阴谋心态、反应和焦虑在宣传 COVID-19 保护措施的收益与损失框架信息的有效性中的作用:接种疫苗是否有所不同?

Q4 Psychology
Wojciech Cwalina, Paweł Koniak
{"title":"阴谋心态、反应和焦虑在宣传 COVID-19 保护措施的收益与损失框架信息的有效性中的作用:接种疫苗是否有所不同?","authors":"Wojciech Cwalina, Paweł Koniak","doi":"10.24425/ppb.2023.148847","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We explore how conspiracy beliefs change the effectiveness of gain- vs. loss-framed messages in promoting health-protective behavior. We focused on various recommended COVID-19 protective measures, not only vaccinations but also other preventive (like wearing masks) and detection behaviors (like testing). Our results indicate that conspiracy beliefs moderate the effectiveness of gain vs. loss framing. When participants endorse conspiracy worldviews above the average level, the gain frame may be more effective than the loss frame. In other words, in the loss frame condition, conspiracy beliefs negatively and significantly predicted attitudes toward the behavior recommended. However, in the case of the gain frame, the relationship between conspiracist views and attitudes toward promoted behavior was weaker or even nonsignificant. We also found, although only in the case of one behavior, that when participants' eagerness to look for conspiracies almost does not exist, the loss frame may be a better option than the gain frame. Finally, neither of these effects was mediated by emotional reactance or anxiety.","PeriodicalId":38657,"journal":{"name":"Polish Psychological Bulletin","volume":"48 12","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The role of conspiracy mentality, reactance, and anxiety in the effectiveness of gain- vs. loss-framed messages promoting COVID-19 protective measures: Is vaccination different?\",\"authors\":\"Wojciech Cwalina, Paweł Koniak\",\"doi\":\"10.24425/ppb.2023.148847\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We explore how conspiracy beliefs change the effectiveness of gain- vs. loss-framed messages in promoting health-protective behavior. We focused on various recommended COVID-19 protective measures, not only vaccinations but also other preventive (like wearing masks) and detection behaviors (like testing). Our results indicate that conspiracy beliefs moderate the effectiveness of gain vs. loss framing. When participants endorse conspiracy worldviews above the average level, the gain frame may be more effective than the loss frame. In other words, in the loss frame condition, conspiracy beliefs negatively and significantly predicted attitudes toward the behavior recommended. However, in the case of the gain frame, the relationship between conspiracist views and attitudes toward promoted behavior was weaker or even nonsignificant. We also found, although only in the case of one behavior, that when participants' eagerness to look for conspiracies almost does not exist, the loss frame may be a better option than the gain frame. Finally, neither of these effects was mediated by emotional reactance or anxiety.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38657,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Polish Psychological Bulletin\",\"volume\":\"48 12\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Polish Psychological Bulletin\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.24425/ppb.2023.148847\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Psychology\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Polish Psychological Bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24425/ppb.2023.148847","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Psychology","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们探讨了共谋信念如何改变收益与损失框架信息在促进健康保护行为方面的有效性。我们重点研究了 COVID-19 推荐的各种保护措施,不仅包括疫苗接种,还包括其他预防行为(如戴口罩)和检测行为(如检测)。我们的研究结果表明,阴谋论信念会调节收益与损失框架的有效性。当参与者的阴谋论世界观高于平均水平时,收益框架可能比损失框架更有效。换句话说,在损失框架条件下,阴谋信念对推荐行为的态度有显著的负面预测作用。然而,在收益框架条件下,阴谋论观点与对推荐行为的态度之间的关系较弱,甚至不显著。我们还发现(虽然只针对一种行为),当参与者寻找阴谋的渴望几乎不存在时,损失框架可能是比收益框架更好的选择。最后,这两种效应都不受情绪反应或焦虑的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The role of conspiracy mentality, reactance, and anxiety in the effectiveness of gain- vs. loss-framed messages promoting COVID-19 protective measures: Is vaccination different?
We explore how conspiracy beliefs change the effectiveness of gain- vs. loss-framed messages in promoting health-protective behavior. We focused on various recommended COVID-19 protective measures, not only vaccinations but also other preventive (like wearing masks) and detection behaviors (like testing). Our results indicate that conspiracy beliefs moderate the effectiveness of gain vs. loss framing. When participants endorse conspiracy worldviews above the average level, the gain frame may be more effective than the loss frame. In other words, in the loss frame condition, conspiracy beliefs negatively and significantly predicted attitudes toward the behavior recommended. However, in the case of the gain frame, the relationship between conspiracist views and attitudes toward promoted behavior was weaker or even nonsignificant. We also found, although only in the case of one behavior, that when participants' eagerness to look for conspiracies almost does not exist, the loss frame may be a better option than the gain frame. Finally, neither of these effects was mediated by emotional reactance or anxiety.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Polish Psychological Bulletin
Polish Psychological Bulletin Psychology-Psychology (all)
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信