Should health communication regarding COVID‐19 emphasize self‐ or other‐focused impacts of mitigation behaviors? Insights from two message matching studies
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Mask‐wearing, social distancing, and vaccination remain effective ways to mitigate the spread of COVID‐19. Yet, many hesitate to enact some or all these preventive behaviors. We created three persuasive messages—framed to promote benefits to either (1) oneself, (2) close‐others, or (3) distant‐others—to determine whether the effectiveness of these messages varied based on personality differences (specifically independent/interdependent self‐construal and chronic construal level). In two online experiments ( N = 862), we measured individual differences and showed participants one of the three messages. Consistent interactions between interdependent self‐construal and message conditions showed that those high in interdependent self‐construal responded most positively to the self‐focused messages promoting mask‐wearing, social distancing, and COVID‐19 vaccination. Those low in interdependent self‐construal responded most negatively to the self‐focused messages. Although no interaction effect was observed for independent self‐construal, and inconsistent evidence emerged for construal level, other‐focused messages performed either better or equally well to the self‐focused messages for most participants and may thus be promising for future public health communication efforts.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it