现在避害, 未来趋利：目标框架和时间距离交互影响疫苗说服有效性

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2022.01532

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

新冠疫情肆虐背景下, 如何说服人们接种新冠疫苗引发了政策制定者和研究者的关注。文章从趋近-回避动机的视角, 探讨了不同目标框架(积极vs. 消极)和时间距离(现在vs. 未来)对疫苗说服有效性的影响。结果发现：当宣传语关注现在时, “现在-消极”目标框架更能有效说服疫苗接种; 而当宣传语关注未来时, 则“未来-积极”目标框架更有说服力。其内在机制在于“现在-消极”目标框架启动的回避动机更强, 而“未来-积极”目标框架启动的趋近动机更强。此外, 疫情风险进一步影响目标框架与时间距离对疫苗说服的有效性。本研究从趋避动机的视角揭示了框架效应的理论机制和应用边界; 同时也为助推新冠疫苗以及未来其他疫苗接种提供实践指导, 具有重要的科学价值和实践指导意义。

关键词: 目标框架, 疫苗说服, 时间距离, 趋近-回避动机, 疫情风险

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 was conducted to preliminarily investigate how goal framing and temporal distance jointly influence willingness to get the COVID-19 vaccine. The aim of Study 2 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. In Study 3, we further tested the mediators by manipulating participants’ approach and avoidance motivation. Study 4 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 showed that a negative goal frame was more persuasive when combined with present-focused advertising, while a positive goal frame was more effective when combined with future-focused advertising (Study 1, N = 363). 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 (Study 2, N = 292). The results in Study 3 (N = 347) revealed that approach motivation priming increases the persuasiveness of the present-positive frame, while avoidance motivation priming increases the persuasiveness of the future-negative frame. COVID-19 risk also had an impact on the relationship between goal framing and temporal distance on vaccine uptake. When the COVID-19 risk was high, the difference in vaccine uptake between present-positive and present-negative conditions disappeared, while the future-positive frame was still more persuasive than the future-negative frame (Study 4, N = 423).

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

中图分类号:

B849: C91

刘楠, 安薪如, 李爱梅, 刘培, 孙海龙. (2022). 现在避害, 未来趋利：目标框架和时间距离交互影响疫苗说服有效性. 心理学报, 54(12), 1532-1547.

LIU Nan, AN Xinru, LI Aimei, LIU Pei, SUN Hailong. (2022). How goal framing and temporal distance influence the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccine persuasion. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 54(12), 1532-1547.

图/表 12

参考文献 60

[1]	Abhyankar, P., O'connor, D. B., & Lawton, R. (2008). The role of message framing in promoting MMR vaccination: Evidence of a loss-frame advantage. Psychology, Health and Medicine, 13(1), 1-16. pmid: 18066916
[2]	Aggarwal, P., & Zhao, M. (2015). Seeing the big picture: The effect of height on the level of construal. Journal of Marketing Research, 52(1), 120-133. doi: 10.1509/jmr.12.0067 URL
[3]	Anderson, C., & Berdahl, J. L. (2002). The experience of power: Examining the effects of power on approach and inhibition tendencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1362-1377. pmid: 12500818
[4]	Broemer, P. (2004). Ease of imagination moderates reactions to differently framed health messages. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34(2), 103-119. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.185 URL
[5]	Bruehlman-Senecal, E., & Ayduk, O. (2015). This too shall pass: Temporal distance and the regulation of emotional distress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(2), 356-375. doi: 10.1037/a0038324 pmid: 25603380
[6]	Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(2), 319-333. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.67.2.319 URL
[7]	Caserotti, M., Girardi, P., Rubaltelli, E., Tasso, A., Lotto, L., & Gavaruzzi, T. (2021). Associations of COVID-19 risk perception with vaccine hesitancy over time for Italian residents. Social Science & Medicine, 272, 113688. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113688 URL
[8]	Cervical Cancer Prevention and Treatment Committee of Guangdong Preventive Medicine Association. (2021). Guangdong expert consensus on HPV vaccine application to eliminate cervical cancer. Journal of Chinese Physician, (9), 1303-1315.
	[广东省预防医学会宫颈癌防治专业委员会. (2021). 消除子宫颈癌之HPV疫苗应用广东专家共识. 中国医师杂志, (9), 1303-1315.]
[9]	Chapman, G. B. (1996). Temporal discounting and utility for health and money. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(3), 771-791. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.22.3.771 URL
[10]	Chapman, G. B., & Coups, E. J. (2006). Emotions and preventive health behavior: Worry, regret, and influenza vaccination. Health Psychology, 25(1), 82-90. pmid: 16448301
[11]	Cheng, Q., & He, G. (2017). Deciding for future selves reduces loss aversion. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1644. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01644 pmid: 28979234
[12]	Dai, H., Saccardo, S., Han, M. A., Roh, L., Raja, N., Vangala, S., … Croymans, D. M. (2021). Behavioural nudges increase COVID-19 vaccinations. Nature, 597(7876), 404-409. doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03843-2 URL
[13]	Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational Psychologist, 34(3), 169-189. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep3403_3 URL
[14]	Elliot, A. J. (2013). Handbook of approach and avoidance motivation. Psychology Press.
[15]	Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2010). Approach and avoidance temperament as basic dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality, 78(3), 865-906. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00636.x pmid: 20573129
[16]	Eyal, T., Liberman, N., Trope, Y., & Walther, E. (2004). The pros and cons of temporally near and distant action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(6), 781.
[17]	Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.G., & Buchner, A. (2007). GPower 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods*, 39(2), 175-191. doi: 10.3758/bf03193146 pmid: 17695343
[18]	Förster, J. (2003). The influence of approach and avoidance motor actions on food intake. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33(3), 339-350. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.150 URL
[19]	Gable, S. L., & Gosnell, C. L. (2013). Approach and avoidance behavior in interpersonal relationships. Emotion Review, 5(3), 269-274. doi: 10.1177/1754073913477513 URL
[20]	Gal, D., & Rucker, D. D. (2018). The loss of loss aversion: Will it loom larger than its gain? Journal of Consumer Psychology, 28(3), 497-516. doi: 10.1002/jcpy.1047 URL
[21]	Ganguly, A., & Tasoff, J. (2017). Fantasy and dread: The demand for information and the consumption utility of the future. Management Science, 63(12), 4037-4060. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.2016.2550 URL
[22]	Gardner, M. P., Wansink, B., Kim, J., & Park, S. B. (2014). Better moods for better eating?: How mood influences food choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(3), 320-335. doi: 10.1016/j.jcps.2014.01.002 URL
[23]	Gerend, M. A., & Cullen, M. (2008). Effects of message framing and temporal context on college student drinking behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(4), 1167-1173. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2008.02.007 URL
[24]	Harris, A. J., & Hahn, U. (2011). Unrealistic optimism about future life events: A cautionary note. Psychological Review, 118(1), 135-154. doi: 10.1037/a0020997 pmid: 21058872
[25]	Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford publications.
[26]	He, G. B., Li, S., & Liang, Z. Y. (2018). Behavioral decision- making is nudging China toward the overall revitalization. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 50(8), 803-813. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2018.00803 URL
	[何贵兵, 李纾, 梁竹苑. (2018). 以小拨大: 行为决策助推社会发展. 心理学报, 50(8), 803-813.]
[27]	Hughes, M. T., Auwaerter, P. G., Ehmann, M. R., Garibaldi, B. T., Golden, S. H., Lorigiano, T. J., … Kahn, J.,(2021). The importance of offering vaccine choice in the fight against COVID-19. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 118(43), Article e2117185118.
[28]	Jiga-Boy, G. M., Clark, A. E., & Semin, G. R. (2010). So much to do and so little time: Effort and perceived temporal distance. Psychological Science, 21(12), 1811-1817. doi: 10.1177/0956797610388043 URL
[29]	Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-292. doi: 10.2307/1914185 URL
[30]	Kim, J., & Nan, X. (2019). Temporal framing effects differ for narrative versus non-narrative messages: The case of promoting HPV vaccination. Communication Research, 46(3), 401-417. doi: 10.1177/0093650215626980 URL
[31]	Krieglmeyer, R., De Houwer, J., & Deutsch, R. (2013). On the nature of automatically triggered approach-avoidance behavior. Emotion Review, 5(3), 280-284. doi: 10.1177/1754073913477501 URL
[32]	Krieglmeyer, R., Deutsch, R., De Houwer, J., & De Raedt, R. (2010). Being moved: Valence activates approach-avoidance behavior independently of evaluation and approach-avoidance intentions. Psychological Science, 21(4), 607-613. doi: 10.1177/0956797610365131 pmid: 20424109
[33]	Krpan, D., & Schnall, S. (2014). Too close for comfort: Stimulus valence moderates the influence of motivational orientation on distance perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(6), 978-993. doi: 10.1037/pspa0000017 pmid: 25437132
[34]	Krupenkin, M., Yom-Tov, E., & Rothschild, D. (2021). Vaccine advertising: Preach to the converted or to the unaware?. NPJ Digital Medicine, 4(1), 1-8. doi: 10.1038/s41746-020-00373-5 URL
[35]	Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L., & Gaeth, G. J. (1998). All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76(2), 149-188. pmid: 9831520
[36]	Li, A. M., Liu, N., Zhou, L., & Li, F.-J. (2020). Defending the queen’s pride: Effect of the menstrual cycle phase on conspicuous consumption. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 14, E11.
[37]	Li, M., & Chapman, G. B. (2009). “100% of anything looks good”: The appeal of one hundred percent. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(1), 156-162. doi: 10.3758/PBR.16.1.156 URL
[38]	Liu, H. J., & Gao, L. (2012). The distinction between approach and avoidance motivation and its implication on psychopathology. Advances in Psychological Science, 20(11), 1803-1811. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2012.01803 URL
	[刘惠军, 高磊. (2012). 趋近和回避动机的区分及其对心理病理学的影响. 心理科学进展, 20(11), 1803-1811.]
[39]	Liu, S. X., Yang, J. Z., & Chu, H. R. (2019). Now or future? Analyzing the effects of message frame and format in motivating Chinese females to get HPV vaccines for their children. Patient Education and Counseling, 102(1), 61-67. doi: S0738-3991(18)30692-X pmid: 30219633
[40]	Milkman, K. L., Patel, M. S., Gandhi, L., Graci, H. N., Gromet, D. M., Ho, H., … Beshears, J. (2021). A megastudy of text-based nudges encouraging patients to get vaccinated at an upcoming doctor’s appointment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(20), Article e2101165118
[41]	Nabi, R. L., Gustafson, A., & Jensen, R. (2018). Framing climate change: Exploring the role of emotion in generating advocacy behavior. Science Communication, 40(4), 442-468. doi: 10.1177/1075547018776019 URL
[42]	Nan, X., Madden, K., Richards, A., Holt, C., Wang, M. Q., & Tracy, K. (2016). Message framing, perceived susceptibility, and intentions to vaccinate children against HPV among African American parents. Health Communication, 31(7), 798-805. doi: 10.1080/10410236.2015.1005280 pmid: 26646190
[43]	Neumann, R., Förster, J., & Strack, F. (2003). Motor compatibility:The bidirectional link between behavior and evaluation. In J. Musch & C. Klauer (Eds.), The psychology of evaluation: Affective processes in cognition and emotion (pp. 371-391). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbau.
[44]	Nikitin, J., & Freund, A. M. (2010). When wanting and fearing go together: The effect of co-occurring social approach and avoidance motivation on behavior, affect, and cognition. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40(5), 783-804.
[45]	Oettingen, G., & Mayer, D. (2002). The motivating function of thinking about the future: Expectations versus fantasies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(5), 1198-1212. pmid: 12416922
[46]	O'Keefe, D. J., & Nan, X. (2012). The relative persuasiveness of gain-and loss-framed messages for promoting vaccination: A meta-analytic review. Health Communication, 27(8), 776-783. doi: 10.1080/10410236.2011.640974 pmid: 22292904
[47]	Park, S. Y. (2012). The effects of message framing and risk perceptions for HPV vaccine campaigns: Focus on the role of regulatory fit. Health Marketing Quarterly, 29(4), 283-302. doi: 10.1080/07359683.2012.732847 URL
[48]	Peng, L., Guo, Y., & Hu, D. (2021). Information framing effect on public’s intention to receive the COVID-19 vaccination in China. Vaccines, 9(9), 995.
[49]	Penţa, M. A., & Băban, A. (2018). Message framing in vaccine communication: A systematic review of published literature. Health Communication, 33(3), 299-314. doi: 10.1080/10410236.2016.1266574 pmid: 28059557
[50]	Rao, S., & Nyquist, A. C. (2018). The power of the nudge to decrease decision fatigue and increase influenza vaccination rates. JAMA Network Open, 1(5), e181754-e181754.
[51]	Schmelz, K., & Bowles, S. (2021). Overcoming COVID-19 vaccination resistance when alternative policies affect the dynamics of conformism, social norms, and crowding out. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(25), Article 2104912118.
[52]	Stephan, E., Wildschut, T., Sedikides, C., Zhou, X., He, W., Routledge, C., … Vingerhoets, A. J. (2014). The mnemonic mover: Nostalgia regulates avoidance and approach motivation. Emotion, 14(3), 545-561. doi: 10.1037/a0035673 pmid: 24708500
[53]	Taylor, S. E. (1991). Asymmetrical effects of positive and negative events: The mobilization-minimization hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 110(1), 67-85. pmid: 1891519
[54]	Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440-463. doi: 10.1037/a0018963 pmid: 20438233
[55]	Van Kerckhove, A., Geuens, M., & Vermeir, I. (2015). The floor is nearer than the sky: How looking up or down affects construal level. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(6), 1358-1371. doi: 10.1086/679309 URL
[56]	White, K., MacDonnell, R., & Dahl, D. W. (2011). It's the mind-set that matters: The role of construal level and message framing in influencing consumer efficacy and conservation behaviors. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(3), 472-485. doi: 10.1509/jmkr.48.3.472 URL
[57]	World Health Organization. (2019). Immunization coverage. Retrieved May 1, 2022, from https://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/immunization-coverage.
[58]	Yang, J., Atkins, K. E., Feng, L., Pang, M., Zheng, Y., Liu, X., … Yu, H. (2016). Seasonal influenza vaccination in China: Landscape of diverse regional reimbursement policy, and budget impact analysis. Vaccine, 34(47), 5724-5735. doi: S0264-410X(16)30911-2 pmid: 27745951
[59]	Ye, Z., Yang, X., Zeng, C., Wang, Y., Shen, Z., Li, X., & Lin, D. (2020). Resilience, social support, and coping as mediators between COVID-19-related stressful experiences and acute stress disorder among college students in China. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 12(4), 1074-1094. doi: 10.1111/aphw.12211 URL
[60]	Zhang, X. W., Xuan, Y. M., & Fu, X. L. (2012). The effect of emotional valences on approach and avoidance responses. Advances in Psychological Science, 20(7), 1023-1030. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2012.01023 URL
	[张晓雯, 禤宇明, 傅小兰. (2012). 情绪效价对趋避反应的作用. 心理科学进展, 20(7), 1023-1030.]

实验条件	n	接种意愿(M ± SD)	预约接种人数(比率)	趋近动机(M ± SD)	回避动机(M ± SD)
现在-积极	62	5.79 ± 1.32	42(67.74%)	5.76 ± 1.20	6.02 ± 1.08
现在-消极	77	6.18 ± 0.88	64(83.12%)	5.90 ± 1.11	6.36 ± 0.89
未来-积极	77	6.12 ± 0.84	64(83.12%)	6.13 ± 0.78	6.17 ± 0.86
未来-消极	76	5.70 ± 1.37	51(67.11%)	5.75 ± 1.22	5.99 ± 1.08

实验条件	n	接种意愿(M ± SD)	预约接种人数(比率)	趋近动机(M ± SD)	回避动机(M ± SD)
现在-积极	62	5.79 ± 1.32	42(67.74%)	5.76 ± 1.20	6.02 ± 1.08
现在-消极	77	6.18 ± 0.88	64(83.12%)	5.90 ± 1.11	6.36 ± 0.89
未来-积极	77	6.12 ± 0.84	64(83.12%)	6.13 ± 0.78	6.17 ± 0.86
未来-消极	76	5.70 ± 1.37	51(67.11%)	5.75 ± 1.22	5.99 ± 1.08

实验条件	n	接种意愿(M ± SD)	预约接种人数(比率)
趋近动机启动
现在-积极	45	6.11 ± 0.71	33(73.33%)
现在-消极	44	6.00 ± 0.87	33(75.00%)
未来-积极	43	6.21 ± 0.83	35(81.40%)
未来-消极	42	5.67 ± 0.72	27(64.29%)
回避动机启动
现在-积极	44	5.64 ± 0.69	29(65.91%)
现在-消极	43	6.37 ± 0.69	36(83.72%)
未来-积极	43	6.05 ± 0.84	33(76.74%)
未来-消极	43	6.09 ± 0.68	35(81.40%)

实验条件	n	接种意愿(M ± SD)	预约接种人数(比率)
趋近动机启动
现在-积极	45	6.11 ± 0.71	33(73.33%)
现在-消极	44	6.00 ± 0.87	33(75.00%)
未来-积极	43	6.21 ± 0.83	35(81.40%)
未来-消极	42	5.67 ± 0.72	27(64.29%)
回避动机启动
现在-积极	44	5.64 ± 0.69	29(65.91%)
现在-消极	43	6.37 ± 0.69	36(83.72%)
未来-积极	43	6.05 ± 0.84	33(76.74%)
未来-消极	43	6.09 ± 0.68	35(81.40%)

实验条件	N	接种意愿(M ± SD)	预约接种人数(比率)	趋近动机(M ± SD)	回避动机(M ± SD)
低疫情风险
现在-积极	48	5.44 ± 1.41	33(68.75%)	5.58 ± 1.27	5.58 ± 1.53
现在-消极	49	5.98 ± 1.22	41(83.67%)	5.77 ± 1.34	6.29 ± 0.98
未来-积极	49	6.08 ± 1.27	40(81.63%)	6.18 ± 1.09	5.86 ± 1.50
未来-消极	47	5.49 ± 1.34	30(63.83%)	5.53 ± 1.02	5.64 ± 1.37
高疫情风险
现在-积极	61	6.41 ± 0.67	60(98.36%)	6.36 ± 0.88	5.89 ± 1.17
现在-消极	56	6.52 ± 0.54	54(96.43%)	6.39 ± 0.76	5.88 ± 1.05
未来-积极	52	6.44 ± 0.67	51(98.08%)	6.44 ± 0.78	5.58 ± 1.18
未来-消极	61	6.05 ± 1.06	52(85.24%)	6.18 ± 1.06	5.64 ± 1.02