Fighting Fire or Fighting War: Examining the Framing Effects of COVID-19 Metaphors.

Abstract

Metaphorical language describing the COVID-19 pandemic as a war has been pervasive in public discourse (e.g. "the pandemic is a war," "the virus is an enemy," and "the vaccine is a weapon"). This study employs an online survey experiment (N = 551 U.S. adults) to examine the impact of war metaphors compared to non-metaphorical literal frames and fire metaphors (e.g. "the pandemic is a wildfire"). War metaphors exhibited little advantage over literal frames across a variety of desirable outcomes (i.e. the adoption of pro-health behaviors against COVID-19, perceived solidarity and collective responsibility to curb the pandemic, and intentions to discuss and share the health news with others). However, this study revealed some benefits of war metaphors over fire metaphors. Compared with fire metaphors, health news featuring war metaphors increased both positive emotions and perceived threats of COVID-19, which in turn promoted pro-health behaviors against COVID-19 and perceived solidarity to cope with the public health crisis. Moreover, positive emotions in response to war metaphors also indirectly encouraged the retransmission of science-based COVID-19 health news. This study thus showcased the benefits and limitations of war metaphors and revealed the mediating roles of perceived threats and positive emotions in explaining war metaphorical framing effects. Implications of using war and fire metaphors for communicating about public health crises are also discussed.