ISSN 0439-755X
CN 11-1911/B

Acta Psychologica Sinica ›› 2022, Vol. 54 ›› Issue (12): 1532-1547.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2022.01532

• Reports of Empirical Studies • Previous Articles     Next Articles

How goal framing and temporal distance influence the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccine persuasion

LIU Nan1, AN Xinru1, LI Aimei1(), LIU Pei2, SUN Hailong3()   

  1. 1School of Management, Jinan University, Guangzhou 510632, China
    2School of Tourism Management, Sun Yat-Sen University, Zhuhai, 519082, China
    3School of Business, Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, Guangzhou 510006, China
  • Published:2022-12-20 Online:2022-09-23
  • Contact: LI Aimei,SUN Hailong E-mail:tliaim@jun.edu.cn;sunhailong@gdufs.edu.cn

Abstract:

Vaccines are crucial for controlling deadly diseases, and how to persuade people to get vaccinated has become a hot topic in enhancing public health benefits. One way to increase the vaccination rate is to raise public awareness of the importance of vaccines through advertising. As an effective and cost-friendly approach, goal framing has been widely used in vaccine advertising. However, the literature has mixed findings about whether positive or negative goal framing is more effective in persuading people to get vaccinated. The present study aims to investigate how temporal distance (present vs. future) interacts with different types of goal framing (positive vs. negative) in persuading people to get the COVID-19 vaccine. We hypothesized that negative goal framing is more persuasive when the advertising focuses on present outcomes, while positive goal framing is more effective when combined with future-focused outcomes. We further hypothesized that the inner mechanism is the intertemporal asymmetry of approach and avoidance motivation. More specifically, the avoidance motivation induced by a negative frame is stronger in the present, while the approach motivation induced by a positive frame is stronger in the future. The perceived risk of COVID-19 moderated this effect.
Four studies were conducted to examine our hypotheses. Study 1 (N = 363) was conducted to preliminarily investigate how goal framing and temporal distance jointly influence willingness to get the COVID-19 vaccine (Interaction effect: F(1, 291) = 12.25, p = 0.001, ηp2 = 0.040, 90% CI [0.011, 0.083]). The results showed that a negative goal frame was more persuasive when combined with present-focused advertising, F(1, 291) = 4.42, p = 0.036, ηp2 = 0.015, 90% CI [0.001, 0.046], while a positive goal frame was more effective when combined with future-focused advertising, F(1, 291) = 8.12, p = 0.005, ηp2 = 0.027, 90% CI [0.005, 0.065] (Figure 1).
The aim of Study 2 (N = 292) was to verify the mediating effect of approach and avoidance motivation in a different advertising setting, as well as to rule out the potential mediators of the construal level and positive/negative emotions. The interaction effect of goal framing and temporal distance was replicated, F (1, 288) = 9.53, p = 0.002, ηp2 =0.032, 90% CI [0.007, 0.072] (Figure 2). Negative goal framing was more effective in the present context, F(1, 288) = 4.22, p = 0.041, ηp2 = 0.014, 90% CI[0.000, 0.045], while positive goal framing was more effective in the future context, F(1, 288) = 5.39, p = 0.021, ηp2 =0.018, 90% CI [0.002, 0.052]. Avoidance motivation mediated the relationship between the goal frame and vaccine uptake in the present context, while approach motivation mediated the relationship between the goal frame and vaccine uptake in the future context (Figure 3).
In Study 3 (N = 347), we further tested the mediators by manipulating participants’ approach and avoidance motivation. The results revealed that approach motivation priming increased the persuasiveness of the present-positive frame, while future-positive frame was still more persuasive than future-negative frame, F(1, 339) = 11.12, p = 0.001, ηp2 =0.032, 90% CI [0.008, 0.068]. On the other hand, avoidance motivation priming increased the persuasiveness of the future-negative frame, while present-negative frame was still more persuasive than present-positive frame, F(1, 339) = 20.93, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.058, 90% CI [0.024, 0.103], see Figure 4.
Study 4 (N = 423) was a quasi-experiment in which we recruited participants from areas with different levels of COVID-19 risk to test how perceived risk moderated the interaction effect of goal framing and temporal distance. The results indicated that when the COVID-19 risk was low, present-negative frame was more effective than present-positive frame, F(1, 415) = 6.45, p = 0.011, ηp2 = 0.015, 90% CI [0.002, 0.040]; and future-positive frame was more effective than future-negative frame, F(1, 415) = 7.62, p = 0.006, ηp2 = 0.018, 90%[0.003, 0.044], see Figure 5a. The same pattern as in the former studies. However, when the COVID-19 risk was high, the difference in vaccine uptake between present-positive and present-negative conditions disappeared, F(1, 415) = 0.31, p = 0.579, while the future-positive frame was still more persuasive than the future-negative frame, F(1, 415) = 3.93, p = 0.048, ηp2 = 0.009, 90% CI [0.000, 0.031] (Figure 5b).
In conclusion, the present study found an interactive effect of goal framing and temporal distance in persuading people to get the COVID-19 vaccine. Avoidance/approach motivation mediates the relationship between goal framing and vaccine uptake in the present/future temporal context. The perceived COVID risk further moderated the interaction effect. The present study contributes to both the framing and approach-avoidance motivation literature and sheds light on future practices in persuading people to get the COVID vaccine and promoting the uptake of other vaccines.

Key words: goal framing, temporal distance, vaccine persuasion, approach-avoidance motivation, risk