.

Figure 4 . Standardized factor loadings of the relationships among study variables in the loss message group. * p < 0.10; ** p < 0.05; *** p < 0.001.

Determination of Invariant Paths in the Multigroup SEM Model

To disconfirm the null hypothesis of the invariance of the main significant paths among study variables across groups, we then used the Wald test. Table 3 reports all the Wald tests for each comparison.

Table 3 . Results of the comparisons of the main significant paths among message groups.

Compared to the other message conditions, only in the gain message condition perceiving the messages as not threatening directly increased intention at Time 2 to do home-based physical activity ( Table 3 , a). Instead, in the non-loss message condition receivers perceiving the messages as not threatening evaluated them more positively, as increased their attitude and intention at Time 2 more as compared to receivers in the other message conditions ( Table 3 , b). Moreover, only in the case of the non-loss messages, when receivers perceived themselves as being able to exercise regularly (self-efficacy), they evaluated the messages positively and thus increased intention at Time 2 ( Table 3 , c). Finally, the self-efficacy-attitude at Time 2-intention at Time 2 chain ( Table 3 , e), and the self-efficacy-message evaluation-attitude at Time 2-intention at Time 2 chain ( Table 3 , f) were invariant across all message groups.

The pattern from message-induced fear to message evaluation was invariant across groups ( Table 3 , g). In addition, Wald tests showed that when receivers perceived the non-gain messages as not threatening, they had more positive evaluation and then more attitude at Time 2, compared to receivers in the gain message ( Table 3 , h). Wald tests also showed that these higher effect of non-gain message as compared to gain message on attitude at Time 2, via a lower message-induced threat, was even more accentuated when receivers had a high attitude at Time 1 ( Table 3 , i). Finally, both in the non-loss and non-gain message groups, an effect of message-induced fear on intention at Time 2 through message evaluation and attitude at Time 2 emerged. Wald tests showed that this mediation path was stronger in the non-gain message group than in the non-loss message group ( Table 3 , d). This result confirmed a high impact of the perception of fear on receivers' message elaboration when exposed to the gain messages.

First of all, our findings confirmed that message-induced threat and fear have an important role in determining the effects of recommendation messages in the context of the promotion of home-based physical activity. Results showed that the persuasiveness of the gain-framed messages is based on their being perceived as not threatening, so that this perception increases intention to do home-based physical activity at Time 2. This suggests that the major strength of gain-framed messages is their positive valence, which does not stimulate a sense of threat in receivers. In the elaboration of gain-framed messages, message-induced fear plays no significant role, and this absence may be counterproductive, given that messages evoking fear lead people to rely on systematic processing, which in turn stimulates many issue-relevant thoughts, including a positive evaluation of the message (e.g., Meijnders et al., 2001 ; Slater et al., 2002 ; Meyers-Levy and Maheswaran, 2004 ). In consideration of the above, gain-framed messages seem to have an immediate effect because the absence of a threat induces a greater intention to exercise. This effect, however, is not based on systematic processing and belief change (favored by message-induced fear) and is therefore likely to be short-term.

Non-loss-framed messages are also perceived as not threatening. However, in this case such perception stimulates a positive evaluation of the message which, in turn, influences attitude and intention at Time 2. Besides, unlike gain-framed messages, non-loss-framed messages stimulate a link from the perception of fear to attitude and intention at Time 2 through a positive message evaluation. This effect can be attributed to loss aversion, the most considered cause of the persuasive effect of the loss frame ( O'Keefe, 2012 ). Loss aversion is a phenomenon related to the fact that people generally prefer to avoid losses rather than obtain gains. In the case of the non-loss frame, the effect of message-induced fear is marginal, and this suggests that this frame does not induce excessive fear, which may lead people to enact defensive strategies to reduce the potential emotional distress associated with the messages ( Witte, 1992 ; Ruiter et al., 2001 ). Lack of threat and some presence of fear are likely to have contributed to the clear link among message evaluation, attitude and intention at Time 2 observed in receivers exposed to non-loss-framed messages. This strength of the non-loss frame could lie in the fact that it combines the positive aspects of both gain and loss frames. Like the gain frame, the non-loss frame produces a low perceived threat to freedom ( Cho and Sands, 2011 ), that may reduce the psychological reactance. At the same time, proposing the avoidance of negative outcomes, the non-loss frame directs the attention to the possible negative consequences of one's behavior and triggers some fear. Relying on a negative bias, the acquisition of negative information requires greater information processing than does positive information ( Rozin and Royzman, 2001 ). Thus, people tend to think and reason more about non-loss- than gain-framed messages. A greater elaboration may then induce a greater attitude and intention change.

As in the case of gain- and non-loss-framed messages, also in the case of non-gain-framed messages the absence of message-induced threat is fundamental for the positive evaluation of the message. However, the positive evaluation of non-gain-framed messages also depends on their perception as fearful, which in turn influences attitude at Time 2 via a higher message evaluation. These effects trigged by message processing do not extend to intention at Time 2, however, and the absence of a strong attitude-intention link could compromise the likelihood of an actual behavioral change. This can be because a recommendation based on missing the chance to obtain positive outcomes may be rather difficult to understand. Thus, in this case the elaboration of the recommendation could exceeds the receivers' processing capacity, which in turn would create an information overload that reduces the quality of the decision.

Finally, the perception of loss-framed messages as threatening or fearful does not directly influence message evaluation, attitude and intention at Time 2. Actually, the persuasiveness of loss-framed messages is strongly influenced by the level of self-efficacy of the receivers. When they have high self-efficacy, they have greater attitude at Time 2, and then intention at Time 2. In the case of non-loss-framed messages, these receivers have also a more positive evaluation of the messages. This suggests that both loss- and non-loss-framed messages may be more suitable for those who perceive a high capacity of exercising regularly. These findings confirm the role of self-efficacy in influencing message effects, already established by research on framing effects in other types of recommendation messages (e.g., Bertolotti et al., 2020 ). Specifically, past studies showed that people who feel that they have the necessary skills to perform message recommendations are more motivated to accept a loss frame and more inclined to change their behavior accordingly ( Cauberghe et al., 2009 ; Riet et al., 2010 ; Tudoran et al., 2012 ). Conversely, people who feel they are not able to deal with the requests tend to activate defense mechanisms that lead them to reject the threatening loss message. In the present study, we reported a first evidence that self-efficacy is also an important predictor of how people elaborate non-loss-framed messages.

Our research has several limitations. First, our sample was small and restricted to Italian people, thus the data may not be generalized to other countries. Second, our research design lacked a measure for assessing future behavior and did not include a measure of the volume or amount of past physical activity. Third, we cannot exclude the risk of self-selection bias, as participants were invited for a study on public communication. Finally, participants were exposed only once to short messages on physical activity outcomes, thus we were able to assess only small and short-term effects. Messages delivered over a longer time span and with repeated exposure (e.g., Caso and Carfora, 2017 ; Carfora et al., 2018 ) could yield larger and long-term effects on recipients' attitudes and intentions. In sum, future research should carefully retest our results on the mechanisms involved in processing messages on physical activity formulated with different frames, sending messages over a longer period. Once said that, the results of the present study can have some useful implications regarding how to select message framing in their communication to promote home-based physical activity in the case of future outbreaks or in other eventualities that require physical exercise at home, such as in the case of rehabilitation programs.

To sum up, in the present study we validated a model explaining how messages differing according to the outcome sensitivities level of message framing (i.e., gain, non-loss, non-gain and loss messages; Cesario et al., 2013 ), influence receivers' evaluation of the messages, as well as attitude and intention toward home-based physical activity at Time 2. Our results respond to the need of theoretical advancement in the area of the underlying mechanisms elicited by message framing and show the plausibility of a model including both threat and fear elicited by message exposure. The present study showed that a low perception of threat to freedom strongly contributed to the persuasive effect of the gain and non-loss messages. Moreover, the non-loss messages induced a marginal fear, which may have led participants to systematically process the recommendation but not to enact defensive strategies to reduce a to high emotional distress ( Witte, 1992 ; Ruiter et al., 2001 ). Instead, when reading loss and non-gain messages, receivers' reactions were more determined by self-efficacy, ending up with reduced persuasive power.

In conclusion, our study introduced and tested an inclusive reference model to explain the effects of message frames based on the presence/absence of positive/negative outcomes of expected behavior and aimed at changing the attitude and intention of the receivers at Time 2. It will be up to future research to further investigate the possibility of applying this model to messages aimed at modifying attitudes and intentions other than the one investigated here, as well as verifying if and how the differences in the mechanisms studied here also depend on individual differences among receivers.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Ethics Statement

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by Ethics committee of the Department of Psychology - Catholic University of the Sacred Heart - Milan. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author Contributions

All authors listed have made a substantial, direct and intellectual contribution to the work, and approved it for publication.

This study was part of the project Re-HUB-ility: Rehabilitative pErsonalized Home System and vIrtuaL coaching for chronIc Treatment in elderlY supported by Call HUB Ricerca e Innovazione, Regione Lombardia and by Athics s.r.l. (Grant Number: D.G.R. N. 727 of 5/11/2018; decreto 18854 del 14/12/2018).

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.644050/full#supplementary-material

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50, 179–211. doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Anderson, J. C., and Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol. Bull. 103:411. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411

Anker, A. E., Feeley, T. H., McCracken, B., and Lagoe, C. A. (2016). Measuring the effectiveness of mass-mediated health campaigns through meta-analysis. J. Health Commun. 21, 439–456. doi: 10.1080/10810730.2015.1095820

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bagozzi, R. P., and Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 16, 74–94. doi: 10.1007/BF02723327

Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Google Scholar

Bertolotti, M., Carfora, V., and Catellani, P. (2020). Different frames to reduce red meat intake: the moderating role of self-efficacy. Health Commun. 35, 475–482. doi: 10.1080/10410236.2019.1567444

Bilancini, E., Boncinelli, L., Capraro, V., Celadin, T., and Di Paolo, R. (2020). The effect of norm-based messages on reading and understanding COVID-19 pandemic response governmental rules. J. Behav. Econ. Policy 4, 45–55. doi: 10.31234/osf.io/7863g

Brehm, S. S., and Brehm, J. W. (1981). Psychological Reactance: A Theory of Freedom and Control . New York, NY: Academic.

Brown, S. L., and Smith, E. Z. (2007). The inhibitory effect of a distressing anti-smoking message on risk perceptions in smokers. Psychol. Health 22, 255–268. doi: 10.1080/14768320600843127

Byrne, S., and Hart, P. S. (2009). “The boomerang effect: a synthesis of findings and a preliminary theoretical framework,” in Communication Yearbook 33 , ed C. Beck Mahwah (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum), 3–37. doi: 10.1080/23808985.2009.11679083

Cancello, R., Soranna, D., Zambra, G., Zambon, A., and Invitti, C. (2020). Determinants of the lifestyle changes during COVID-19 pandemic in the residents of Northern Italy. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 17:6287. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17176287

Capraro, V., and Barcelo, H. (2020). The effect of messaging and gender on intentions to wear a face covering to slow down COVID-19 transmission. J. Behav. Econ. Policy 4, 45–55. doi: 10.31234/osf.io/tg7vz

Carfora, V., Caso, D., Palumbo, F., and Conner, M. (2018). Promoting water intake. The persuasiveness of a messaging intervention based on anticipated negative affective reactions and self-monitoring. Appetite 130, 236–246. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2018.08.017

Carfora, V., Catellani, P., Caso, D., and Conner, M. (2019). How to reduce red and processed meat consumption by daily text messages targeting environment or health benefits. J. Environ. Psychol. 65:101319. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.101319

Carfora, V., Di Massimo, F., Rastelli, R., Catellani, P., and Piastra, M. (2020). Dialogue management in conversational agents through psychology of persuasion and machine learning. Multimed. Tools Appl . 79, 35949–35971. doi: 10.1007/s11042-020-09178-w

Carfora, V., Pastore, M., and Catellani, P. (2021). A cognitive-emotional model to explain message framing effects: reducing meat consumption. Front. Psychol. 12:583209. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.583209

Carriedo, A., Cecchini, J. A., Fernandez-Rio, J., and Méndez-Giménez, A. (2020). COVID-19, psychological well-being and physical activity levels in older adults during the nationwide lockdown in Spain. Am. J. Geriatr. Psychiatry 28, 1146–1155. doi: 10.1016/j.jagp.2020.08.007

Caso, D., and Carfora, V. (2017). Un intervento di messaggistica istantanea per la promozione del monitoraggio del consumo di frutta e verdura. Psicol. della Salut. 1, 97–111. doi: 10.3280/PDS2017-001005

Caso, D., Carfora, V., Capasso, M., Oliano, D., and Conner, M. (2020). Using messages targeting psychological versus physical health benefits to promote walking behaviour: a randomised controlled trial. Appl. Psychol. Health Well-Being . 13, 152–173. doi: 10.1111/aphw.12224

Cauberghe, V., De Pelsmacker, P., Janssens, W., and Dens, N. (2009). Fear, threat and efficacy in threat appeals: message involvement as a key mediator to message acceptance. Accid. Anal. Prev. 41, 276–285. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2008.11.006

Cavallo, C., Sacchi, G., and Carfora, V. (2020). Resilience effects in food consumption behaviour at the time of Covid-19: perspectives from Italy. Heliyon 6:e05676. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e05676

Cesario, J., Corker, K. S., and Jelinek, S. (2013). A self-regulatory framework for message framing. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 49, 238–249. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2012.10.014

Childs, E., and de Wit, H. (2014). Regular exercise is associated with emotional resilience to acute stress in healthy adults. Front. Physiol. 5:161. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2014.00161

Cho, H., and Sands, L. (2011). Gain-and loss-frame sun safety messages and psychological reactance of adolescents. Commun. Res. Rep. 28, 308–317. doi: 10.1080/08824096.2011.616242

Chong, D., and Druckman, J. N. (2007). A theory of framing and opinion formation in competitive elite environments. J. Commun. 57, 99–118. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00331.x

Clark, H., and Bassett, S. (2014). An application of the health action process approach to physiotherapy rehabilitation adherence. Physiother. Theory Pract . 30, 527–533. doi: 10.3109/09593985.2014.912710

Cohen, G. L., and Sherman, D. K. (2014). The psychology of change: Self-affirmation and social psychological intervention. Annu. Rev. Psychol . 65, 333–371. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115137

Coronavirus Statistiques (2020). COVID-19 Dashboard by the Center of Systems Science and Engineering . Available online at: https://www.coronavirus-statistiques.com/stats-globale/coronavirus-number-of-cases/ (accessed December 06, 2020).

Davis, J. J. (1995). The effects of message framing on response to environmental communications. JMCQ 72, 285–299. doi: 10.1177/107769909507200203

De Hoog, N., Stroebe, W., and De Wit, J. B. (2007). The impact of vulnerability to and severity of a health risk on processing and acceptance of fear-arousing communications: a meta-analysis. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 11, 258–285. doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.11.3.258

Di Massimo, F., Carfora, V., Catellani, P., and Piastra, M. (2019). “Applying psychology of persuasion to conversational agents through reinforcement learning: an exploratory study,” in CEUR – Workshop Proceedings (Aachen), p. 27.

Dijkstra, A., Rothman, A., and Pietersma, S. (2011). The persuasive effects of framing messages on fruit and vegetable consumption according to regulatory focus theory. Psychol. Health. 26, 1036–1048. doi: 10.1080/08870446.2010.526715

Dillard, J. P., and Anderson, J. W. (2004). The role of fear in persuasion. Psychol. Mark . 21, 909–926. doi: 10.1002/mar.20041

Dillard, J. P., and Nabi, R. L. (2006). The persuasive influence of emotion in cancer prevention and detection messages. J. Commun. 56, S123–S139. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00286.x

Eagly, A. H., and Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Psychol. Mark. 12, 459–466.

Falk, E. B., O'Donnell, M. B., Cascio, C. N., Tinney, F., Kang, Y., Lieberman, M. D., et al. (2015). Self-affirmation alters the brain's response to health messages and subsequent behavior change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci . 112, 1977–1982. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1500247112

Fernando, A. G., Sivakumaran, B., and Suganthi, L. (2016). Message involvement and attitude towards green advertisements. Market Intell Plann . 34, 863–882. doi: 10.1108/MIP-11-2015-0216

Fornell, C., and Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: algebra and statistics. J. Mark. Res . 18, 382–388. doi: 10.1177/002224378101800313

Gallagher, K. M., and Updegraff, J. A. (2012). Health message framing effects on attitudes, intentions, and behavior: a meta-analytic review. Ann. Behav. Med. 43, 101–116. doi: 10.1007/s12160-011-9308-7

Godinho, C. A., Alvarez, M. J., and Lima, M. L. (2016). Emphasizing the losses or the gains: comparing situational and individual moderators of framed messages to promote fruit and vegetable intake. Appetite 96, 416–425. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2015.10.001

Gross, K., and D'ambrosio, L. (2004). Framing emotional response. Political Psychol. 25, 1–29. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00354.x

Hair, J. F. Jr., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., and Sarstedt, M. (2016). A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) . New York, NY: Sage publications. doi: 10.15358/9783800653614

Heffner, J., Vives, M. L., and FeldmanHall, O. (2020). Emotional responses to prosocial messages increase willingness to self-isolate during the COVID-19 pandemic. Pers. Individ. Dif. 170:110420. doi: 10.31234/osf.io/qkxvb

Howe, L. C., and Krosnick, J. A. (2017). Attitude strength. Annu. Rev. Psychol . 68, 327–351. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033600

Iacobucci, D. (2010). Structural equations modeling: fit indices, sample size, and advanced topics. JPC 20, 90–98. doi: 10.1016/j.jcps.2009.09.003

Jessop, D. C., Sparks, P., Buckland, N., Harris, P. R., and Churchill, S. (2014). Combining self-affirmation and implementation intentions: evidence of detrimental effects on behavioral outcomes. Ann. Behav. Med. 47, 137–147. doi: 10.1007/s12160-013-9536-0

Jones, L. W., Sinclair, R. C., and Courneya, K. S. (2003). The effects of source credibility and message framing on exercise intentions, behaviors, and attitudes: an integration of the elaboration likelihood model and prospect theory. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 33, 179–196. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb02078.x

Jordan, J., Yoeli, E., and Rand, D. (2020). Don't Get It or Don't Spread It? Comparing Self-Interested Versus Prosocially Framed COVID-19 Prevention Messaging. PsyArXiv. 1–29. doi: 10.31234/osf.io/yuq7x

Kaushal, V., and Srivastava, S. (2020). Hospitality and tourism industry amid COVID-19 pandemic: perspectives on challenges and learnings from India. Int. J. Hosp. Manag . 92:102707. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102707

King, K. W., and Reid, L. N. (1990). Fear arousing anti-drinking and driving PSAs: do physical injury threats influence young adults? JCIRA 12, 155–175.

Kozak, A. T., Nguyen, C., Yanos, B. R., and Fought, A. (2013). Persuading students to exercise: what is the best way to frame messages for normal-weight versus overweight/obese university students? J Am Coll Heal. 61, 264–273. doi: 10.1080/07448481.2013.799477

Kühne, R., Weber, P., and Sommer, K. (2015). Beyond cognitive framing processes: anger mediates the effects of responsibility framing on the preference for punitive measures. J. Commun. 65, 259–279. doi: 10.1111/jcom.12151

LaTour, M. S., and Rotfeld, H. J. (1997). There are threats and (maybe) fear-caused arousal: theory and confusions of appeals to fear and fear arousal itself. J. Advert. 26, 45–59. doi: 10.1080/00913367.1997.10673528

Liberman, A., and Chaiken, S. (1992). Defensive processing of personally relevant health messages. PSPB 18, 669–679. doi: 10.1177/0146167292186002

Lunn, P. D., Timmons, S., Barjaková, M., Belton, C. A., Julienne, H., and Lavin, C. (2020). Motivating social distancing during the Covid-19 pandemic: an online experiment. Soc. Sci. Med. 265:113478. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113478

McQueen, A., and Klein, W. M. (2006). Experimental manipulations of self-affirmation: a systematic review. Self Identity 5, 289–354. doi: 10.1080/15298860600805325

Meijnders, A. L., Midden, C. J., and Wilke, H. A. (2001). Role of negative emotion in communication about CO2 risks. Risk Anal. 21, 955–955. doi: 10.1111/0272-4332.215164

Meyers-Levy, J., and Maheswaran, D. (2004). Exploring message framing outcomes when systematic, heuristic, or both types of processing occur. JCP 14, 15–67. doi: 10.1207/s15327663jcp1401andamp;2_18

Michalovic, E., Hall, S., Duncan, L. R., Bassett-Gunter, R., and Sweet, S. N. (2018). Understanding the effects of message framing on physical activity action planning: the role of risk perception and elaboration. Int. J. Behav. Med. 256, 626–636. doi: 10.1007/s12529-018-9746-8

Milton, K., Bauman, A. E., Faulkner, G., Hastings, G., Bellew, W., Williamson, C., et al. (2020). Maximising the impact of global and national physical activity guidelines: the critical role of communication strategies. Br. J. Sports Med. 54, 1463–1467. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2020-102324

Odone, A., Lugo, A., Amerio, A., Borroni, E., Bosetti, C., Carreras, G., et al. (2020). COVID-19 lockdown impact on lifestyle habits of Italian adults. Acta Biomed . 91, 87–89. doi: 10.23750/abm.v91i9-S.10122

O'Keefe, D. J. (2012). “From psychological theory to message design: lessons from the story of gain-framed and loss-framed persuasive appeals,” in Health Communication Message Design: Theory, Research, and Practice , ed H. Cho (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage), 3–20.

Peters, E., Västfjäll, D., Gärling, T., and Slovic, P. (2006). Affect and decision making: a “hot” topic. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 19, 79–85. doi: 10.1002/bdm.528

Petty, R. E., and Briñol, P. (2015). “Processes of social influence through attitude change,” in APA Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology: Attitudes and Social Cognition, Vol. 1 , eds E. Borgida, and J. A. Bargh (Washington, DC: APA Books), 509–545. doi: 10.1037/14341-016

Petty, R. E., and Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). “The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion,” in Communication and Persuasion (New York, NY: Springer), 1–24. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4612-4964-1_1

Petty, R. E., and Cacioppo, J. T. (2012). Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change . New York, NY: Springer Science and Business Media.

Piercy, K. L., Troiano, R. P., Ballard, R. M., Carlson, S. A., Fulton, J. E., Galuska, D. A., et al. (2018). The physical activity guidelines for Americans. JAMA 320, 2020–2028. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.14854

Rhodes, R. E., Liu, S., Lithopoulos, A., Zhang, C. Q., and Garcia-Barrera, M. A. (2020). Correlates of perceived physical activity transitions during the covid-19 pandemic among canadian adults. Appl. Psychol. Health Well Being 12, 1157–1182. doi: 10.1111/aphw.12236

Riet, J. V. T., Ruiter, R. A., Smerecnik, C., and Vries, H. D. (2010). Examining the influence of self-efficacy on message-framing effects: reducing salt consumption in the general population. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 32, 165–172. doi: 10.1080/01973531003738338

Rothman, A. J., Bartels, R. D., Wlaschin, J., and Salovey, P. (2006). The strategic use of gain-and loss-framed messages to promote healthy behavior: How theory can inform practice. J. Commun. 56, S202–S220. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00290.x

Rozin, P., and Royzman, E. B. (2001). Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 5, 296–320. doi: 10.1207/S15327957PSPR0504_2

Ruiter, R. A., Abraham, C., and Kok, G. (2001). Scary warnings and rational precautions: a review of the psychology of fear appeals. Psychol. Health 16, 613–630. doi: 10.1080/08870440108405863

Serafini, G., Parmigiani, B., Amerio, A., Aguglia, A., Sher, L., and Amore, M. (2020). The psychological impact of COVID-19 on the mental health in the general population. QJM . 113, 531–537. doi: 10.1093/qjmed/hcaa201

Shen, L. (2015). Antecedents to psychological reactance: The impact of threat, message frame, and choice. Health Commun. 30, 975–985. doi: 10.1080/10410236.2014.910882

Sherman, D. K. (2013). Self-affirmation: understanding the effects. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull . 7, 834–845. doi: 10.1111/spc3.12072

Sherman, D. K., and Cohen, G. L. (2006). The psychology of self-defense: self-affirmation theory. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 38, 183–242. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38004-5

Slater, M., Karan, D., Rouner, D., and Walters, D. (2002). Effects of threatening visuals and announcer differences on responses to televised alcohol warnings. J. Appl. Commun. 30, 27–49. doi: 10.1080/00909880216575

Søraa, R., Manzi, F., Kharas, M. W., Marchetti, A., Massaro, D., Riva, G., et al. (2020). Othering and deprioritizing older adults' lives: ageist discourses during the COVID-19 pandemic. Eur. J. Psychol. 16, 532–541. doi: 10.5964/ejop.v16i4.4127

Spence, A., and Pidgeon, N. (2010). Framing and communicating climate change: the effects of distance and outcome frame manipulations. Glob. Environ. Change 20, 656–667. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.07.002

Steele, C. M. (1988). The psychology of self-affirmation: sustaining the integrity of the self. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol . 21, 261–302. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60229-4

Strachan, S. M., Myre, M., Berry, T. R., Ceccarelli, L. A., Semenchuk, B. N., and Miller, C. (2020). Self-affirmation and physical activity messages. Psychol. Sport Exerc . 47:101613. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2019.101613

Tannenbaum, M. B., Hepler, J., Zimmerman, R. S., Saul, L., Jacobs, S., Wilson, K., et al. (2015). Appealing to fear: a meta-analysis of fear appeal effectiveness and theories. Psychol. Bull. 14, 1178–1204. doi: 10.1037/a0039729

Taylor, S., Landry, C., Paluszek, M., Fergus, T. A., McKay, D., and Asmundson, G. J. (2020). Development and initial validation of the COVID Stress Scales. J. Anxiety Disord. 72:102232. doi: 10.1016/j.janxdis.2020.102232

Tudoran, A. A., Scholderer, J., and Brunsø, K. (2012). Regulatory focus, self-efficacy and outcome expectations as drivers of motivation to consume healthy food products. Appetite 59, 243–251. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2012.05.002

University of Virginia Health System (2020). COVID-19: Exercise May Help Prevent Deadly Complication . Available online at: https://newsroom.uvahealth.com/2020/04/15/covid-19-exercise-may-help-prevent-deadly-complication/ (accessed April 14, 2020).

van't Riet, J., Rac, R., Werrij, M. Q., and de Vries, H. (2010). Investigating message-framing effects in the context of a tailored intervention promoting physical activity. Health Educ. Res. 25, 343–354. doi: 10.1093/her/cyp061

Williamson, E. J., Walker, A. J., Bhaskaran, K., Bacon, S., Bates, C., Morton, C. E., et al. (2020). Factors associated with COVID-19-related death using OpenSAFELY. Nature 584, 430–436. doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2521-4

Witte, K. (1992). Putting the fear back into fear appeals: the extended parallel process model. Commun. Monogr. 59, 329–349. doi: 10.1080/03637759209376276

Keywords: message frame, home-based physical activity, COVID-19, lockdown, exercising at home, psychosocial

Citation: Carfora V and Catellani P (2021) The Effect of Persuasive Messages in Promoting Home-Based Physical Activity During COVID-19 Pandemic. Front. Psychol. 12:644050. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.644050

Received: 19 December 2020; Accepted: 08 March 2021; Published: 01 April 2021.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2021 Carfora and Catellani. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Valentina Carfora, valentina.carfora@unicatt.it

† These authors share first authorship

‡ These authors share senior authorship

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Why the Pandemic Probably Started in a Lab, in 5 Key Points

By Alina Chan

Dr. Chan is a molecular biologist at the Broad Institute of M.I.T. and Harvard, and a co-author of “Viral: The Search for the Origin of Covid-19.”

This article has been updated to reflect news developments.

On Monday, Dr. Anthony Fauci returned to the halls of Congress and testified before the House subcommittee investigating the Covid-19 pandemic. He was questioned about several topics related to the government’s handling of Covid-19, including how the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which he directed until retiring in 2022, supported risky virus work at a Chinese institute whose research may have caused the pandemic.

For more than four years, reflexive partisan politics have derailed the search for the truth about a catastrophe that has touched us all. It has been estimated that at least 25 million people around the world have died because of Covid-19, with over a million of those deaths in the United States.

Although how the pandemic started has been hotly debated, a growing volume of evidence — gleaned from public records released under the Freedom of Information Act, digital sleuthing through online databases, scientific papers analyzing the virus and its spread, and leaks from within the U.S. government — suggests that the pandemic most likely occurred because a virus escaped from a research lab in Wuhan, China. If so, it would be the most costly accident in the history of science.

Here’s what we now know:

1 The SARS-like virus that caused the pandemic emerged in Wuhan, the city where the world’s foremost research lab for SARS-like viruses is located.

At the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a team of scientists had been hunting for SARS-like viruses for over a decade, led by Shi Zhengli.
Their research showed that the viruses most similar to SARS‑CoV‑2, the virus that caused the pandemic, circulate in bats that live r oughly 1,000 miles away from Wuhan. Scientists from Dr. Shi’s team traveled repeatedly to Yunnan province to collect these viruses and had expanded their search to Southeast Asia. Bats in other parts of China have not been found to carry viruses that are as closely related to SARS-CoV-2.

The closest known relatives to SARS-CoV-2 were found in southwestern China and in Laos.

Large cities

Mine in Yunnan province

Cave in Laos

South China Sea

The closest known relatives to SARS-CoV-2

were found in southwestern China and in Laos.

philippines

The closest known relatives to SARS-CoV-2 were found

in southwestern China and Laos.

Sources: Sarah Temmam et al., Nature; SimpleMaps

Note: Cities shown have a population of at least 200,000.

There are hundreds of large cities in China and Southeast Asia.

There are hundreds of large cities in China

and Southeast Asia.

The pandemic started roughly 1,000 miles away, in Wuhan, home to the world’s foremost SARS-like virus research lab.

The pandemic started roughly 1,000 miles away,

in Wuhan, home to the world’s foremost SARS-like virus research lab.

The pandemic started roughly 1,000 miles away, in Wuhan,

home to the world’s foremost SARS-like virus research lab.

Even at hot spots where these viruses exist naturally near the cave bats of southwestern China and Southeast Asia, the scientists argued, as recently as 2019 , that bat coronavirus spillover into humans is rare .
When the Covid-19 outbreak was detected, Dr. Shi initially wondered if the novel coronavirus had come from her laboratory , saying she had never expected such an outbreak to occur in Wuhan.
The SARS‑CoV‑2 virus is exceptionally contagious and can jump from species to species like wildfire . Yet it left no known trace of infection at its source or anywhere along what would have been a thousand-mile journey before emerging in Wuhan.

2 The year before the outbreak, the Wuhan institute, working with U.S. partners, had proposed creating viruses with SARS‑CoV‑2’s defining feature.

Dr. Shi’s group was fascinated by how coronaviruses jump from species to species. To find viruses, they took samples from bats and other animals , as well as from sick people living near animals carrying these viruses or associated with the wildlife trade. Much of this work was conducted in partnership with the EcoHealth Alliance, a U.S.-based scientific organization that, since 2002, has been awarded over $80 million in federal funding to research the risks of emerging infectious diseases.
The laboratory pursued risky research that resulted in viruses becoming more infectious : Coronaviruses were grown from samples from infected animals and genetically reconstructed and recombined to create new viruses unknown in nature. These new viruses were passed through cells from bats, pigs, primates and humans and were used to infect civets and humanized mice (mice modified with human genes). In essence, this process forced these viruses to adapt to new host species, and the viruses with mutations that allowed them to thrive emerged as victors.
By 2019, Dr. Shi’s group had published a database describing more than 22,000 collected wildlife samples. But external access was shut off in the fall of 2019, and the database was not shared with American collaborators even after the pandemic started , when such a rich virus collection would have been most useful in tracking the origin of SARS‑CoV‑2. It remains unclear whether the Wuhan institute possessed a precursor of the pandemic virus.
In 2021, The Intercept published a leaked 2018 grant proposal for a research project named Defuse , which had been written as a collaboration between EcoHealth, the Wuhan institute and Ralph Baric at the University of North Carolina, who had been on the cutting edge of coronavirus research for years. The proposal described plans to create viruses strikingly similar to SARS‑CoV‑2.
Coronaviruses bear their name because their surface is studded with protein spikes, like a spiky crown, which they use to enter animal cells. T he Defuse project proposed to search for and create SARS-like viruses carrying spikes with a unique feature: a furin cleavage site — the same feature that enhances SARS‑CoV‑2’s infectiousness in humans, making it capable of causing a pandemic. Defuse was never funded by the United States . However, in his testimony on Monday, Dr. Fauci explained that the Wuhan institute would not need to rely on U.S. funding to pursue research independently.

The Wuhan lab ran risky experiments to learn about how SARS-like viruses might infect humans.

1. Collect SARS-like viruses from bats and other wild animals, as well as from people exposed to them.

2. Identify high-risk viruses by screening for spike proteins that facilitate infection of human cells.

2. Identify high-risk viruses by screening for spike proteins that facilitate infection of

human cells.

In Defuse, the scientists proposed to add a furin cleavage site to the spike protein.

3. Create new coronaviruses by inserting spike proteins or other features that could make the viruses more infectious in humans.

4. Infect human cells, civets and humanized mice with the new coronaviruses, to determine how dangerous they might be.

While it’s possible that the furin cleavage site could have evolved naturally (as seen in some distantly related coronaviruses), out of the hundreds of SARS-like viruses cataloged by scientists, SARS‑CoV‑2 is the only one known to possess a furin cleavage site in its spike. And the genetic data suggest that the virus had only recently gained the furin cleavage site before it started the pandemic.
Ultimately, a never-before-seen SARS-like virus with a newly introduced furin cleavage site, matching the description in the Wuhan institute’s Defuse proposal, caused an outbreak in Wuhan less than two years after the proposal was drafted.
When the Wuhan scientists published their seminal paper about Covid-19 as the pandemic roared to life in 2020, they did not mention the virus’s furin cleavage site — a feature they should have been on the lookout for, according to their own grant proposal, and a feature quickly recognized by other scientists.
Worse still, as the pandemic raged, their American collaborators failed to publicly reveal the existence of the Defuse proposal. The president of EcoHealth, Peter Daszak, recently admitted to Congress that he doesn’t know about virus samples collected by the Wuhan institute after 2015 and never asked the lab’s scientists if they had started the work described in Defuse. In May, citing failures in EcoHealth’s monitoring of risky experiments conducted at the Wuhan lab, the Biden administration suspended all federal funding for the organization and Dr. Daszak, and initiated proceedings to bar them from receiving future grants. In his testimony on Monday, Dr. Fauci said that he supported the decision to suspend and bar EcoHealth.
Separately, Dr. Baric described the competitive dynamic between his research group and the institute when he told Congress that the Wuhan scientists would probably not have shared their most interesting newly discovered viruses with him . Documents and email correspondence between the institute and Dr. Baric are still being withheld from the public while their release is fiercely contested in litigation.
In the end, American partners very likely knew of only a fraction of the research done in Wuhan. According to U.S. intelligence sources, some of the institute’s virus research was classified or conducted with or on behalf of the Chinese military . In the congressional hearing on Monday, Dr. Fauci repeatedly acknowledged the lack of visibility into experiments conducted at the Wuhan institute, saying, “None of us can know everything that’s going on in China, or in Wuhan, or what have you. And that’s the reason why — I say today, and I’ve said at the T.I.,” referring to his transcribed interview with the subcommittee, “I keep an open mind as to what the origin is.”

3 The Wuhan lab pursued this type of work under low biosafety conditions that could not have contained an airborne virus as infectious as SARS‑CoV‑2.

Labs working with live viruses generally operate at one of four biosafety levels (known in ascending order of stringency as BSL-1, 2, 3 and 4) that describe the work practices that are considered sufficiently safe depending on the characteristics of each pathogen. The Wuhan institute’s scientists worked with SARS-like viruses under inappropriately low biosafety conditions .

In the United States, virologists generally use stricter Biosafety Level 3 protocols when working with SARS-like viruses.

Biosafety cabinets prevent

viral particles from escaping.

Viral particles

Personal respirators provide

a second layer of defense against breathing in the virus.

DIRECT CONTACT

Gloves prevent skin contact.

Disposable wraparound

gowns cover much of the rest of the body.

Personal respirators provide a second layer of defense against breathing in the virus.

Disposable wraparound gowns

cover much of the rest of the body.

Note: Biosafety levels are not internationally standardized, and some countries use more permissive protocols than others.

The Wuhan lab had been regularly working with SARS-like viruses under Biosafety Level 2 conditions, which could not prevent a highly infectious virus like SARS-CoV-2 from escaping.

Some work is done in the open air, and masks are not required.

Less protective equipment provides more opportunities

for contamination.

Some work is done in the open air,

and masks are not required.

Less protective equipment provides more opportunities for contamination.

In one experiment, Dr. Shi’s group genetically engineered an unexpectedly deadly SARS-like virus (not closely related to SARS‑CoV‑2) that exhibited a 10,000-fold increase in the quantity of virus in the lungs and brains of humanized mice . Wuhan institute scientists handled these live viruses at low biosafet y levels , including BSL-2.
Even the much more stringent containment at BSL-3 cannot fully prevent SARS‑CoV‑2 from escaping . Two years into the pandemic, the virus infected a scientist in a BSL-3 laboratory in Taiwan, which was, at the time, a zero-Covid country. The scientist had been vaccinated and was tested only after losing the sense of smell. By then, more than 100 close contacts had been exposed. Human error is a source of exposure even at the highest biosafety levels , and the risks are much greater for scientists working with infectious pathogens at low biosafety.
An early draft of the Defuse proposal stated that the Wuhan lab would do their virus work at BSL-2 to make it “highly cost-effective.” Dr. Baric added a note to the draft highlighting the importance of using BSL-3 to contain SARS-like viruses that could infect human cells, writing that “U.S. researchers will likely freak out.” Years later, after SARS‑CoV‑2 had killed millions, Dr. Baric wrote to Dr. Daszak : “I have no doubt that they followed state determined rules and did the work under BSL-2. Yes China has the right to set their own policy. You believe this was appropriate containment if you want but don’t expect me to believe it. Moreover, don’t insult my intelligence by trying to feed me this load of BS.”
SARS‑CoV‑2 is a stealthy virus that transmits effectively through the air, causes a range of symptoms similar to those of other common respiratory diseases and can be spread by infected people before symptoms even appear. If the virus had escaped from a BSL-2 laboratory in 2019, the leak most likely would have gone undetected until too late.
One alarming detail — leaked to The Wall Street Journal and confirmed by current and former U.S. government officials — is that scientists on Dr. Shi’s team fell ill with Covid-like symptoms in the fall of 2019 . One of the scientists had been named in the Defuse proposal as the person in charge of virus discovery work. The scientists denied having been sick .

4 The hypothesis that Covid-19 came from an animal at the Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan is not supported by strong evidence.

In December 2019, Chinese investigators assumed the outbreak had started at a centrally located market frequented by thousands of visitors daily. This bias in their search for early cases meant that cases unlinked to or located far away from the market would very likely have been missed. To make things worse, the Chinese authorities blocked the reporting of early cases not linked to the market and, claiming biosafety precautions, ordered the destruction of patient samples on January 3, 2020, making it nearly impossible to see the complete picture of the earliest Covid-19 cases. Information about dozens of early cases from November and December 2019 remains inaccessible.
A pair of papers published in Science in 2022 made the best case for SARS‑CoV‑2 having emerged naturally from human-animal contact at the Wuhan market by focusing on a map of the early cases and asserting that the virus had jumped from animals into humans twice at the market in 2019. More recently, the two papers have been countered by other virologists and scientists who convincingly demonstrate that the available market evidence does not distinguish between a human superspreader event and a natural spillover at the market.
Furthermore, the existing genetic and early case data show that all known Covid-19 cases probably stem from a single introduction of SARS‑CoV‑2 into people, and the outbreak at the Wuhan market probably happened after the virus had already been circulating in humans.

An analysis of SARS-CoV-2’s evolutionary tree shows how the virus evolved as it started to spread through humans.

SARS-COV-2 Viruses closest

to bat coronaviruses

more mutations

Source: Lv et al., Virus Evolution (2024) , as reproduced by Jesse Bloom

The viruses that infected people linked to the market were most likely not the earliest form of the virus that started the pandemic.

Not a single infected animal has ever been confirmed at the market or in its supply chain. Without good evidence that the pandemic started at the Huanan Seafood Market, the fact that the virus emerged in Wuhan points squarely at its unique SARS-like virus laboratory.

5 Key evidence that would be expected if the virus had emerged from the wildlife trade is still missing.

In previous outbreaks of coronaviruses, scientists were able to demonstrate natural origin by collecting multiple pieces of evidence linking infected humans to infected animals.

Infected animals

Earliest known

cases exposed to

live animals

Antibody evidence

of animals and

animal traders having

been infected

Ancestral variants

of the virus found in

Documented trade

of host animals

between the area

where bats carry

closely related viruses

and the outbreak site

Infected animals found

Earliest known cases exposed to live animals

Antibody evidence of animals and animal

traders having been infected

Ancestral variants of the virus found in animals

Documented trade of host animals

between the area where bats carry closely

related viruses and the outbreak site

For SARS-CoV-2, these same key pieces of evidence are still missing , more than four years after the virus emerged.

For SARS-CoV-2, these same key pieces of evidence are still missing ,

more than four years after the virus emerged.

Despite the intense search trained on the animal trade and people linked to the market, investigators have not reported finding any animals infected with SARS‑CoV‑2 that had not been infected by humans. Yet, infected animal sources and other connective pieces of evidence were found for the earlier SARS and MERS outbreaks as quickly as within a few days, despite the less advanced viral forensic technologies of two decades ago.
Even though Wuhan is the home base of virus hunters with world-leading expertise in tracking novel SARS-like viruses, investigators have either failed to collect or report key evidence that would be expected if Covid-19 emerged from the wildlife trade . For example, investigators have not determined that the earliest known cases had exposure to intermediate host animals before falling ill. No antibody evidence shows that animal traders in Wuhan are regularly exposed to SARS-like viruses, as would be expected in such situations.
With today’s technology, scientists can detect how respiratory viruses — including SARS, MERS and the flu — circulate in animals while making repeated attempts to jump across species . Thankfully, these variants usually fail to transmit well after crossing over to a new species and tend to die off after a small number of infections. In contrast, virologists and other scientists agree that SARS‑CoV‑2 required little to no adaptation to spread rapidly in humans and other animals . The virus appears to have succeeded in causing a pandemic upon its only detected jump into humans.

The pandemic could have been caused by any of hundreds of virus species, at any of tens of thousands of wildlife markets, in any of thousands of cities, and in any year. But it was a SARS-like coronavirus with a unique furin cleavage site that emerged in Wuhan, less than two years after scientists, sometimes working under inadequate biosafety conditions, proposed collecting and creating viruses of that same design.

While several natural spillover scenarios remain plausible, and we still don’t know enough about the full extent of virus research conducted at the Wuhan institute by Dr. Shi’s team and other researchers, a laboratory accident is the most parsimonious explanation of how the pandemic began.

Given what we now know, investigators should follow their strongest leads and subpoena all exchanges between the Wuhan scientists and their international partners, including unpublished research proposals, manuscripts, data and commercial orders. In particular, exchanges from 2018 and 2019 — the critical two years before the emergence of Covid-19 — are very likely to be illuminating (and require no cooperation from the Chinese government to acquire), yet they remain beyond the public’s view more than four years after the pandemic began.

Whether the pandemic started on a lab bench or in a market stall, it is undeniable that U.S. federal funding helped to build an unprecedented collection of SARS-like viruses at the Wuhan institute, as well as contributing to research that enhanced them . Advocates and funders of the institute’s research, including Dr. Fauci, should cooperate with the investigation to help identify and close the loopholes that allowed such dangerous work to occur. The world must not continue to bear the intolerable risks of research with the potential to cause pandemics .

A successful investigation of the pandemic’s root cause would have the power to break a decades-long scientific impasse on pathogen research safety, determining how governments will spend billions of dollars to prevent future pandemics. A credible investigation would also deter future acts of negligence and deceit by demonstrating that it is indeed possible to be held accountable for causing a viral pandemic. Last but not least, people of all nations need to see their leaders — and especially, their scientists — heading the charge to find out what caused this world-shaking event. Restoring public trust in science and government leadership requires it.

A thorough investigation by the U.S. government could unearth more evidence while spurring whistleblowers to find their courage and seek their moment of opportunity. It would also show the world that U.S. leaders and scientists are not afraid of what the truth behind the pandemic may be.

More on how the pandemic may have started

Where Did the Coronavirus Come From? What We Already Know Is Troubling.

Even if the coronavirus did not emerge from a lab, the groundwork for a potential disaster had been laid for years, and learning its lessons is essential to preventing others.

By Zeynep Tufekci

Why Does Bad Science on Covid’s Origin Get Hyped?

If the raccoon dog was a smoking gun, it fired blanks.

By David Wallace-Wells

A Plea for Making Virus Research Safer

A way forward for lab safety.

By Jesse Bloom

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .

Alina Chan ( @ayjchan ) is a molecular biologist at the Broad Institute of M.I.T. and Harvard, and a co-author of “ Viral : The Search for the Origin of Covid-19.” She was a member of the Pathogens Project , which the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists organized to generate new thinking on responsible, high-risk pathogen research.

Share full article

IMAGES

"COVID-19 PR Reflection" by Madeline Dingle
What To Do A Persuasive Essay On
Frontiers
School at Home: Kids Share Experiences During Coronavirus Pandemic
Protecting and mobilizing youth in COVID-19 responses
Position paper: COVID-19 vaccination of autistic people

VIDEO

Imran Khan announced Prime Minister Name !
BIG BREAKING : Strict Action Taken On Famous Journalists !
How to Structure Your Persuasive Essay
MAGA Asked Who Jesus Would Vote For in 2024, The Answer Won't Surprise You But The Reasons Might
Master the Art of Persuasion: 3 Keys to Becoming an Effective Salesperson
Persuasive Speech Video about Covid 19

COMMENTS

Persuasive Essay About Covid19
Examples of Persuasive Essay About Covid-19 Vaccine Covid19 vaccines are one of the ways to prevent the spread of Covid-19, but they have been a source of controversy. Different sides argue about the benefits or dangers of the new vaccines.
10+ Examples of a Persuasive Essay About Covid-19
1. Start with an attention-grabbing hook: Use a quote, statistic, or interesting fact related to your argument at the beginning of your essay to draw the reader in. 2. Make sure you have a clear thesis statement: A thesis statement is one sentence that expresses the main idea of your essay.
Essay on Coronavirus Prevention
500+ Words Essay on Coronavirus Prevention. The best way of coronavirus prevention is not getting it in the first place. After extensive research, there are now COVID-19 vaccines available to the public. Everyone must consider getting it to lead healthy lives. Further, we will look at some ways in this essay in how one can lower their chances ...
Coronavirus Prevention: How to Protect Yourself from COVID-19
Scientists are still learning about COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus, but according to the CDC, this highly contagious virus appears to be most commonly spread during close (within 6 feet) person-to-person contact through respiratory droplets. "The means of transmission can be through respiratory droplets produced when a person coughs or sneezes, or by direct physical contact ...
Students' Essays on Infectious Disease Prevention, COVID-19 Published
Kalyani Mohan '22 and Kalli Jackson '22 penned an essay titled " Where Public Health Meets Politics: COVID-19 in the United States ," which was published in Wesleyan's Arcadia Political Review. They wrote: "While the U.S. would certainly benefit from a strengthened pandemic response team and structural changes to public health ...
Examining persuasive message type to encourage staying at home during
1. Introduction. The outbreak of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has emerged as the largest global pandemic ever experienced [].Experts have proposed that social lockdown will lead to improvements such as controlling the increase in the number of infected individuals and preventing a huge burden on the healthcare system [, , ].Governments of many countries across the world have ...
Persuasive Messages for Improving Adherence to COVID-19 Prevention
Through a randomized online experiment, we tested the effectiveness of five messages featuring different persuasive appeals (deontological vs empathy vs goal proximity vs reciprocity vs identifiable victim) relative to a control message that simply listed the actions participants could take to help prevent the spread of COVID-19.
Testing persuasive messaging to encourage COVID-19 risk reduction
First, we conduct a large-scale multi-mes-sage study of different messages designed to encourage COVID-19 risk reduction actions with multiple outcomes followed by a replication study of the most promising messages. Testing a large number of messages means we can directly assess the relative effectiveness of different messages, decompose ...
The Science of Persuasion Offers Lessons for COVID-19 Prevention
Look to the science of persuasion, says communications professor Dominique Brossard, PhD. Brossard is part of a new National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine group called the Societal Experts Action Network, or SEAN, whose recent report lays out research-based strategies to encourage COVID-19-mitigating behaviors.. Brossard says the changes must feel easy to do—and to repeat ...
How to Write About Coronavirus in a College Essay
Students can choose to write a full-length college essay on the coronavirus or summarize their experience in a shorter form. To help students explain how the pandemic affected them, The Common App ...
Influence of diverse kinds of persuasive messages on intention to stay
1. Introduction. COVID-19 is believed to be the deadliest pandemic round the world .This disease is highly contagious and it is transmitted rapidly and easily through symptomatic and asymptomatic carriers .The COVID-19 pandemic is believed to be the top societal challenge in recent years necessitating extensive collective action and collaboration.
Persuasive narrative during the COVID-19 pandemic: Norwegian ...
Drawing inspiration from Boin, Stern and Sundelius', work on persuasive narratives, this study shows the ways that Solberg's posts about COVID-19 exhibit all five identified frame functions.
How to stop the spread of COVID-19
COVID-19 tests can help prevent the spread to others. You can use COVID-19 self-tests at home and get quick results whether or not you have symptoms. Wash your hands many times a day with soap and running water for at least 20 seconds. In general, this is a good practice to help prevent the spread of germs.
How to Protect Yourself and Others
In addition, there are other prevention strategies that you can choose to further protect yourself and others. Wearing a mask and putting distance between yourself and others can help lower the risk of COVID-19 transmission. Testing for COVID-19 can help you decide what to do next, like getting treatment to reduce your risk of severe illness ...
PDF Key Messages and Actions for COVID-19 Prevention and Control in Schools
3. Be a leader in keeping yourself, your school, family and community healthy. Share what you learn about preventing disease with your family and friends, especially with younger children. Model good practices such as sneezing or coughing into your elbow and washing your hands, especially for younger family members. 4.
Mastering the art of persuasion during a pandemic
By. Elizabeth Svoboda. Credit: Sam Falconer. When Robb Willer looks back on the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic — when leaders still had a chance to stop the virus from bringing the world to ...
Misdirecting Persuasive Efforts During the Covid-19 Pandemic: The
Persuading people to engage in specific health behaviors is critical to prevent the spread of and mitigate the harm caused by COVID-19. Most of the research and practice around this issue focuses on developing effective message content.
Persuasive messaging to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake intentions
Here we use two survey experiments to study how persuasive messaging affects COVID-19 vaccine uptake intentions. In the first experiment, we test a large number of treatment messages. One subgroup of messages draws on the idea that mass vaccination is a collective action problem and highlighting the prosocial benefit of vaccination or the ...
Getting the COVID-19 Vaccine
For some COVID-19 vaccines, two doses are required . It's important to get the second dose if the vaccine requires two doses. For vaccines that require two doses, the first dose presents antigens - proteins that stimulate the production of antibodies - to the immune system for the first time. Scientists call this priming the immune response.
COVID-19: How to persuade patients to practice social distancing
Minimizing contact with others by staying home and practicing social distancing can help health systems better meet the needs of those who may have COVID-19. While many people are following recommendations by working from home and canceling trips, others view these precautions as an overreaction. As the need for people to stay home and practice ...
Frontiers
The highest persuasive effect was observed in the case of the non-loss frame, which did not threaten the receivers, triggered a moderated fear and, in turn, activated a positive evaluation of the recommendation, as well as higher attitude and intention to do home-based physical activity at Time 2. ... COVID-19: Exercise May Help Prevent Deadly ...
Handwashing an effective tool to prevent COVID-19, other diseases
To stop the spread of COVID-19, along with other COVID appropriate behaviours, the practice of handwashing at regular intervals is a must, after coughing or sneezing, when caring for the sick, after using the toilet, before eating, while preparing food and after handling animals or animal waste. Handwashing after touching common surfaces such ...
Why the Pandemic Probably Started in a Lab, in 5 Key Points
Dr. Chan is a molecular biologist at the Broad Institute of M.I.T. and Harvard, and a co-author of "Viral: The Search for the Origin of Covid-19." Updated June 3, 2024 at 3:09 p.m. E.T. This ...

How to Write a Persuasive Essay About Covid19 | Examples & Tips

Steps to Write a Persuasive Essay About Covid-19

Step 1: Choose a Specific Thesis Statement

Step 2: Research and Gather Information

Step 3: Outline Your Essay

Step 4: Write the Introduction

Step 5: Provide Background Information

Step 6: Develop Body Paragraphs

Step 7: Address Counterarguments

Step 8: Write the Conclusion

Step 9: Revise and Proofread

Step 10: Cite Your Sources

Examples of Persuasive Essay About Covid19

Examples of Persuasive Essay About Covid-19 Vaccine

Examples of Persuasive Essay About Covid-19 Integration

Examples of Argumentative Essay About Covid 19

Examples of Persuasive Speeches About Covid-19

Tips to Write a Persuasive Essay About Covid-19

Choose a Specific Angle

Provide Credible Sources

Use Persuasive Language

Organize Your Essay

Emphasize Benefits

Use Visuals -H3

Call to Action

Revise and Edit

Seek Feedback

Common Topics for a Persuasive Essay on COVID-19

Frequently Asked Questions

What impact does COVID-19 have on society?

Keep reading

Top Examples of Persuasive Essay about Covid-19

Examples of Persuasive Essay About Covid-19

Examples of Persuasive Essay About the Covid-19 Vaccine

Examples of Persuasive Essay About Covid-19 Integration

Examples of Argumentative Essay About Covid-19

Examples of Persuasive Speeches About Covid-19

Tips to Write a Persuasive Essay

Frequently Asked Questions

What are good topics for persuasive essays?

What impact does COVID-19 have on society?

Keep reading

Essay on Coronavirus Prevention

The Spread of Coronavirus

How to Prevent Coronavirus

FAQ of Essay on Coronavirus Prevention

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Download the App

Prevent COVID-19: How to Protect Yourself from the Coronavirus

Know how it spreads

Practice social distancing

Wash your hands

Wear a mask

Restrict your travel

Watch for symptoms

How NewYork-Presbyterian is prepared

Additional Resources

At a Glance

Share This Story

Students’ Essays on Infectious Disease Prevention, COVID-19 Published Nationwide

Related Articles

President Michael S. Roth ’78: “We Must Learn to Practice Freedom, Better”

Wesleyan University Celebrated its 192nd Commencement, Sunday

Select Your Interests

The Science of Persuasion Offers Lessons for COVID-19 Prevention

See More About

Manage citations:

Others Also Liked

How to Write About Coronavirus in a College Essay

Writing About COVID-19 for a College Application

Writing About Coronavirus in Main and Supplemental Essays

10 Ways to Discover College Essay Ideas

College Admissions: Get a Step Ahead!

You May Also Like

States' Responses to FAFSA Delays

Nonacademic Factors in College Searches

Takeaways From the NCAA’s Settlement

New Best Engineering Rankings June 18

Premedical Programs: What to Know