Abstract
AbstractThe health and economic outcomes of the COVID-19 pandemic will in part be determined by how effectively experts can communicate information to the public and the degree to which people follow expert recommendation. Using a survey experiment conducted in May 2020 with almost 5,000 respondents, this paper examines the effect of source cues and message frames on perceptions of information credibility in the context of COVID-19. Each health recommendation was framed by expert or nonexpert sources, was fact- or experience-based, and suggested potential gain or loss to test if either the source cue or framing of issues affected responses to the pandemic. We find no evidence that either source cue or message framing influence people’s responses – instead, respondents’ ideological predispositions, media consumption, and age explain much of the variation in survey responses, suggesting that public health messaging may face challenges from growing ideological cleavages in American politics.
Highlights
The health and economic outcomes of the COVID-19 pandemic are largely dependent on individual behavior – behavior that can potentially be shaped by the information environment
To attempt to understand individuals’ reception of COVID-19 recommendations, we use a survey experiment and test: (1) whether people’s likelihood of following public health guidelines changes depending on if they originate from an expert or nonexpert source and (2) whether this is moderated by issue frame
Our findings suggest that public health messaging likely faces additional challenges from growing ideological cleavages in American politics
Summary
The health and economic outcomes of the COVID-19 pandemic are largely dependent on individual behavior – behavior that can potentially be shaped by the information environment. This pandemic highlights the importance of communication: how individuals interpret recommendations from experts matters, as the effectiveness of this communication can determine how many people are affected by this pandemic and to what extent. Our findings suggest that neither source cues nor issue frames influence the adoption of information about COVID-19. This is in line with previous literature that suggests highly salient issues are most likely to be subject to motivated reasoning (Jerit and Barabas 2012; Slothuus and de Vreese 2010). Our findings suggest that public health messaging likely faces additional challenges from growing ideological cleavages in American politics
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
