Search

Given the prosocial nature of COVID-19 mitigation actions, the norm activation model (NAM) provides a theoretical framework to understand how these mitigation behaviors may be driven by activating personal norms. Aimed at delineating the relationship between awareness of consequences and ascription of responsibility, two key variables in the model, the present study examined to what extent this relationship was moderated by political ideology, individual efficacy, and collective efficacy.A cross-sectional online survey (N = 560) was implemented with a sample that matched the demographics of the national population in the U.S.The relationship between awareness of consequences and ascription of responsibility was stronger among liberals and those reporting low levels of individual efficacy and collective efficacy.Health behaviors such as COVID-19 mitigation actions can be motivated by activating individuals' sense of moral obligation, but the effectiveness of this approach depends on their political ideology and efficacy beliefs.Campaigns can promote health behaviors by triggering the moral responsibility of the target audience through emphasizing severity of the consequences. This approach can be more effective for liberals and those that lack confidence in individual and collective abilities to avert the threat.

Objective This study explored the effects of COVID-19 vaccine promotion messages highlighting the benefit at individual, community, and country levels. Based on the cultural theory of risks, we investigated how individuals’ valuation of individualism vs. communitarianism and hierarchical vs. egalitarian social structure affect their responses to vaccine messages. Methods An online experiment (N = 702) with four video message conditions (individual-centered, community-centered, country-centered, and no message) was conducted. Participants were asked about their cultural cognition worldview, then were randomly assigned to view one message. Participants also reported their willingness to receive COVID-19 vaccines and support for vaccine mandate. Results Respondents were more likely to get vaccinated and support vaccine mandates after viewing an individual-centered message, less with a community-centered message. Individuals who value individualism were more likely to respond positively to individual-centered messages, but those who believe more in communitarianism value were less likely. Conclusion Results showed that individuals are motivated selectively to respond to certain claims that cohere with their worldview and therefore respond differently to vaccine benefit frames. Practice Implications The results point to the importance of understanding audiences’ worldviews. By identifying this process through hierarchical and individualistic values, properly designed health promotion messages can maximize the desired outcomes.

Sharing information about disasters and victims on social media can help raise situational awareness, enhance issue-related knowledge, promote prosocial behaviors and rebuild a sense of community during the recovery stage. In the current study, we investigate two specific ways of framing victim information, how they influence the likelihood of sharing such information on social media, and the underlying cognitive and emotional mechanisms. Participants (N = 631) were randomly assigned to 1 of 12 experimental conditions as part of 2 (victim exemplification: present vs. absent) × 2 (provocative language: present vs. absent) × 3 (message stimuli) between-subjects factorial design. Main findings indicate that, although both sadness and message enjoyment were positively associated with information sharing intentions, messages that induced more enjoyment and less sadness were more likely to be shared. In addition, messages that violated less expectation were also more likely to be shared. Overall, this study suggests that those wanting to create a victim message that can be shared more widely should produce a message that elicits more sadness, uses less provocative language and is more enjoyable.

The present study explored the effects of switching between reading an online article and checking Facebook on recognition memory, moderated by polychronicity, or preference for multitasking. The results of the study indicated that participants recognized online information less efficiently when they were required to check Facebook (forced multitasking) and when they could choose to check Facebook if and when they wanted (voluntary multitasking) compared with the control, non-multitasking, condition. I.e., the opportunity to multitask interfered with the efficiency of online information processing as much as actual multitasking. Polychronicity was a significant moderator of the multitasking effects. Low polychronics were negatively affected by multitasking to a greater extent than high polychronics. Their article recognition levels were lower than those of high polychronics. Two recognition measures derived from the signal detection theory: recognition sensitivity and criterion bias, were used. The study indicated that forced and voluntary multitasking affected high and low polychronics differently. Low polychronics showed greater cognitive effort than high polychronics when they engaged in voluntary media multitasking, while the amount of cognitive resources allocated to processing increased in high polychronics in the non-multitasking (control) condition. When high polychronics did not have control over switching to Facebook (forced multitasking), their recognition of the online article content decreased. Theoretical, methodological, and managerial implications of the study are discussed. Opportunity to multitask interfered with memory as much as actual multitasking.Multitasking negatively affected low polychronics more than high polychronics.Recognition increased in high polychronics who had control over using Facebook.Low polychronics showed higher cognitive effort during voluntary multitasking.High polychronics showed higher cognitive effort in the nonmultitasking condition.