The effects of information framing on self-protective behavior: Evidence from the COVID-19 vaccine uptake
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: The Healthy China 2030 strategy outlines the government's plans for healthcare reform, emphasizing the need for increased awareness about infectious diseases to prevent and fight future infections. Information campaigns can be used as a medium to raise awareness and encourage citizens' willingness to protect themselves against diseases, such as COVID-19. Extant studies have found that individual health behavior decision-making can be changed under different information frames. However, limited evidence is available about emerging infectious diseases. Based on the Prospect Theory and Theory of Planned Behavior, the impact of information frames on self-protective behavior-vaccination against COVID-19 is investigated in this study. Methods: A 2(gain/loss frame)*2(factual/emotional frame) intergroup experimental design was designed to explore the effects of different information frames. 228 valid participants in China were recruited and the experiment was performed online. Results: First, the gain frame was more effective in promoting public self-protection behavior than the loss frame under information frame intervention. Compared with the factual frame, the emotional frame is more effective in reducing individual risk perception. Second, perceptual behavior control has masking effects on self-protection behavior under the influence of the gain/loss frame. Third, age, subjective norms, attitudes, and the gain frame, have predictive effects on self-protection behavior. Conclusions: This study provides empirical evidence on the impact of information framing interventions on public self-protection behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic and provides important practical implications for public administrators and media practitioners.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".