The Effects of Source Cues and Issue Frames During COVID-19

"Messengers matter": Assessing the impact of racially concordant care on vaccine hesitation

With the rise in COVID-related deaths among the unvaccinated, understanding coronavirus vaccine hesitancy is critical to maintaining public health. Previous research has shown that sociodemographic factors, such as race, are essential for understanding vaccine hesitancy; yet, the specific factors driving racial disparities in vaccination continue to be a matter of intense debate. This study uses a novel survey experiment to uncover the linkages between race, physician trust, and vaccine hesitancy. Using a standard prompt on the release of the COVID-19 vaccine, it tests whether patient-physician race concordance affects the likelihood of vaccine uptake among US citizens. Analyses reveal that racially concordant care has a negligible effect on vaccine hesitancy, but does ameliorate other harmful beliefs regarding one's likelihood of experiencing discrimination and racism in healthcare more generally. These findings suggest that increasing diversity in the medical field should be paired with efforts to address systemic inequalities to promote increased vaccination.

The impact of COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Behavioral responses to the COVID-19 pandemic have become highly polarized, and public health initiatives often try to use different frames to influence behavior. If the polarization of behaviors is related to differences in responses to frames, then different health messages could be targeted to different groups to influence behavior.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether risk preferences and susceptibility to gain/loss frames have been affected by COVID-19 and whether they differ along partisan lines.

METHODS

Using repeated cross-sectional data from a nationally representative dataset in the United States replicating the disease outbreak scenario collected before and after the onset of COVID-19, we test whether responsiveness to the gain/loss frames has changed over time and whether the responsiveness varies by political affiliation.

RESULTS

The experimental results show that the risk preferences of the U.S. population is very susceptible to the framing of choices, consistent with the literature finding risk loving preferences under the loss frame and risk aversion under the gain frame. However, the experience of COVID-19 does not appear to have changed the responsiveness, nor are there significant differences between conservatives/Republicans and liberals/Democrats.

CONCLUSION

Targeting different partisan groups with different risk-related message frames is unlikely to be effective at altering behaviors.