persuasive essay on how to prevent covid 19

How to Order

Persuasive Essay Guide

Persuasive Essay About Covid19

How to Write a Persuasive Essay About Covid19 | Examples & Tips

14 min read

Steps to Write a Persuasive Essay About Covid-19

Here are the steps to help you write a persuasive essay on this topic, along with an example essay:

Step 1: Choose a Specific Thesis Statement

Your thesis statement should clearly state your position on a specific aspect of COVID-19. It should be debatable and clear. For example:

"COVID-19 vaccination mandates are necessary for public health and safety."

Step 2: Research and Gather Information

Collect reliable and up-to-date information from reputable sources to support your thesis statement. This may include statistics, expert opinions, and scientific studies. For instance:

COVID-19 vaccination effectiveness data
Information on vaccine mandates in different countries
Expert statements from health organizations like the WHO or CDC

Step 3: Outline Your Essay

Create a clear and organized outline to structure your essay. A persuasive essay typically follows this structure:

Introduction
Background Information
Body Paragraphs (with supporting evidence)
Counterarguments (addressing opposing views)

Step 4: Write the Introduction

In the introduction, grab your reader's attention and present your thesis statement. For example:

The COVID-19 pandemic has presented an unprecedented global challenge, and in the face of this crisis, many countries have debated the implementation of vaccination mandates. This essay argues that such mandates are essential for safeguarding public health and preventing further devastation caused by the virus.

Step 5: Provide Background Information

Offer context and background information to help your readers understand the issue better. For instance:

COVID-19, caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, emerged in late 2019 and quickly spread worldwide, leading to millions of infections and deaths. Vaccination has proven to be an effective tool in curbing the virus's spread and severity.

Step 6: Develop Body Paragraphs

Each body paragraph should present a single point or piece of evidence that supports your thesis statement. Use clear topic sentences , evidence, and analysis. Here's an example:

One compelling reason for implementing COVID-19 vaccination mandates is the overwhelming evidence of vaccine effectiveness. According to a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines demonstrated an efficacy of over 90% in preventing symptomatic COVID-19 cases. This level of protection not only reduces the risk of infection but also minimizes the virus's impact on healthcare systems.

Step 7: Address Counterarguments

Acknowledge opposing viewpoints and refute them with strong counterarguments. This demonstrates that you've considered different perspectives. For example:

Some argue that vaccination mandates infringe on personal freedoms and autonomy. While individual freedom is a crucial aspect of democratic societies, public health measures have long been implemented to protect the collective well-being. Seatbelt laws, for example, are in place to save lives, even though they restrict personal choice.

Step 8: Write the Conclusion

Summarize your main points and restate your thesis statement in the conclusion. End with a strong call to action or thought-provoking statement. For instance:

In conclusion, COVID-19 vaccination mandates are a crucial step toward controlling the pandemic, protecting public health, and preventing further loss of life. The evidence overwhelmingly supports their effectiveness, and while concerns about personal freedoms are valid, they must be weighed against the greater good of society. It is our responsibility to take collective action to combat this global crisis and move toward a safer, healthier future.

Step 9: Revise and Proofread

Edit your essay for clarity, coherence, grammar, and spelling errors. Ensure that your argument flows logically.

Step 10: Cite Your Sources

Include proper citations and a bibliography page to give credit to your sources.

Remember to adjust your approach and arguments based on your target audience and the specific angle you want to take in your persuasive essay about COVID-19.

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That's our Job!

Examples of Persuasive Essay About COVID-19

When writing a persuasive essay about the COVID-19 pandemic, it’s important to consider how you want to present your argument. To help you get started, here are some example essays for you to read:

Here is another example explaining How COVID-19 has changed our lives essay:

The COVID-19 pandemic, which began in late 2019, has drastically altered the way we live. From work and education to social interactions and healthcare, every aspect of our daily routines has been impacted. Reflecting on these changes helps us understand their long-term implications.

COVID-19, caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, is an infectious disease first identified in December 2019 in Wuhan, China. It spreads through respiratory droplets and can range from mild symptoms like fever and cough to severe cases causing pneumonia and death. The rapid spread and severe health impacts have led to significant public health measures worldwide.

The pandemic shifted many to remote work and online education. While some enjoy the flexibility, others face challenges like limited access to technology and blurred boundaries between work and home.

Social distancing and lockdowns have led to increased isolation and mental health issues. However, the pandemic has also fostered community resilience, with people finding new ways to connect and support each other virtually.

Healthcare systems have faced significant challenges, leading to innovations in telemedicine and a focus on public health infrastructure. Heightened awareness of hygiene practices, like handwashing and mask-wearing, has helped reduce the spread of infectious diseases.

COVID-19 has caused severe economic repercussions, including business closures and job losses. While governments have implemented relief measures, the long-term effects are still uncertain. The pandemic has also accelerated trends like e-commerce and contactless payments.

The reduction in travel and industrial activities during lockdowns led to a temporary decrease in pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. This has sparked discussions about sustainable practices and the potential for a green recovery.

COVID-19 has reshaped our lives in numerous ways, affecting work, education, social interactions, healthcare, the economy, and the environment. As we adapt to this new normal, it is crucial to learn from these experiences and work towards a more resilient and equitable future.

Let’s look at another sample essay:

The COVID-19 pandemic has been a transformative event, reshaping every aspect of our lives. In my opinion, while the pandemic has brought immense challenges, it has also offered valuable lessons and opportunities for growth.

One of the most striking impacts has been on our healthcare systems. The pandemic exposed weaknesses and gaps, prompting a much-needed emphasis on public health infrastructure and the importance of preparedness. Innovations in telemedicine and vaccine development have been accelerated, showing the incredible potential of scientific collaboration.

Socially, the pandemic has highlighted the importance of community and human connection. While lockdowns and social distancing measures increased feelings of isolation, they also fostered a sense of solidarity. People found creative ways to stay connected and support each other, from virtual gatherings to community aid initiatives.

The shift to remote work and online education has been another significant change. This transition, though challenging, demonstrated the flexibility and adaptability of both individuals and organizations. It also underscored the importance of digital literacy and access to technology.

Economically, the pandemic has caused widespread disruption. Many businesses closed, and millions lost their jobs. However, it also prompted a reevaluation of business models and work practices. The accelerated adoption of e-commerce and remote work could lead to more sustainable and efficient ways of operating in the future.

In conclusion, the COVID-19 pandemic has been a profound and complex event. While it brought about considerable hardship, it also revealed the strength and resilience of individuals and communities. Moving forward, it is crucial to build on the lessons learned to create a more resilient and equitable world.

Check out some more PDF examples below:

Persuasive Essay About Covid-19 Pandemic

Sample Of Persuasive Essay About Covid-19

Persuasive Essay About Covid-19 In The Philippines - Example

If you're in search of a compelling persuasive essay on business, don't miss out on our “ persuasive essay about business ” blog!

Examples of Persuasive Essay About COVID-19 Vaccine

Covid19 vaccines are one of the ways to prevent the spread of COVID-19, but they have been a source of controversy. Different sides argue about the benefits or dangers of the new vaccines. Whatever your point of view is, writing a persuasive essay about it is a good way of organizing your thoughts and persuading others.

A persuasive essay about the COVID-19 vaccine could consider the benefits of getting vaccinated as well as the potential side effects.

Below are some examples of persuasive essays on getting vaccinated for Covid-19.

Covid19 Vaccine Persuasive Essay

Persuasive Essay on Covid Vaccines

Interested in thought-provoking discussions on abortion? Read our persuasive essay about abortion blog to eplore arguments!

Examples of Persuasive Essay About COVID-19 Integration

Covid19 has drastically changed the way people interact in schools, markets, and workplaces. In short, it has affected all aspects of life. However, people have started to learn to live with Covid19.

Writing a persuasive essay about it shouldn't be stressful. Read the sample essay below to get an idea for your own essay about Covid19 integration.

Persuasive Essay About Working From Home During Covid19

Searching for the topic of Online Education? Our persuasive essay about online education is a must-read.

Examples of Argumentative Essay About Covid 19

Covid-19 has been an ever-evolving issue, with new developments and discoveries being made on a daily basis.

Writing an argumentative essay about such an issue is both interesting and challenging. It allows you to evaluate different aspects of the pandemic, as well as consider potential solutions.

Here are some examples of argumentative essays on Covid19.

Argumentative Essay About Covid19 Sample

Argumentative Essay About Covid19 With Introduction Body and Conclusion

Looking for a persuasive take on the topic of smoking? You'll find it all related arguments in out Persuasive Essay About Smoking blog!

Examples of Persuasive Speeches About Covid-19

Do you need to prepare a speech about Covid19 and need examples? We have them for you!

Persuasive speeches about Covid-19 can provide the audience with valuable insights on how to best handle the pandemic. They can be used to advocate for specific changes in policies or simply raise awareness about the virus.

Check out some examples of persuasive speeches on Covid-19:

Persuasive Speech About Covid-19 Example

Persuasive Speech About Vaccine For Covid-19

You can also read persuasive essay examples on other topics to master your persuasive techniques!

Tips to Write a Persuasive Essay About Covid-19

Writing a persuasive essay about COVID-19 requires a thoughtful approach to present your arguments effectively.

Here are some tips to help you craft a compelling persuasive essay on this topic:

Choose a Specific Angle: Narrow your focus to a specific aspect of COVID-19, like vaccination or public health measures.
Provide Credible Sources: Support your arguments with reliable sources like scientific studies and government reports.
Use Persuasive Language: Employ ethos, pathos, and logos , and use vivid examples to make your points relatable.
Organize Your Essay: Create a solid persuasive essay outline and ensure a logical flow, with each paragraph focusing on a single point.
Emphasize Benefits: Highlight how your suggestions can improve public health, safety, or well-being.
Use Visuals: Incorporate graphs, charts, and statistics to reinforce your arguments.
Call to Action: End your essay conclusion with a strong call to action, encouraging readers to take a specific step.
Revise and Edit: Proofread for grammar, spelling, and clarity, ensuring smooth writing flow.
Seek Feedback: Have someone else review your essay for valuable insights and improvements.

Tough Essay Due? Hire Tough Writers!

Common Topics for a Persuasive Essay on COVID-19

Here are some persuasive essay topics on COVID-19:

The Importance of Vaccination Mandates for COVID-19 Control
Balancing Public Health and Personal Freedom During a Pandemic
The Economic Impact of Lockdowns vs. Public Health Benefits
The Role of Misinformation in Fueling Vaccine Hesitancy
Remote Learning vs. In-Person Education: What's Best for Students?
The Ethics of Vaccine Distribution: Prioritizing Vulnerable Populations
The Mental Health Crisis Amidst the COVID-19 Pandemic
The Long-Term Effects of COVID-19 on Healthcare Systems
Global Cooperation vs. Vaccine Nationalism in Fighting the Pandemic
The Future of Telemedicine: Expanding Healthcare Access Post-COVID-19

In search of more inspiring topics for your next persuasive essay? Our persuasive essay topics blog has plenty of ideas!

To sum it up,

You have read good sample essays and got some helpful tips. You now have the tools you needed to write a persuasive essay about Covid-19. So don't let the doubts stop you, start writing!

If you need professional writing help, don't worry! We've got that for you as well.

MyPerfectWords.com is a professional persuasive essay writing service that can help you craft an excellent persuasive essay on Covid-19. Our experienced essay writer will create a well-structured, insightful paper in no time!

So don't hesitate and place your ' write my essay online ' request today!

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a good title for a covid-19 essay.

A good title for a COVID-19 essay should be clear, engaging, and reflective of the essay's content. Examples include:

"The Impact of COVID-19 on Global Health"
"How COVID-19 Has Transformed Our Daily Lives"
"COVID-19: Lessons Learned and Future Implications"

How do I write an informative essay about COVID-19?

To write an informative essay about COVID-19, follow these steps:

Choose a specific focus: Select a particular aspect of COVID-19, such as its transmission, symptoms, or vaccines.
Research thoroughly: Gather information from credible sources like scientific journals and official health organizations.
Organize your content: Structure your essay with an introduction, body paragraphs, and a conclusion.
Present facts clearly: Use clear, concise language to convey information accurately.
Include visuals: Use charts or graphs to illustrate data and make your essay more engaging.

How do I write an expository essay about COVID-19?

To write an expository essay about COVID-19, follow these steps:

Select a clear topic: Focus on a specific question or issue related to COVID-19.
Conduct thorough research: Use reliable sources to gather information.
Create an outline: Organize your essay with an introduction, body paragraphs, and a conclusion.
Explain the topic: Use facts and examples to explain the chosen aspect of COVID-19 in detail.
Maintain objectivity: Present information in a neutral and unbiased manner.
Edit and revise: Proofread your essay for clarity, coherence, and accuracy.

Write Essay Within 60 Seconds!

Caleb S. has been providing writing services for over five years and has a Masters degree from Oxford University. He is an expert in his craft and takes great pride in helping students achieve their academic goals. Caleb is a dedicated professional who always puts his clients first.

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That’s our Job!

Keep reading

Students’ Essays on Infectious Disease Prevention, COVID-19 Published Nationwide

As part of the BIO 173: Global Change and Infectious Disease course, Professor Fred Cohan assigns students to write an essay persuading others to prevent future and mitigate present infectious diseases. If students submit their essay to a news outlet—and it’s published—Cohan awards them with extra credit.

As a result of this assignment, more than 25 students have had their work published in newspapers across the United States. Many of these essays cite and applaud the University’s Keep Wes Safe campaign and its COVID-19 testing protocols.

Cohan, professor of biology and Huffington Foundation Professor in the College of the Environment (COE), began teaching the Global Change and Infectious Disease course in 2009, when the COE was established. “I wanted very much to contribute a course to what I saw as a real game-changer in Wesleyan’s interest in the environment. The course is about all the ways that human demands on the environment have brought us infectious diseases, over past millennia and in the present, and why our environmental disturbances will continue to bring us infections into the future.”

Over the years, Cohan learned that he can sustainably teach about 170 students every year without running out of interested students. This fall, he had 207. Although he didn’t change the overall structure of his course to accommodate COVID-19 topics, he did add material on the current pandemic to various sections of the course.

“I wouldn’t say that the population of the class increased tremendously as a result of COVID-19, but I think the enthusiasm of the students for the material has increased substantially,” he said.

To accommodate online learning, Cohan shaved off 15 minutes from his normal 80-minute lectures to allow for discussion sections, led by Cohan and teaching assistants. “While the lectures mostly dealt with biology, the discussions focused on how changes in behavior and policy can solve the infectious disease problems brought by human disturbance of the environment,” he said.

Based on student responses to an introspective exam question, Cohan learned that many students enjoyed a new hope that we could each contribute to fighting infectious disease. “They discovered that the solution to infectious disease is not entirely a waiting game for the right technologies to come along,” he said. “Many enjoyed learning about fighting infectious disease from a moral and social perspective. And especially, the students enjoyed learning about the ‘socialism of the microbe,’ how preventing and curing others’ infections will prevent others’ infections from becoming our own. The students enjoyed seeing how this idea can drive both domestic and international health policies.”

A sampling of the published student essays are below:

Alexander Giummo ’22 and Mike Dunderdale’s ’23 op-ed titled “ A National Testing Proposal: Let’s Fight Back Against COVID-19 ” was published in the Journal Inquirer in Manchester, Conn.

They wrote: “With an expansive and increased testing plan for U.S. citizens, those who are COVID-positive could limit the number of contacts they have, and this would also help to enable more effective contact tracing. Testing could also allow for the return of some ‘normal’ events, such as small social gatherings, sports, and in-person class and work schedules.

“We propose a national testing strategy in line with the one that has kept Wesleyan students safe this year. The plan would require a strong push by the federal government to fund the initiative, but it is vital to successful containment of the virus.

“Twice a week, all people living in the U.S. should report to a local testing site staffed with professionals where the anterior nasal swab Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) test, used by Wesleyan and supported by the Broad Institute, would be implemented.”

Kalyani Mohan ’22 and Kalli Jackson ’22 penned an essay titled “ Where Public Health Meets Politics: COVID-19 in the United States ,” which was published in Wesleyan’s Arcadia Political Review .

They wrote: “While the U.S. would certainly benefit from a strengthened pandemic response team and structural changes to public health systems, that alone isn’t enough, as American society is immensely stratified, socially and culturally. The politicization of the COVID-19 pandemic shows that individualism, libertarianism and capitalism are deeply ingrained in American culture, to the extent that Americans often blind to the fact community welfare can be equivalent to personal welfare. Pandemics are multifaceted, and preventing them requires not just a cultural shift but an emotional one amongst the American people, one guided by empathy—towards other people, different communities and the planet. Politics should be a tool, not a weapon against its people.”

Sydnee Goyer ’21 and Marcel Thompson’s ’22 essay “ This Flu Season Will Be Decisive in the Fight Against COVID-19 ” also was published in Arcadia Political Review .

“With winter approaching all around the Northern Hemisphere, people are preparing for what has already been named a “twindemic,” meaning the joint threat of the coronavirus and the seasonal flu,” they wrote. “While it is known that seasonal vaccinations reduce the risk of getting the flu by up to 60% and also reduce the severity of the illness after the contamination, additional research has been conducted in order to know whether or not flu shots could reduce the risk of people getting COVID-19. In addition to the flu shot, it is essential that people remain vigilant in maintaining proper social distancing, washing your hands thoroughly, and continuing to wear masks in public spaces.”

An op-ed titled “ The Pandemic Has Shown Us How Workplace Culture Needs to Change ,” written by Adam Hickey ’22 and George Fuss ’21, was published in Park City, Utah’s The Park Record .

They wrote: “One review of academic surveys (most of which were conducted in the United States) conducted in 2019 found that between 35% and 97% of respondents in those surveys reported having attended work while they were ill, often because of workplace culture or policy which generated pressure to do so. Choosing to ignore sickness and return to the workplace while one is ill puts colleagues at risk, regardless of the perceived severity of your own illness; COVID-19 is an overbearing reminder that a disease that may cause mild, even cold-like symptoms for some can still carry fatal consequences for others.

“A mandatory paid sick leave policy for every worker, ideally across the globe, would allow essential workers to return to work when necessary while still providing enough wiggle room for economically impoverished employees to take time off without going broke if they believe they’ve contracted an illness so as not to infect the rest of their workplace and the public at large.”

Women’s cross country team members and classmates Jane Hollander ’23 and Sara Greene ’23 wrote a sports-themed essay titled “ This Season, High School Winter Sports Aren’t Worth the Risk ,” which was published in Tap into Scotch Plains/Fanwood , based in Scotch Plains, N.J. Their essay focused on the risks high school sports pose on student-athletes, their families, and the greater community.

“We don’t propose cutting off sports entirely— rather, we need to be realistic about the levels at which athletes should be participating. There are ways to make practices safer,” they wrote. “At [Wesleyan], we began the season in ‘cohorts,’ so the amount of people exposed to one another would be smaller. For non-contact sports, social distancing can be easily implemented, and for others, teams can focus on drills, strength and conditioning workouts, and skill-building exercises. Racing sports such as swim and track can compete virtually, comparing times with other schools, and team sports can focus their competition on intra-team scrimmages. These changes can allow for the continuation of a sense of normalcy and team camaraderie without the exposure to students from different geographic areas in confined, indoor spaces.”

Brook Guiffre ’23 and Maddie Clarke’s ’22 op-ed titled “ On the Pandemic ” was published in Hometown Weekly, based in Medfield, Mass.

“The first case of COVID-19 in the United States was recorded on January 20th, 2020. For the next month and a half, the U.S. continued operating normally, while many other countries began their lockdown,” they wrote. “One month later, on February 29th, 2020, the federal government approved a national testing program, but it was too little too late. The U.S. was already in pandemic mode, and completely unprepared. Frontline workers lacked access to N-95 masks, infected patients struggled to get tested, and national leaders informed the public that COVID-19 was nothing more than the common flu. Ultimately, this unpreparedness led to thousands of avoidable deaths and long-term changes to daily life. With the risk of novel infectious diseases emerging in the future being high, it is imperative that the U.S. learn from its failure and better prepare for future pandemics now. By strengthening our public health response and re-establishing government organizations specialized in disease control, we have the ability to prevent more years spent masked and six feet apart.”

In addition, their other essay, “ On Mass Extinction ,” was also published by Hometown Weekly .

“The sixth mass extinction—which scientists have coined as the Holocene Extinction—is upon us. According to the United Nations, around one million plant and animal species are currently in danger of extinction, and many more within the next decade. While other extinctions have occurred in Earth’s history, none have occurred at such a rapid rate,” they wrote. “For the sake of both biodiversity and infectious diseases, it is in our best interest to stop pushing this Holocene Extinction further.”

An essay titled “ Learning from Our Mistakes: How to Protect Ourselves and Our Communities from Diseases ,” written by Nicole Veru ’21 and Zoe Darmon ’21, was published in My Hometown Bronxville, based in Bronxville, N.Y.

“We can protect ourselves and others from future infectious diseases by ensuring that we are vaccinated,” they wrote. “Vaccines have high levels of success if enough people get them. Due to vaccines, society is no longer ravaged by childhood diseases such as mumps, rubella, measles, and smallpox. We have been able to eradicate diseases through vaccines; smallpox, one of the world’s most consequential diseases, was eradicated from the world in the 1970s.

“In 2000, the U.S. was nearly free of measles, yet, due to hesitations by anti-vaxxers, there continues to be cases. From 2000–2015 there were over 18 measles outbreaks in the U.S. This is because unless a disease is completely eradicated, there will be a new generation susceptible.

“Although vaccines are not 100% effective at preventing infection, if we continue to get vaccinated, we protect ourselves and those around us. If enough people are vaccinated, societies can develop herd immunity. The amount of people vaccinated to obtain herd immunity depends on the disease, but if this fraction is obtained, the spread of disease is contained. Through herd immunity, we protect those who may not be able to get vaccinated, such as people who are immunocompromised and the tiny portion of people for whom the vaccine is not effective.”

Dhruvi Rana ’22 and Bryce Gillis ’22 co-authored an op-ed titled “ We Must Educate Those Who Remain Skeptical of the Dangers of COVID-19 ,” which was published in Rhode Island Central .

“As Rhode Island enters the winter season, temperatures are beginning to drop and many studies have demonstrated that colder weather and lower humidity are correlated with higher transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19,” they wrote. “By simply talking or breathing, we release respiratory droplets and aerosols (tiny fluid particles which could carry the coronavirus pathogen), which can remain in the air for minutes to hours.

“In order to establish herd immunity in the US, we must educate those who remain skeptical of the dangers of COVID-19. Whether community-driven or state-funded, educational campaigns are needed to ensure that everyone fully comprehends how severe COVID-19 is and the significance of airborne transmission. While we await a vaccine, it is necessary now more than ever that we social distance, avoid crowds, and wear masks, given that colder temperatures will likely yield increased transmission of the virus.”

Danielle Rinaldi ’21 and Verónica Matos Socorro ’21 published their op-ed titled “ Community Forum: How Mask-Wearing Demands a Cultural Reset ” in the Ewing Observer , based in Lawrence, N.J.

“In their own attempt to change personal behavior during the pandemic, Wesleyan University has mandated mask-wearing in almost every facet of campus life,” they wrote. “As members of our community, we must recognize that mask-wearing is something we are all responsible and accountable for, not only because it is a form of protection for us, but just as important for others as well. However, it seems as though both Covid fatigue and complacency are dominating the mindsets of Americans, leading to even more unwillingness to mask up. Ultimately, it is inevitable that this pandemic will not be the last in our lifespan due to global warming creating irreversible losses in biodiversity. As a result, it is imperative that we adopt the norm of mask-wearing now and undergo a culture shift of the abandonment of an individualistic mindset, and instead, create a society that prioritizes taking care of others for the benefit of all.”

Shayna Dollinger ’22 and Hayley Lipson ’21 wrote an essay titled “ My Pandemic Year in College Has Brought Pride and Purpose. ” Dollinger submitted the piece, rewritten in first person, to Jewish News of Northern California . Read more about Dollinger’s publication in this News @ Wesleyan article .

“I lay in the dead grass, a 6-by-6-foot square all to myself. I cheer for my best friend, who is on the stage constructed at the bottom of Foss hill, dancing with her Bollywood dance group. Masks cover their ordinarily smiling faces as their bodies move in sync. Looking around at friends and classmates, each in their own 6-by-6 world, I feel an overwhelming sense of normalcy.

“One of the ways in which Wesleyan has prevented outbreaks on campus is by holding safe, socially distanced events that students want to attend. By giving us places to be and things to do on the weekends, we are discouraged from breaking rules and causing outbreaks at ‘super-spreader’ events.”

An op-ed written by Luna Mac-Williams ’22 and Daëlle Coriolan ’24 titled “ Collectivist Practices to Combat COVID-19 ” was published in the Wesleyan Argus .

“We are embroiled in a global pandemic that disproportionately affects poor communities of color, and in the midst of a higher cultural consciousness of systemic inequities,” they wrote. “A cultural shift to center collectivist thought and action not only would prove helpful in disease prevention, but also belongs in conversation with the Black Lives Matter movement. Collectivist models of thinking effectively target the needs of vulnerable populations including the sick, the disenfranchised, the systematically marginalized. Collectivist systems provide care, decentering the capitalist, individualist system, and focusing on how communities can work to be self-sufficient and uplift our own neighbors.”

An essay written by Maria Noto ’21 , titled “ U.S. Individualism Has Deadly Consequences ,” is published in the Oneonta Daily Star , based in Oneonta, N.Y.

She wrote, “When analyzing the cultures of certain East Asian countries, several differences stand out. For instance, when people are sick and during the cold and flu season, many East Asian cultures, including South Korea, use mask-wearing. What is considered a threat to freedom by some Americans is a preventive action and community obligation in this example. This, along with many other cultural differences, is insightful in understanding their ability to contain the virus.

“These differences are deeply seeded in the values of a culture. However, there is hope for the U.S. and other individualistic cultures in recognizing and adopting these community-centered approaches. Our mindset needs to be revolutionized with the help of federal and local assistance: mandating masks, passing another stimulus package, contact tracing, etc… However, these measures will be unsuccessful unless everyone participates for the good of a community.”

A published op-ed by Madison Szabo ’23 , Caitlyn Ferrante ’23 ran in the Two Rivers Times . The piece is titled “ Anxiety and Aspiration: Analyzing the Politicization of the Pandemic .”

John Lee ’21 and Taylor Goodman-Leong ’21 have published their op-ed titled “ Reassessing the media’s approach to COVID-19 ” in Weekly Monday Cafe 24 (Page 2).

An essay by Eleanor Raab ’21 and Elizabeth Nefferdorf ’22 titled “ Preventing the Next Epidemic ” was published in The Almanac .

Keep Wes Safe
student publications
Teaching during the pandemic

Jacobsen Maps Out Legal Landscape of College Campuses in New Book

In a new book, alumnus examines venture capital’s impact on startups, wesleyan in the news: july 2024, previous matesan's new book explores political violence, islamist mobilization in egypt and indonesia, next students launch fun, interactive virtual program for school-aged kids.

Read these 12 moving essays about life during coronavirus

Artists, novelists, critics, and essayists are writing the first draft of history.

by Alissa Wilkinson

The world is grappling with an invisible, deadly enemy, trying to understand how to live with the threat posed by a virus . For some writers, the only way forward is to put pen to paper, trying to conceptualize and document what it feels like to continue living as countries are under lockdown and regular life seems to have ground to a halt.

So as the coronavirus pandemic has stretched around the world, it’s sparked a crop of diary entries and essays that describe how life has changed. Novelists, critics, artists, and journalists have put words to the feelings many are experiencing. The result is a first draft of how we’ll someday remember this time, filled with uncertainty and pain and fear as well as small moments of hope and humanity.

The Vox guide to navigating the coronavirus crisis

At the New York Review of Books, Ali Bhutto writes that in Karachi, Pakistan, the government-imposed curfew due to the virus is “eerily reminiscent of past military clampdowns”:

Beneath the quiet calm lies a sense that society has been unhinged and that the usual rules no longer apply. Small groups of pedestrians look on from the shadows, like an audience watching a spectacle slowly unfolding. People pause on street corners and in the shade of trees, under the watchful gaze of the paramilitary forces and the police.

His essay concludes with the sobering note that “in the minds of many, Covid-19 is just another life-threatening hazard in a city that stumbles from one crisis to another.”

Writing from Chattanooga, novelist Jamie Quatro documents the mixed ways her neighbors have been responding to the threat, and the frustration of conflicting direction, or no direction at all, from local, state, and federal leaders:

Whiplash, trying to keep up with who’s ordering what. We’re already experiencing enough chaos without this back-and-forth. Why didn’t the federal government issue a nationwide shelter-in-place at the get-go, the way other countries did? What happens when one state’s shelter-in-place ends, while others continue? Do states still under quarantine close their borders? We are still one nation, not fifty individual countries. Right?

A syllabus for the end of the world

Award-winning photojournalist Alessio Mamo, quarantined with his partner Marta in Sicily after she tested positive for the virus, accompanies his photographs in the Guardian of their confinement with a reflection on being confined :

The doctors asked me to take a second test, but again I tested negative. Perhaps I’m immune? The days dragged on in my apartment, in black and white, like my photos. Sometimes we tried to smile, imagining that I was asymptomatic, because I was the virus. Our smiles seemed to bring good news. My mother left hospital, but I won’t be able to see her for weeks. Marta started breathing well again, and so did I. I would have liked to photograph my country in the midst of this emergency, the battles that the doctors wage on the frontline, the hospitals pushed to their limits, Italy on its knees fighting an invisible enemy. That enemy, a day in March, knocked on my door instead.

In the New York Times Magazine, deputy editor Jessica Lustig writes with devastating clarity about her family’s life in Brooklyn while her husband battled the virus, weeks before most people began taking the threat seriously:

At the door of the clinic, we stand looking out at two older women chatting outside the doorway, oblivious. Do I wave them away? Call out that they should get far away, go home, wash their hands, stay inside? Instead we just stand there, awkwardly, until they move on. Only then do we step outside to begin the long three-block walk home. I point out the early magnolia, the forsythia. T says he is cold. The untrimmed hairs on his neck, under his beard, are white. The few people walking past us on the sidewalk don’t know that we are visitors from the future. A vision, a premonition, a walking visitation. This will be them: Either T, in the mask, or — if they’re lucky — me, tending to him.

Essayist Leslie Jamison writes in the New York Review of Books about being shut away alone in her New York City apartment with her 2-year-old daughter since she became sick:

The virus. Its sinewy, intimate name. What does it feel like in my body today? Shivering under blankets. A hot itch behind the eyes. Three sweatshirts in the middle of the day. My daughter trying to pull another blanket over my body with her tiny arms. An ache in the muscles that somehow makes it hard to lie still. This loss of taste has become a kind of sensory quarantine. It’s as if the quarantine keeps inching closer and closer to my insides. First I lost the touch of other bodies; then I lost the air; now I’ve lost the taste of bananas. Nothing about any of these losses is particularly unique. I’ve made a schedule so I won’t go insane with the toddler. Five days ago, I wrote Walk/Adventure! on it, next to a cut-out illustration of a tiger—as if we’d see tigers on our walks. It was good to keep possibility alive.

At Literary Hub, novelist Heidi Pitlor writes about the elastic nature of time during her family’s quarantine in Massachusetts:

During a shutdown, the things that mark our days—commuting to work, sending our kids to school, having a drink with friends—vanish and time takes on a flat, seamless quality. Without some self-imposed structure, it’s easy to feel a little untethered. A friend recently posted on Facebook: “For those who have lost track, today is Blursday the fortyteenth of Maprilay.” ... Giving shape to time is especially important now, when the future is so shapeless. We do not know whether the virus will continue to rage for weeks or months or, lord help us, on and off for years. We do not know when we will feel safe again. And so many of us, minus those who are gifted at compartmentalization or denial, remain largely captive to fear. We may stay this way if we do not create at least the illusion of movement in our lives, our long days spent with ourselves or partners or families.

What day is it today?

Novelist Lauren Groff writes at the New York Review of Books about trying to escape the prison of her fears while sequestered at home in Gainesville, Florida:

Some people have imaginations sparked only by what they can see; I blame this blinkered empiricism for the parks overwhelmed with people, the bars, until a few nights ago, thickly thronged. My imagination is the opposite. I fear everything invisible to me. From the enclosure of my house, I am afraid of the suffering that isn’t present before me, the people running out of money and food or drowning in the fluid in their lungs, the deaths of health-care workers now growing ill while performing their duties. I fear the federal government, which the right wing has so—intentionally—weakened that not only is it insufficient to help its people, it is actively standing in help’s way. I fear we won’t sufficiently punish the right. I fear leaving the house and spreading the disease. I fear what this time of fear is doing to my children, their imaginations, and their souls.

At ArtForum , Berlin-based critic and writer Kristian Vistrup Madsen reflects on martinis, melancholia, and Finnish artist Jaakko Pallasvuo’s 2018 graphic novel Retreat , in which three young people exile themselves in the woods:

In melancholia, the shape of what is ending, and its temporality, is sprawling and incomprehensible. The ambivalence makes it hard to bear. The world of Retreat is rendered in lush pink and purple watercolors, which dissolve into wild and messy abstractions. In apocalypse, the divisions established in genesis bleed back out. My own Corona-retreat is similarly soft, color-field like, each day a blurred succession of quarantinis, YouTube–yoga, and televized press conferences. As restrictions mount, so does abstraction. For now, I’m still rooting for love to save the world.

At the Paris Review , Matt Levin writes about reading Virginia Woolf’s novel The Waves during quarantine:

A retreat, a quarantine, a sickness—they simultaneously distort and clarify, curtail and expand. It is an ideal state in which to read literature with a reputation for difficulty and inaccessibility, those hermetic books shorn of the handholds of conventional plot or characterization or description. A novel like Virginia Woolf’s The Waves is perfect for the state of interiority induced by quarantine—a story of three men and three women, meeting after the death of a mutual friend, told entirely in the overlapping internal monologues of the six, interspersed only with sections of pure, achingly beautiful descriptions of the natural world, a day’s procession and recession of light and waves. The novel is, in my mind’s eye, a perfectly spherical object. It is translucent and shimmering and infinitely fragile, prone to shatter at the slightest disturbance. It is not a book that can be read in snatches on the subway—it demands total absorption. Though it revels in a stark emotional nakedness, the book remains aloof, remote in its own deep self-absorption.

Vox is starting a book club. Come read with us!

In an essay for the Financial Times, novelist Arundhati Roy writes with anger about Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s anemic response to the threat, but also offers a glimmer of hope for the future:

Historically, pandemics have forced humans to break with the past and imagine their world anew. This one is no different. It is a portal, a gateway between one world and the next. We can choose to walk through it, dragging the carcasses of our prejudice and hatred, our avarice, our data banks and dead ideas, our dead rivers and smoky skies behind us. Or we can walk through lightly, with little luggage, ready to imagine another world. And ready to fight for it.

From Boston, Nora Caplan-Bricker writes in The Point about the strange contraction of space under quarantine, in which a friend in Beirut is as close as the one around the corner in the same city:

It’s a nice illusion—nice to feel like we’re in it together, even if my real world has shrunk to one person, my husband, who sits with his laptop in the other room. It’s nice in the same way as reading those essays that reframe social distancing as solidarity. “We must begin to see the negative space as clearly as the positive, to know what we don’t do is also brilliant and full of love,” the poet Anne Boyer wrote on March 10th, the day that Massachusetts declared a state of emergency. If you squint, you could almost make sense of this quarantine as an effort to flatten, along with the curve, the distinctions we make between our bonds with others. Right now, I care for my neighbor in the same way I demonstrate love for my mother: in all instances, I stay away. And in moments this month, I have loved strangers with an intensity that is new to me. On March 14th, the Saturday night after the end of life as we knew it, I went out with my dog and found the street silent: no lines for restaurants, no children on bicycles, no couples strolling with little cups of ice cream. It had taken the combined will of thousands of people to deliver such a sudden and complete emptiness. I felt so grateful, and so bereft.

And on his own website, musician and artist David Byrne writes about rediscovering the value of working for collective good , saying that “what is happening now is an opportunity to learn how to change our behavior”:

In emergencies, citizens can suddenly cooperate and collaborate. Change can happen. We’re going to need to work together as the effects of climate change ramp up. In order for capitalism to survive in any form, we will have to be a little more socialist. Here is an opportunity for us to see things differently — to see that we really are all connected — and adjust our behavior accordingly. Are we willing to do this? Is this moment an opportunity to see how truly interdependent we all are? To live in a world that is different and better than the one we live in now? We might be too far down the road to test every asymptomatic person, but a change in our mindsets, in how we view our neighbors, could lay the groundwork for the collective action we’ll need to deal with other global crises. The time to see how connected we all are is now.

The portrait these writers paint of a world under quarantine is multifaceted. Our worlds have contracted to the confines of our homes, and yet in some ways we’re more connected than ever to one another. We feel fear and boredom, anger and gratitude, frustration and strange peace. Uncertainty drives us to find metaphors and images that will let us wrap our minds around what is happening.

Yet there’s no single “what” that is happening. Everyone is contending with the pandemic and its effects from different places and in different ways. Reading others’ experiences — even the most frightening ones — can help alleviate the loneliness and dread, a little, and remind us that what we’re going through is both unique and shared by all.

Recommendations

Today, Explained

Understand the world with a daily explainer plus the most compelling stories of the day.

This is the title for the native ad

More in Culture

Looking back at this 20-year on-again, off-again, on-again, and now off-again Hollywood love story.

The It Ends With Us drama is the new Don’t Worry Darling drama

Is there actually beef between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni?

What Beyoncé’s “Freedom” can tell you about Kamala Harris

Why do we care so much about campaign songs?

Why Indian doctors are protesting after the rape and death of a colleague

India has systemic problems with sexual violence.

Husband, zaddy, first gentleman? The evolution of Doug Emhoff.

How the second gentleman became the internet’s favorite male feminist.

The Innocence Project has taken on Scott Peterson. But there are limits to reasonable doubt.

In-depth analysis and commentary on today's biggest news stories as only the BBC can deliver. BBC

BBC Newshour

Listen live.

With a name inspired by the First Amendment, 1A explores important issues such as policy, politics, technology, and what connects us across the fissures that divide the country. The program also delves into pop culture, sports, and humor. 1A's goal is to act as a national mirror-taking time to help America look at itself and to ask what it wants to be.

Coronavirus: The world has come together to flatten the curve. Can we stay united to tackle other crises?

Watching the world come together gives me hope for the future, writes mira patel, a high school junior..

Mira Patel and her sister Veda. (Courtesy of Dee Patel)

Part of the series

persuasive essay on how to prevent covid 19

Coronavirus Pandemic

Select Your Interests

Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.

Academic Medicine
Acid Base, Electrolytes, Fluids
Allergy and Clinical Immunology
American Indian or Alaska Natives
Anesthesiology
Anticoagulation
Art and Images in Psychiatry
Artificial Intelligence
Assisted Reproduction
Bleeding and Transfusion
Caring for the Critically Ill Patient
Challenges in Clinical Electrocardiography
Climate and Health
Climate Change
Clinical Challenge
Clinical Decision Support
Clinical Implications of Basic Neuroscience
Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology
Complementary and Alternative Medicine
Consensus Statements
Coronavirus (COVID-19)
Critical Care Medicine
Cultural Competency
Dental Medicine
Dermatology
Diabetes and Endocrinology
Diagnostic Test Interpretation
Drug Development
Electronic Health Records
Emergency Medicine
End of Life, Hospice, Palliative Care
Environmental Health
Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion
Facial Plastic Surgery
Gastroenterology and Hepatology
Genetics and Genomics
Genomics and Precision Health
Global Health
Guide to Statistics and Methods
Hair Disorders
Health Care Delivery Models
Health Care Economics, Insurance, Payment
Health Care Quality
Health Care Reform
Health Care Safety
Health Care Workforce
Health Disparities
Health Inequities
Health Policy
Health Systems Science
History of Medicine
Hypertension
Images in Neurology
Implementation Science
Infectious Diseases
Innovations in Health Care Delivery
JAMA Infographic
Law and Medicine
Leading Change
Less is More
LGBTQIA Medicine
Lifestyle Behaviors
Medical Coding
Medical Devices and Equipment
Medical Education
Medical Education and Training
Medical Journals and Publishing
Mobile Health and Telemedicine
Narrative Medicine
Neuroscience and Psychiatry
Notable Notes
Nutrition, Obesity, Exercise
Obstetrics and Gynecology
Occupational Health
Ophthalmology
Orthopedics
Otolaryngology
Pain Medicine
Palliative Care
Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
Patient Care
Patient Information
Performance Improvement
Performance Measures
Perioperative Care and Consultation
Pharmacoeconomics
Pharmacoepidemiology
Pharmacogenetics
Pharmacy and Clinical Pharmacology
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Physical Therapy
Physician Leadership
Population Health
Primary Care
Professional Well-being
Professionalism
Psychiatry and Behavioral Health
Public Health
Pulmonary Medicine
Regulatory Agencies
Reproductive Health
Research, Methods, Statistics
Resuscitation
Rheumatology
Risk Management
Scientific Discovery and the Future of Medicine
Shared Decision Making and Communication
Sleep Medicine
Sports Medicine
Stem Cell Transplantation
Substance Use and Addiction Medicine
Surgical Innovation
Surgical Pearls
Teachable Moment
Technology and Finance
The Art of JAMA
The Arts and Medicine
The Rational Clinical Examination
Tobacco and e-Cigarettes
Translational Medicine
Trauma and Injury
Treatment Adherence
Ultrasonography
Users' Guide to the Medical Literature
Vaccination
Venous Thromboembolism
Veterans Health
Women's Health
Workflow and Process
Wound Care, Infection, Healing
Download PDF
Share X Facebook Email LinkedIn
Permissions

The Science of Persuasion Offers Lessons for COVID-19 Prevention

Hand washing, mask wearing, social distancing—experts agree these protective behaviors are key to stemming coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). But how should leaders encourage their uptake?

Look to the science of persuasion, says communications professor Dominique Brossard, PhD. Brossard is part of a new National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine group called the Societal Experts Action Network, or SEAN, whose recent report lays out research-based strategies to encourage COVID-19–mitigating behaviors.

Brossard says the changes must feel easy to do—and to repeat, which helps to form habits. Past public health campaigns also suggest it’s wise to know and understand one’s target audience, and to tailor messages and messengers accordingly.

“It’s difficult to change people’s behavior at the massive level,” Brossard, chair of the life sciences communications department at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said in a recent interview with JAMA. The following is an edited version of that conversation.

JAMA: You and your coauthors write that simply explaining the science of COVID-19 and its risks will rarely translate to a change in attitudes and behaviors, even if people understand and accept the facts. Why isn’t it enough to explain the science if you want to change health behaviors?

Dr Brossard: Because human beings rely more on the psychological dimensions of the risk than the quantitative aspect of the risk. If experts measure risk in numbers, such as the probability of getting harmed by something, human beings in general—you and me included—look at what we call the qualitative aspect of that risk: the potential magnitude of the effect, the potential dread, how much it may impact people [close] to us, and so on. So, psychological dimensions.

JAMA: How does that translate to people’s unwillingness to change their attitudes and behaviors?

Dr Brossard: If we’re asked to do something new, that will impact our willingness to do it for a variety of reasons. It might be because people around us, our social network, the norms around us tell us that this is something that’s not acceptable. It might be because it’s a little inconvenient. It might be because we forget about it. At the end of the day, when we perform certain behaviors, rarely do we think about the science that tells us why we shouldn’t do it and why this might be dangerous. We do it because, as social animals, we pay attention to cues that our minds tell us to pay attention to and our community and people around us tell us to pay attention to. Therefore, our behavior is really based on the psychological components rather than more quantifiable aspects.

JAMA: Your report recommends 5 habit-promoting strategies: make the behavior easy to start and repeat; make the behavior rewarding to repeat; tie the behavior to an existing habit; alert people to behaviors that conflict with existing habits and provide alternative behaviors; and provide specific descriptions of desired behaviors. How can these strategies be applied today?

Dr Brossard: People are more likely to act in healthy ways when it’s easy for them to perform that behavior. So let’s think in terms of hand washing, for example. It will be very important to have hand washing stations and hand sanitizer easily accessible to people. Making the behavior very easy to start and to repeat is very important. If you put a mask next to your front door, and it’s easy to grab when you go out the door, that’s going to be easy to implement and you may be more likely to actually do it again. If you want to encourage people to physically distance from other people around them, having signs on the floor is actually something that works. They don’t have to calculate in their mind: what does it mean to be physically distanced? How far am I from other people? They simply stand where the mark tells them. It makes the behavior easy to repeat and easy to perform.

JAMA: So you’re trying to take away any barriers to the behaviors?

Dr Brossard: Exactly. The idea is if you take away as many barriers as possible, you encourage people to repeat the behavior. And then you end up creating a habit.

JAMA: In your report you mentioned that having many hand sanitizer stations sets the norm—that it’s normal to hand sanitize.

Dr Brossard: Mask wearing and physically distancing are new habits we’re creating from scratch. As social animals, that’s not something we do, in general. However, hand washing is a habit that we would have hoped the population already had. The problem is it hasn’t been really implemented. People do it very inconsistently. If you have hand sanitizers everywhere, it’s very easy. As a matter of fact, in supermarkets, when you have the hand sanitizer at the door, people line up and do it. So it’s that idea of the social norm and making it sound like, this is something you do, it’s widely available, other people do it as well, and therefore, this is socially acceptable and highly encouraged, and we should just all do it.

JAMA: The report also discusses 10 strategies for communicating risk, like using clear, consistent, and transparent messaging. It feels like that’s the opposite of what we’ve had. What’s your take on the federal government’s messaging around COVID-19 mitigation?

Dr Brossard: I think that in this case what’s really crucial is the messaging at the local level. At the state level vs county level vs town level, having a consistent strategy, consistent messages, is very important. It’s clear that for public health–related issues, really what makes a difference is the action of local leaders. It’s really the community-based action that can change people’s behavior. At the local level people trust the doctors, the public health officials.

JAMA: Masks unfortunately have become politicized. Is it too late for universal masking to be accepted or do you think minds can still be changed?

Dr Brossard: You will always have extremes on both ends. The vast majority of the population will be somewhere in between. People that are extremely set on the attitude not to wear a mask, which is, by the way, a very, very small minority, are unlikely to change their views. However, all the others can change their views. People are reasonable in the sense that they want to protect their own, they want to protect the community, they want to have the economy reopen, and so on. So I would say, yes, there’s still hope. And we see it. Every week, our group at the SEAN Network publishes a summary of all the polls that address [COVID-19–related] behaviors. We see that mask wearing is increasing. It’s not yet at the level that we would like to make sure that we are protected, but it’s indeed increasing.

JAMA: You reported that highlighting crowded beaches or people who aren’t wearing masks can be counterproductive. Why? And what’s a better approach?

Dr Brossard: They end up thinking that it’s a more prevalent behavior than it actually is. Or it may actually prompt them to think, “Oh, I wish I was on the beach.” You want to highlight good behavior and make it sound like this is socially acceptable rather than highlighting undesirable behavior and making it sound like it’s more frequent than it actually is.

JAMA: So local leaders should emphasize that mask wearing is increasing, for example?

Dr Brossard: Exactly. The research on social norms is extremely, extremely important here. We tend to get cues based on the people around us. Human beings have something that we call fear of isolation. We don’t like to be the lonely person that is the only one doing a certain thing when the vast majority around us are doing another thing. So it’s very important to actually show, “Look, this is going in this direction. Political leaders from both sides of the spectrum are doing it.” To show that the desirable behavior is something that’s becoming prevalent and that this is the direction society is taking.

JAMA: One lesson in your report is that it’s important to concede uncertainty. Why should leaders say things like, “Based on what we know today…”?

Dr Brossard: This is a really key message of risk communication. If you highlight something as being certain and then the science changes and suddenly you say, “Well, wait a minute, actually this was wrong, and now it is this,” you destroy trust. Science evolves, particularly in the context of COVID-19. We are all discovering this virus. The social sciences have shown that acknowledging uncertainty will actually increase trust, much more than painting things as certain. So it’s very important to say, “Based on the science of today, this is what we should do.” It’s very important to show that it’s a work in progress.

JAMA: What about the messengers themselves? Have we tapped into social media influencers enough? And who are community influencers that have the power to change our collective behaviors?

Dr Brossard: It makes us think of the AIDS community, where the leaders of the communities were messengers in helping promote protective behaviors. Using messengers that are trusted by the target audiences and relying on social media is extremely important. And as far as influencers in the communities, this will depend from one community to the other. Let’s take Wisconsin, for example. Football is a sport that people enjoy regardless of their political ideology, age, and so on. So the [Green Bay] Packers are messengers that transcend potential barriers there. It’s important to find trusted messengers that can connect with the audience on social media but also face-to-face. That can be a trusted local business leader, for example.

JAMA: What have we learned from past public health campaigns, like antismoking and wearing seatbelts, that can be applied now?

Dr Brossard: In the ’70s, we had social marketing approaches that suggested that we needed to stop trying to educate people and actually adapt a marketing technique to social issues. The antismoking Truth campaign, as it was called, was a successful application of social marketing techniques. The idea that you need to segment your audience and tailor the message specifically to that audience is something that the Truth campaign very well illustrated. A specific audience that needed to be targeted was adolescents and teenagers, and one thing that adolescents do is rebel against authority. They don’t like people to force them to do things. So the Truth campaign tried to appeal to their drive for autonomy by showing them that the tobacco industry was taking advantage of the adolescent population. That was extremely powerful. The problem is that a mass media campaign like that can be extremely, extremely expensive. That’s why it’s very important also to rely on what we think of as organic dissemination of messaging through social media, which we couldn’t do when the Truth campaign was put together.

JAMA: How can physicians apply these strategies of persuasion with patients, in their communities, or on social networks?

Dr Brossard: We are all tempted to correct misinformation. And right now, we see it everywhere, right? However, we need to be careful because by repeating the misinformation itself, we make it more prevalent. When physicians want to communicate about COVID-19, it’s better to actually communicate the right information without repeating the misinformation itself. I think it’s very important to remember that all of us are part of the solution by making sure that those right behaviors get communicated to as many people as we can. I think physicians have a really, really big part to play in this organic dissemination.

JAMA: How will these strategies apply once we have a COVID-19 vaccine?

Dr Brossard: It goes back to that idea of targeting and audience segmentation to understand who has issues with the vaccine—in this case potentially COVID-19—and why. We actually do not know why people think the way they do. What we do know is that there’s no wrong concern. If people are concerned, they’re concerned. We need to listen and try to understand why and then address that.

See More About

Abbasi J. The Science of Persuasion Offers Lessons for COVID-19 Prevention. JAMA. 2020;324(13):1271–1272. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.15139

Manage citations:

Artificial Intelligence Resource Center

Cardiology in JAMA : Read the Latest

Browse and subscribe to JAMA Network podcasts!

Others Also Liked

Register for email alerts with links to free full-text articles
Access PDFs of free articles
Manage your interests
Save searches and receive search alerts

How to Write a Persuasive Essay

by Guest Blogger | 0 comments

Start Your Story TODAY! We’re teaching a new LIVE workshop this week to help you start your next book. Learn more and sign up here.

So you've been assigned a persuasive paper and you're staring at a blinking cursor. What do you do first? How do you pick a good topic? Today we're going to learn how to write a persuasive essay, so you can get that assignment done.

As we continue our back-to-school series on writing essays, today we look at the persuasive essay.

Today's article is written by guest writer Cora Weems who is a senior at the University of South Carolina. She typically writes narrative poetry, slightly depressing short stories, and effective academic essays. Her hobbies include trying to get through a tall stack of unread books and handcrafts like card-making. Welcome, Cora!

What is a Persuasive Essay?

A persuasive essay is a piece of writing that aims to convince the reader to adopt a specific viewpoint or take action. To support it, you'll use logical arguments, compelling evidence, emotional appeals, and personalization.

In school, teachers often assign controversial issues, but you can develop your own topic too.

Learning to write a persuasive essay though is terrific practice for all kinds of writing. From public debate to sales letters and marketing, persuasive writing skills can carry you far beyond your school experience.

Let's go through the full process!

How to Write a Persuasive Essay: 6 Steps to Help You Start

Here are six steps to help you get your essay started.

Step 1: Pick a Suitable Topic

Maybe your teacher's already given you a prompt, or a specific topic to follow. Or maybe they've sent you on your way with just the rubric and an example paper to help you with formatting.

When it comes to persuasive writing, you need a position that you develop into a central idea. You'll have to support that position with all your evidence and reasoning.

Ideally, it should be a topic you're already familiar with and interested in. That will give you a better starting position and help keep you motivated to keep researching and writing!

When you are given a topic, you'll still want to develop a debatable position.

Here are three examples of broad persuasive essay topics:

The Impact of Social Media on Society
Climate Change and Environmental Responsibility
The Role of Education in Reducing Income Inequality

It should not be a topic that has a specific single right answer or solution, but rather, a number of positions and solutions that you can take.

Your topic should be one of the very first things you address in your essay, in the topic sentence of your introductory paragraph, so your reader can immediately know what you're writing about.

To choose a suitable topic, ask yourself if the topic has multiple positions to take, and if you can reasonably research and take one position. That leads us to step 2:

Step 2: Research Both Sides, But Only Pick One

Even though you're only trying to advocate for one side of your argument, you should know the perspectives of both sides. Not only will this give you a better understanding of your topic, but it will help you prepare a counter argument that will make your essay more convincing.

If you've chosen a controversial topic, then there should be at least two opposing viewpoints that you can read about for supporting evidence.

Perhaps when you picked your topic, you already had a preferred stance, but researching the other side will give you fresh insight into what you actually believe, rather than relying on what you already knew.

Strong arguments typically address the opposing side's perspective and acknowledge them, for the purpose of refuting that argument and making your own appear stronger.

Or maybe you think both sides of your argument have valid points, so you think you'll about both and let the reader decide. Don't do that!

Not only is it more work for you, but the reader will be confused about your point.

You can acknowledge the strongest parts of the opposing view while you counter with your own perspective.

Step 3: Craft a Thesis Statement

Writing a thesis statement is a skill that goes beyond just persuasive writing. It's particularly important in this case because it gives both you and the reader a clear vision on how the rest of your paper is going to go.

You should explicitly state what you position is and what the rest of your paper is going to be about. It's usually a sentence or two long, so don't worry about being thorough or too specific. You'll Expand on it in your body paragraphs.

Typically, your thesis statement is located at the end of your introductory paragraph which allows for a natural transition from introducing your topic to the more specific reasons for your position on that topic.

You can use this statement to outline the rest of your paper, from what each paragraph is going to addressing the type of evidence you'll be using.

For example, if you choose the topic about the impact of social media on society, you want a thesis statement that covers the position and scope of your paper. Here's an example:

Social media like Facebook negatively impacts society through the ease of sharing misinformation, and both individuals and social media platforms need to do more to curb the spread of misinformation.

Notice how the position this writer takes is that Facebook negatively impacts society because of how it's used to share misinformation.

Now how would they support that thesis?

Step 4: Use the Right Evidence

Once you take a position, it's the time to show the reader why your viewpoint in particular is the one they should follow.

For academic writing, the most effective evidence is peer-reviewed articles published in academic journals. Peer-reviewed articles are seen as the most credible because they've been viewed and cleared by a number of different people, which means multiple people agreed that this article is reliable.

If you chose the wrong evidence, your entire argument is at risk of falling apart. You should not be choosing evidence that is false or unreliable, because your evidence is the foundation that your position stands upon.

Even if you don't want to go searching through databases for jargon-filled journal articles, all the evidence you choose should be from credible sources. It could be an expert opinion or some form of anecdotal evidence that could help personalize the issue for your reader.

You may have heard the terms “ethos,” “pathos,” and “logos” in class. When crafting something persuasive, you should appeal to authority, emotion, and logic.

Using evidence from an expert is an appeal to ethos or authority, credibility.

If you cite statistics from a reputable source, that might be an appeal to logic.

A related anecdote that makes the reader angry or sympathetic may be an emotional appeal.

The best persuasive essays use all three.

A persuasive argument is typically supported by a number of different sources that appeal to all parts of the reader, from their logical side to their more heartfelt one. All of those different perspectives will come together to make your argument stronger and more effective.

For example, in our example above on the impact of social media, the thesis statement reads: “Social media like Facebook negatively impacts society through the ease of sharing misinformation, and both individuals and social media platforms need to do more to curb the spread of misinformation.”

To support, this paper would need to show data about misinformation on Facebook, demonstrate the ways that misinformation negatively impacts society, and then offer the best solutions in the form of individual and company interventions.

Step 5: Use Natural Transitions

As you add evidence to your argument, use transitions that help the reader see the connections you're making.

If you've ever felt your eyes begin to glaze over when you see a wall of text or a bunch of graphs and statistics in one place, the writer lost you in making the needed connections and transitions. You don't want to do that to your reader.

Introduce a point, then use evidence to support that point, and then expand on that evidence. Whether it's by paraphrasing it so the reader can more easily digest it, or by showing the reader exactly how it connects back to what you're trying to persuade them.

This not only applies to evidence, but also moving between paragraphs. There should be a topic sentence near the beginning of every paragraph to tell the reader what that paragraph is about, and you should use the last sentence of the previous paragraph to lead into it.

Doing this helps improve the flow of your essay and keeps the reader's attention. If they never have to stop and wonder how you got to a certain point, then you can keep all their attention purely on your argument.

Step 6: Make It Applicable

As you bring your essay to a close, most persuasive papers end with some call to action. It might be that you are asking the reader to understand an issue differently. Maybe you want to them to change their minds or donate money or take other action.

Make sure your conclusion answers the question, “So what?” Give your reader something to occupy their mind even after they're done reading. You want to tell them why reading your argument was important, and give them a reason to keep thinking about your argument even after you're done.

Doing so will leave a lasting impression of your paper on your reader, which will make your essay more persuasive and effective.

Persuade us!

So there you have it. Some ways to help move that blinking cursor.

It's okay to start with a draft that's just you cramming all your ideas onto a document. Don't worry about formal language yet. Reorganizing and rewriting that rough draft is part of what makes a good paper.

Plus, writing it all out will let you see what you actually thought the most important parts were, and revision allows you to highlight those strong points and focus on what you think the reader should know.

Here's a question to help you keep going even after you've finished the messy first draft: What makes this essay important to you?

Beyond the grade it will get in class, beyond how it will affect your GPA or academic standing, what about this essay is important? What about this will affect more people than just you?

Throughout your life, you'll constantly find times where you have to use persuasion. Maybe it won't be in essay format or presented in a Power Point, but finding ways to be persuasive is something that will help you in the rest of your life.

So let's think of this essay as practice, and learn how to be as persuasive as we can.

What are your best tips for persuasive writing? Share in the comments .

Set your timer for fifteen minutes . Choose a persuasive topic that you can take a clear position on. Make a list of the reasons for your current view point. Then, do some research and read possible evidence both in support and in opposition to your view. Choose the strongest two to three pieces.

If you still have time, craft a thesis statement that distills your argument, and begin writing the essay. While it will take you longer than fifteen minutes to write the essay, sometimes just getting started in fifteen minutes is enough to make a difference!

When finished, post your thesis and current direction in the Pro Practice Workshop , and leave feedback for a few other writers.

Guest Blogger

This article is by a guest blogger. Would you like to write for The Write Practice? Check out our guest post guidelines .

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Submit Comment

Join over 450,000 readers who are saying YES to practice. You’ll also get a free copy of our eBook 14 Prompts :

Popular Resources

Best Resources for Writers Book Writing Tips & Guides Creativity & Inspiration Tips Writing Prompts Grammar & Vocab Resources Best Book Writing Software ProWritingAid Review Writing Teacher Resources Publisher Rocket Review Scrivener Review Gifts for Writers

Books By Our Writers

You've got it! Just us where to send your guide.

Enter your email to get our free 10-step guide to becoming a writer.

You've got it! Just us where to send your book.

Enter your first name and email to get our free book, 14 Prompts.

Want to Get Published?

Enter your email to get our free interactive checklist to writing and publishing a book.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
JMIR Hum Factors

Persuasive Messages for Improving Adherence to COVID-19 Prevention Behaviors: Randomized Online Experiment

Mehdi mourali.

1 Haskayne School of Business, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada

Jamie L Benham

2 Department of Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada

3 Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada

Raynell Lang

Madison m fullerton, jean-christophe boucher.

4 Department of Political Science, School of Public Policy, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada

Kirsten Cornelson

5 Department of Economics, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN, United States

Robert J Oxoby

6 Department of Economics, Faculty of Arts, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada

Cora Constantinescu

7 Department of Pediatrics, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada

Theresa Tang

Deborah a marshall, associated data.

Quota system details (Table S1) and flyers for the persuasion conditions (Figures S1-S5).

CONSORT checklist.

Adherence to nonpharmaceutical interventions for COVID-19, including physical distancing, masking, staying home while sick, and avoiding crowded indoor spaces, remains critical for limiting the spread of COVID-19.

The aim of this study was to test the effectiveness of using various persuasive appeals (deontological moral frame, empathy, identifiable victim, goal proximity, and reciprocity) at improving intentions to adhere to prevention behaviors.

A randomized online experiment using a representative sample of adult Canadian residents with respect to age, ethnicity, and province of residence was performed from March 3 to March 6, 2021. Participants indicated their intentions to follow public health guidelines, saw one of six flyers featuring a persuasive appeal or no appeal, and then rated their intentions a second time. Known correlates of attitudes toward public health measures were also measured.

Intentions to adhere to public health measures increased in all appeal conditions. The message featuring an empathy appeal resulted in a greater increase in intentions than the control (no appeal) message. Moreover, the effectiveness of persuasive appeals was moderated by baseline intentions. Deontological, empathy, identifiable victim, and reciprocity appeals improved intentions more than the control message, but only for people with lower baseline intentions to adhere to nonpharmaceutical interventions.

Conclusions

Public health marketing campaigns aiming to increase adherence to COVID-19 protective behaviors could achieve modest gains by employing a range of persuasive appeals. However, to maximize impact, it is important that these campaigns be targeted to the right individuals.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT05722106","term_id":"NCT05722106"}} NCT05722106 ; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/ {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT05722106","term_id":"NCT05722106"}} NCT05722106

Introduction

As of July 2022, over 500 million people worldwide have contracted the SARS-CoV-2 virus, resulting in over 6 million COVID-19–related deaths [ 1 ]. Despite the remarkable and ongoing effort to inoculate the world population (over 12 billion vaccine doses have been administered so far), the rapidly evolving virus continues to spread at alarmingly high rates. Even affluent countries like Canada—a G7 member with over 83% of the population fully vaccinated—are struggling to contain the spread, with case and hospitalization numbers reaching all-time highs in the winter of 2022 [ 2 , 3 ]. With governments gradually lifting restrictive measures and reopening borders, it is critical that, in addition to getting vaccinated, individuals continue to follow nonpharmaceutical interventions—including wearing face masks, physical distancing, staying home when ill, and avoiding crowded indoor spaces—to limit the spread of this highly transmissible virus, especially as newer more transmissible variants continue to emerge [ 4 - 7 ].

Mandates and government-imposed restrictions are important policy tools for limiting the spread of COVID-19, but they are insufficient on their own and must be complemented by softer interventions designed to increase compliance with public health guidelines. Convincing citizens to freely adhere to social distancing, masking, and other preventive behaviors requires persuasive communication going beyond providing information on the risks of the pandemic. Public health organizations and governments need to understand how to best frame messages to effectively appeal to different audiences [ 8 ].

The primary objective of this study was to empirically test the effectiveness of message framings emphasizing a set of carefully selected persuasive appeals at improving people’s intentions to engage in health protective behaviors. Another aim of the study was to characterize the target audience most susceptible to respond positively to the persuasive appeals. The findings are intended to guide the design and development of public health campaigns in Canada.

Message Framing and Adherence to Public Health Measures

In the past year, numerous studies have investigated the impact of various persuasive appeals on people’s attitudes and intentions around COVID-19–related behaviors. The studies varied in their methods and procedures and produced mixed results. Messages using prosocial, altruistic, other-focused, or community-focused appeals were generally more persuasive than messages using self-interested, self-protective, or threatening appeals [ 9 - 16 ]. Likewise, gain-framed messages were typically more effective than loss-framed messages [ 17 , 18 ], although at least one study found the opposite result [ 19 ]. Moreover, messages invoking social norms do not seem to be particularly effective [ 20 , 21 ].

In a comprehensive analysis, Pink and colleagues [ 21 ] tested 56 short messages using a wide range of framings, including some of the appeals mentioned above. They found no consistent effects for any of the tested messages. Nevertheless, a message using a reciprocity appeal performed the best in three of their five studies.

The present research adds to this body of work by testing the effectiveness of five appeals (deontological moral frame, empathy, goal proximity, identifiable victim, and reciprocity) at improving people’s intentions to adhere to public health measures. This study differs from prior work in at least two important aspects. First, the pandemic context at the time of our study (early March 2021) is unlike that characterizing the early stages of the pandemic when most previous studies were conducted. At the time of our study, there had been over 880,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases in Canada, including over 22,000 deaths. Vaccine supply was limited with just over 2 million doses administered by March 3, 2021 [ 2 ]. Although the daily COVID-19 activity had been declining from mid-January through mid-February, it has leveled off since. The 7-day average was under 3000 new cases a day nationwide, but variants of concern (B.1.1.7 and B1.351) had emerged [ 22 ]. Masking in public places was mandated in most jurisdictions, and the public was advised to limit travel and minimize contact with people outside of their household [ 22 ]. The difference in context alone may result in notable differences in how people process and respond to various persuasive messages.

Previous experiments have largely neglected the role of baseline attitudes and intentions when testing for differences between messages. In contrast, we expected baseline intentions to have a significant impact on how people respond to persuasive messages. People who are highly compliant to begin with have little room left for improvement. Thus, we expected the effect of persuasive appeals to be stronger among those with relatively lower baseline intentions. This is significant because those who are less compliant with public health measures are a critical target for behavior change.

Five Persuasive Appeals

This study focused on the impact of five persuasive appeals: deontological moral frame, empathy, identifiable victim, goal proximity, and reciprocity. Deontological moral frames are frequently encountered in the current public discourse; they appeal to the sense of duty and responsibilities we have to our families and communities [ 23 ]. Prior research suggests that agents making deontological judgments are perceived to be more trustworthy than agents making utilitarian judgments [ 24 , 25 ], even when they are not actually more trustworthy [ 26 ]. Moreover, research using machine learning found that moral identity is a strong predictor of adherence to public health measures [ 27 ]. Thus, we expect persuasive appeals that use deontological moral frames to help increase adherence to public health measures.

Empathy—understanding and feeling concerned for vulnerable others—has been found to increase altruism and caring, and to motivate helping behavior [ 28 - 30 ]. Thus, inducing empathy by highlighting that the sick, elderly, and immunocompromised need our help is expected to increase adoption of health protective behaviors [ 13 , 15 ].

Goal-proximity appeals emphasize that better days are approaching. This is important because people’s motivation to comply with public health advice has declined since the pandemic’s early days. A Gallup study tracking social distancing behaviors found that the percentage of Americans practicing social distancing dropped steadily over time, from 75% in April 2020 to 38% in March 2021 [ 31 ]. A drop in motivation over the course of goal pursuit is not uncommon when pursuing goals with no clear end states or when the tasks required to achieve the goal are difficult [ 32 ]. Fortunately, motivational strength tends to increase as the distance to the goal decreases. The goal-gradient hypothesis holds that people apply more effort and persistence as they get closer to a goal’s end state [ 33 - 37 ]. The third message tested in this study relies on this motivational property.

The fourth message relies on the persuasive power of identifiable victims. The identifiable victim effect refers to people’s propensity to offer more help to specific, identifiable victims rather than to anonymous, statistical victims [ 38 - 40 ]. This effect has been attributed to the fact that identifiable victims evoke more powerful emotional responses than statistical victims [ 38 , 41 ]. The identifiable victim effect also arises because people believe their contribution will have a greater impact on an identified victim than on a large group of unidentified victims [ 39 ].

Our fifth message relies on the principle of reciprocity. According to Cialdini [ 42 ], “all societies subscribe to a norm that obligates individuals to repay in kind what they have received” (page 76). The reciprocity code is not limited to gifts and favors but also includes concessions, whereby people are more likely to make concessions to those who have made concessions to them [ 43 , 44 ]. Accordingly, our reciprocity message emphasizes the sacrifices health care workers are making to help and protect us, and asks that we return the favor by adhering to health protective behaviors.

Individual Differences in Compliance With Public Health Measures

We expect persuasive communication to have a greater impact among individuals who have lower initial intentions to adhere with public health measures. This is because individuals who have high initial intentions have little room left for improvement; that is, they are already persuaded and further exposure to persuasive communication is unlikely to change their intentions. From a campaign planning perspective, it is important to identify who these individuals might be so that the messages can be efficiently targeted.

The existing literature points to significant variability in the levels of adherence to public health measures [ 45 - 52 ]. A recent review of 29 empirical studies concluded that greater adherence to public health measures is reliably associated with being older, identifying as female, trusting governments, perceiving COVID-19 as a threat, and accessing information through traditional news media [ 50 ]. Variability in uptake of public health behaviors was also linked to differences in political ideology [ 51 , 52 ] and perceived responsibility for others [ 53 ]. In this study, we measured these characteristics and examined their associations with baseline intentions.

Participants and Procedure

A representative sample of adult Canadian residents with respect to age, ethnicity, and province of residence was recruited by the research firm Critical Mass between March 3 and March 6, 2021. A description of the study was posted on Lucid Marketplace, a third-party platform that maintains an online research panel of 15 million verified users. Users from Canada were invited to visit a screening page assessing demographic and geographic variables. Target quotas for province of residence, age, gender, and ethnicity were set to obtain a demographically representative sample based on the 2016 census data (see Table S1 in Multimedia Appendix 1 for details on the quota system).

Upon consenting in writing, participants reported on their intentions to engage in a set of prevention behaviors over the coming weeks (T1). They were then randomly assigned to an active control or one of five persuasive appeal conditions (control vs deontological vs empathy vs goal proximity vs reciprocity vs identifiable victim) and reported on their intentions to engage in the same set of prevention behaviors a second time (T2). This design allowed us to examine whether the effectiveness of persuasive appeals varies as a function of initial prevention intentions. Finally, participants completed a series of questions assessing potential correlates of prevention intentions. These included measures of political orientation, trust in institutions, perceived threat of COVID-19, and perceived responsibility toward others.

Ethics Approval

This study was approved by the University of Calgary Conjoint Research Ethics Board (REB21-0173) and was conducted according to the principles expressed in the Declaration of Helsinki.

Index variables for intentions to engage in prevention behaviors (pre- and posttreatment) were created by averaging across six items: (1) Limit my physical contact with others when possible, (2) Completely avoid any unnecessary physical contact with others (eg, hugging or handshakes), (3) Avoid crowded indoor spaces, (4) Wear a mask when I leave the house, (5) Wash my hands as much as possible, and (6) Stay home when mildly sick. These items were measured on 100-point sliding scales (0= strongly disagree , 50= neither agree nor disagree , 100= strongly agree ).

Persuasive appeals were manipulated using promotional flyers ostensibly distributed by the Public Health Agency of Canada. In the control condition, the flyer contained a simple list of what participants can do to help prevent the spread of COVID-19. In each of the five persuasion conditions, the flyer contained the same basic information and a unique persuasive appeal (see Figure 1 for an example and Figures S1-S5 in Multimedia Appendix 1 for the remaining flyers). The wording of the messages is shown in Textbox 1 .

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is humanfactors_v10i1e41328_fig1.jpg

Sample flyer: empathy appeal.

Messages across appeal conditions.

The virus spreads mainly between people who are in close contact with one another. You can help prevent the spread of COVID-19. We can all do our part:

Avoid social gatherings.
Wear a mask when you go out.
Stay at least six feet away from people outside your household.
Wash your hands often with soap and water.

These actions prevent the spread of COVID-19.

Deontological

We all need to do this, however difficult, because it is the right thing to do: it is our duty and responsibility to protect our families, friends, and fellow citizens.

The sick, elderly, and immunocompromised need our help. We all have a choice. If we don’t take the right actions, we risk the lives of others. But we can protect those most likely to be harmed. We can protect those who are vulnerable by taking simple steps:

Take action to protect those who are vulnerable!

Identifiable victim

A few weeks ago, Sam was a healthy 26-year-old with no medical complications. Then he suddenly came down with a bad cough and a feeling like he could not breathe. He tested positive for COVID-19 and is now hospitalized, receiving oxygen from a ventilator, and fighting for his life. This could be any of us. Reduce the risk to yourself and others:

If we take these actions, we can prevent more people from suffering the way Sam has.

Goal proximity

The recent development of safe and effective vaccines gives us great hope. We see the light at the end of the tunnel, but we are not quite there yet. Until a large proportion of the population is immunized, we must remain vigilant and double our efforts to prevent the spread of COVID-19.

Reciprocity

Doctors, nurses, and other health care workers are working around the clock, often risking their lives to care for patients with the coronavirus. Working long hours in highly infectious environments, many of them are falling ill. As our health care workers put their lives on the line, we can do our part:

Our brave health care workers have sacrificed to help others. We should take action too.

Trust in various institutions (politicians, civil servants, public health officials, physicians, other health care providers [eg, nurses, pharmacists], scientists, journalists, and pharmaceutical companies) was measured using eight items (α=.91) on 100-point sliding scales (0= do not trust at all , 100= trust completely ).

Perceived COVID-19 threat was measured using four items (α=.89) adapted from previous research [ 11 ]. A sample item is: “To what extent are you afraid of contracting COVID-19 because of the consequences for you personally/your community?” (0= not at all , 50= to a moderate extent , 100= to an enormous extent ).

Perceived responsibility toward others was assessed using four items (α=.94) adapted from previous research [ 18 ]. A sample item is: “I owe it to my family to do whatever I can to stop the spread of COVID-19” (1= strongly disagree , 7= strongly agree ).

Finally, political orientation was measured using the following item: “If you think about your own political views, where would you classify your views on this scale?” (1= very liberal , 7= very conservative ).

Data Analysis

First, we sought to address the broad question: does exposure to messages using persuasive appeals improve intentions to engage in prevention behaviors more than exposure to the control message? Given the structure in our data (each participant provided two sets of ratings), we fitted a linear mixed effects model (estimated using maximum likelihood) with intention to engage in prevention behaviors as the outcome variable; random intercepts for participants (id); and fixed effects for appeal condition, time of rating, and their interaction. In this analysis, the P values were estimated via t -tests using the Satterthwaite approximation to degrees of freedom. Effect sizes for the fixed effects are indicated by the standardized regression coefficients (β) and their 95% CIs.

We performed a series of moderated regressions (estimated using ordinary least squares [OLS]) to investigate whether the effectiveness of persuasive appeals varies as a function of baseline prevention intentions. We used change in intentions as the outcome variable, persuasion appeal as a binary predictor, and baseline intentions as a continuous moderator.

To help characterize the target audience, we examined the association of baseline intentions with demographic variables, including age, gender, ethnic background, education, and geographic region, as well as attitudinal variables such as perceived COVID-19 threat, perceived responsibility toward others, trust in institutions, and political orientation.

We fitted a linear model (estimated using OLS) using all predictors. The continuous predictors (age, threat, responsibility, trust, and political orientation) were mean-centered and the categorical predictors were dummy-coded. The ethnic background variable was constructed by recoding the original ethnicity variable into a binary variable (0=ethnic majority, 1=ethnic minority). Education was modified by combining the “less than high school” and “high school” categories into a single “high school or less” category, which served as the baseline group in the analysis. The region variable was constructed by collapsing the Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Territories categories in the province variable into a single “Maritimes and Territories” category. Ontario was set as the baseline category for the five-level region variable and female was set as the baseline category for the three-level gender variable.

Data analysis was performed using the statistical program R version 4.0.2 [ 54 ], and the level of statistical significance was set at α=.05.

Participant Characteristics

A total of 7079 respondents visited the screening page. Of those, 3746 qualified for the main study based on the quota requirements. Of the qualified respondents, 78 failed to complete the survey, resulting in a final sample of 3668 participants (see Table 1 for sample characteristics). Those who failed to complete the survey were demographically similar to those who completed the survey, but were predominantly from the provinces of Quebec (40%) and Nova Scotia (19%) (see Table S1 in Multimedia Appendix 1 ).

Sample characteristics.

Characteristic			Overall (N=3668), n (%)		Control (n=582), n (%)		Deontological (n= 622), n (%)		Empathy (n=624), n (%)		Proximity (n= 603), n (%)		Reciprocity (n=623), n (%)		Victim (n=614), n (%)	value
																	.27
	Female	2202 (60.03)		334 (57.4)		380 (61.1)		353 (56.6)		359 (59.5)		386 (62.0)		390 (63.5)
	Male	1450 (39.53)		245 (42.1)		238 (38.3)		267 (42.8)		243 (40.3)		234 (37.6)		223 (36.3)
	Other	16 (0.44)		3 (0.5)		4 (0.6)		4 (0.6)		1 (0.2)		3 (0.5)		1 (0.2)
																	.73
	18-24	345 (9.41)		54 (9.3)		65 (10.5)		60 (9.6)		52 (8.6)		54 (8.7)		60 (9.8)
	25-34	690 (18.82)		118 (20.3)		118 (19.0)		125 (20.0)		115 (19.1)		113 (18.1)		101 (16.4)
	35-44	785 (21.41)		119 (20.4)		125 (20.1)		146 (23.4)		145 (24.0)		131 (21.0)		119 (19.4)
	45-54	599 (16.33)		97 (16.7)		106 (17.0)		101 (16.2)		86 (14.3)		103 (16.5)		106 (17.3)
	55-64	595 (16.23)		100 (17.2)		103 (16.6)		91 (14.6)		102 (16.9)		100 (16.1)		99 (16.1)
	65-99	653 (17.81)		94 (16.2)		105 (16.9)		101 (16.2)		103 (17.1)		121 (19.4)		129 (21.0)
																	.28
	White	2840 (77.81)		448 (77.0)		479 (77.0)		478 (76.6)		465 (77.1)		488 (78.3)		482 (78.5)
	Black	110 (3.01)		21 (3.6)		21 (3.4)		18 (2.9)		16 (2.7)		15 (2.4)		19 (3.1)
	East Asian	297 (8.14)		48 (8.3)		49 (7.9)		63 (10.1)		44 (7.3)		47 (7.6)		46 (7.6)
	South Asian	193 (5.29)		29 (5.0)		27 (4.4)		34 (5.5)		30 (5.0)		42 (6.8)		31 (5.1)
	Indigenous	63 (1.73)		12 (2.1)		13 (2.1)		10 (1.6)		6 (1.0)		11 (1.8)		11 (1.8)
	Other	147 (4.03)		21 (3.6)		29 (4.7)		18 (2.9)		40 (6.7)		19 (3.1)		20 (3.3)
																	.23
	Less than high school	86 (2.35)		12 (2.1)		11 (1.8)		12 (1.9)		14 (2.3)		26 (4.2)		11 (1.8)
	High school	718 (19.58)		112 (19.2)		108 (17.4)		127 (20%)		107 (17.7)		121 (19.4)		143 (23.3)
	Some college	631 (17.21)		98 (16.8)		111 (17.8)		101 (16%)		113 (18.7)		100 (16.1)		108 (17.6)
	College	834 (22.74)		128 (22.0)		155 (24.9)		125 (20.4)		143 (23.7)		149 (23.9)		134 (21.8)
	University	1007 (27.46)		169 (29.0)		174 (28.0)		185 (29.6)		156 (25.9)		165 (26.5)		158 (25.7)
	Graduate degree	391 (10.66)		63 (10.8)		63 (10.1)		74 (11.9)		69 (11.4)		62 (10.0)		60 (9.8)
																	.79
	Newfoundland and Labrador	74 (2.02)		6 (1.0)		18 (2.9)		13 (2.1)		9 (1.5)		14 (2.2)		14 (2.3)
	Prince Edward Island	19 (0.52)		3 (0.5)		5 (0.8)		4 (0.6)		4 (0.7)		2 (0.3)		1 (0.2)
	New Brunswick	96 (2.62)		11 (1.9)		20 (3.2)		21 (3.4)		15 (2.5)		10 (1.6)		19 (3.1)
	Nova Scotia	122 (3.33)		22 (3.8)		23 (3.7)		24 (3.8)		16 (2.7)		22 (3.5)		15 (2.4)
	Quebec	472 (12.87)		72 (12.4)		87 (14.0)		83 (13.3)		76 (12.6)		66 (10.6)		88 (14)
	Ontario	1555 (42.39)		256 (44.0)		259 (41.6)		251 (40.2)		267 (44.3)		273 (43.8)		249 (40.6)
	Manitoba	155 (4.23)		26 (4.5)		26 (4.2)		26 (4.2)		26 (4.3)		30 (4.8)		21 (3.4)
	Saskatchewan	128 (3.49)		18 (3.1)		21 (3.4)		22 (3.5)		18 (3.0)		20 (3.2)		29 (4.7)
	Alberta	470 (12.81)		76 (13.1)		77 (12.4)		84 (13.5)		65 (10.8)		86 (13.8)		82 (13.4)
	British Columbia	569 (15.51)		89 (15.3)		85 (13.7)		95 (15.2)		105 (17.4)		100 (16.1)		95 (15.5)
	Territories	8 (0.22)		3 (0.5)		1 (0.2)		1 (0.2)		2 (0.3)		0 (0)		1 (0.2)

a Pearson χ 2 test.

b Territories=Yukon, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut.

Intentions to Engage in Prevention Behaviors

The results of the fixed factors in the mixed effects model are summarized in Table 2 (random effects: σ 2 =18.90, τ 00id =282.54, intraclass correlation coefficient=0.94, N id =3668, observations=7331, marginal R 2 =0.006, conditional R 2 = 0.938). Prior to exposure to the persuasive appeals, participants in all conditions reported similarly high intentions to engage in prevention behaviors. Prevention scores at T1 did not differ significantly between any appeal condition and the control condition, as shown in Table 2 ( P values for deontological, empathy, goal proximity, reciprocity, and victim are all greater than .05). This confirmed that random assignment produced groups with equivalent baselines. Furthermore, exposure to a reminder message about prevention behaviors (ie, control condition) increased participants’ intentions to engage in prevention behaviors (see Time [T2] variable in Table 2 ). Additionally, exposure to a persuasive message using an empathy appeal resulted in a larger increase in intentions to engage in prevention behaviors relative to the control message ( Table 2 ).

Mixed effects regression results for intentions to engage in prevention behaviors.

Predictors	Estimate, b (SE)	statistic		value	β (95% CI)
(Intercept)	87.11 (0.72)	121.04	3905.10	<.001	–.08 (–.16 to .00)
Time [T2 ]	2.12 (0.25)	8.32	3663.20	<.001	.12 (.09 to .15)
Deontological	0.37 (1.00)	0.37	3905.10	.71	.02 (–.09 to .13)
Empathy	–0.61 (1.00)	–0.61	3905.10	.54	–.03 (–.15 to .08)
Proximity	–0.52 (1.01)	–0.51	3905.10	.61	–.03 (–.14 to .08)
Reciprocity	0.71 (1.00)	0.70	3905.10	.48	.04 (–.07 to .15)
Victim	0.44 (1.00)	0.44	3905.10	.66	.03 (–.09 to .14)
T2×Deontological	0.47 (0.35)	1.33	3663.38	.19	.03 (–.01 to .07)
T2×Empathy	1.04 (0.35)	2.93	3663.38	.003	.06 (.02 to .10)
T2×Proximity	0.06 (0.36)	0.17	3663.57	.87	.00 (–.04 to .04)
T2×Reciprocity	0.60 (0.35)	1.69	3663.38	.09	.03 (–.01 to .07)
T2×Victim	0.53 (0.36)	1.48	3663.20	.14	.03 (–.01 to .07)

a T2: posttest time point.

Exposure to messages using other types of appeals (deontological, goal proximity, reciprocity, and victim) produced positive changes in intentions to engage in prevention behaviors (see Table 3 ), but these changes did not differ in magnitude from those produced by exposure to a simple reminder message (all P >.05). Figure 2 shows the estimated marginal means for each group and their 95% CIs.

Intention to engage in prevention behaviors before (T1) and after (T2) exposure to various appeals.

Appeal	Intention_T1	Intention_T2	T2–T1	statistic		value
Control	87.1	89.2	2.1	8.83	581	<.001
Deontological	87.5	90.1	2.6	10.83	620	<.001
Empathy	86.5	89.7	3.2	11.73	622	<.001
Proximity	86.6	88.8	2.2	8.71	600	<.001
Reciprocity	87.8	90.5	2.7	11.86	621	<.001
Victim	87.5	90.2	2.7	10.10	613	<.001

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is humanfactors_v10i1e41328_fig2.jpg

Intention to engage in prevention behaviors across appeal conditions and measurement. Data are presented as marginal means with 95% CIs.

Moderating Effect of Baseline Intentions

The preceding analysis suggested that, apart from empathy, the use of persuasive appeals does not improve intentions to engage in prevention behaviors beyond a simple reminder message. However, we expected the effectiveness of persuasive appeals to vary according to people’s initial dispositions. Persuasive appeals are likely effective when baseline intentions are relatively low, but may have a limited impact when baseline intentions are so high that there is little room for improvement. Results from the moderated regressions were consistent with our expectations (see Table 4 ). The appeal×baseline intentions interaction was statistically significant for all but the goal-proximity appeal, suggesting that the effectiveness of the deontological, empathy, reciprocity, and identifiable victim appeals indeed depends on the level of initial intentions.

Effect of appeal×initial intentions interaction on change in intentions to engage in prevention behavior.

Appeal×baseline intentions	Estimate, b (SE)	statistic		value	β (95% CI)
Deontological	–0.08 (0.02)	–4.29	1199	<.001	–.12 (–.17 to –.06)
Empathy	–0.09 (0.02)	–4.60	1201	<.001	–.13 (–.18 to –.07)
Proximity	–0.02 (0.02)	–1.14	1179	.26	–.03 (–.09 to –.02)
Reciprocity	–0.08 (0.02)	–4.38	1200	<.001	–.12 (–.18 to –.07)
Victim	–0.05 (0.02)	–2.75	1192	.006	–.08 (–.13 to –.02)

We followed up with floodlight analyses [ 55 ] of each significant interaction. As shown in Figure 3 , the conditional effect of seeing a deontological appeal was significant only among participants who had a score of 85.5 or below on the initial intentions measure (30.2% of participants; mean 66.4). In other words, people with lower baseline intentions increased their intentions to engage in prevention behaviors more after seeing a message featuring a deontological appeal than after seeing a message featuring a simple reminder. In contrast, those with high baseline intentions (higher than 85.5; 69.8% of participants; mean 96.2) did not differ significantly in how much they changed their intentions when they saw a message featuring a deontological appeal or a message featuring a reminder.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is humanfactors_v10i1e41328_fig3.jpg

Floodlight analysis of the interactive effects of appeal and baseline intentions. n.s: not significant ( P >.05).

We observed similar patterns with the other appeals. The conditional effect of empathy was significant only among participants scoring 90.1 or lower on initial intentions (39.5% of participants; mean 71.5), the conditional effect of reciprocity was significant only for those scoring 87.8 or lower on initial intentions (44.1% of participants; mean 68.7), and the conditional effect of identifiable victim was only significant for those scoring 84.8% or lower on initial intentions (29.3% of participants; mean 65.7).

Predictors of Baseline Intentions

The moderation analysis implied that a public health campaign using persuasive appeals would be most effective when targeting individuals with lower baseline intentions: but who might these individuals be?

The regression model using all demographic and attitudinal predictors explained a statistically significant and substantial proportion of the variance ( R 2 =0.51, F 16, 3415 =224.2, P <.001, adjusted R 2 =0.51). As shown in Table 5 , baseline intentions increased with age, perception of COVID-19 threat, perceived responsibility, and trust in institutions. Conversely, baseline intentions decreased with political conservatism, were lower for males relative to females, and were lower in the Prairies compared to Ontario. Neither education level nor ethnic background was significantly uniquely associated with baseline intentions to engage in prevention behaviors.

Multivariable regression model of initial intentions.

Predictors	Estimate, b (SE)	( =3415)	value	β (95% CI)
(Intercept)	88.44 (0.57)	155.99	<.001	.08 (.01 to .14)
Age	0.06 (0.01)	4.41	<.001	.06 (.03 to .08)
Gender [Male]	–1.74 (0.44)	–3.94	<.001	–.10 (–.15 to –.05)
Gender [Other]	–3.01 (3.19)	–0.95	.34	–.17 (–.53 to .18)
Ethnic [Minority]	–0.07 (0.54)	–0.13	.90	–.00 (–.06 to .06)
Education [Some college]	–0.23 (0.68)	–0.35	.73	–.01 (–.09 to .06)
Education [College]	–0.40 (0.63)	–0.63	.53	–.02 (–.09 to .05)
Education [University]	0.38 (0.61)	0.63	.53	.02 (–.05 to .09)
Education [Graduate degree]	–0.24 (0.79)	–0.30	.76	–.01 (–.10 to .07)
Region [Maritimes]	–1.16 (0.79)	–1.46	.14	–.07 (–.16 to .02)
Region [Quebec]	–0.22 (0.67)	–0.33	.74	–.01 (–.09 to .06)
Region [Prairies]	–1.53 (0.57)	–2.68	.007	–.09 (–.05 to –.02)
Region [British Columbia]	–1.02 (0.63)	–1.64	.10	–.06 (–.13 to .01)
Political orientation	–0.39 (0.14)	–2.76	.006	–.03 (–.06 to –.01)
COVID-19 threat	0.15 (0.01)	13.53	<.001	0.21 (.18 to .24)
Responsibility	7.66 (0.24)	31.90	<.001	.50 (.47 to .53)
Trust	0.08 (0.01)	6.04	<.001	.09 (.06 to .12)

At the time of writing, Canada was entering the fourth wave of COVID-19, with case and hospitalization numbers projected to spike in the coming weeks [ 2 , 22 ]. Maximizing vaccination coverage is paramount, but support for public health measures, including physical distancing, masking, staying home while sick, and avoiding crowded indoor spaces, is also critical for limiting the spread of the virus. This is particularly important since some jurisdictions have moved away from mandatory to recommended measures, relying on the public to make adherence decisions. There is an urgent need for effective messaging to increase adherence to public health measures.

Through a randomized online experiment, we tested the effectiveness of five messages featuring different persuasive appeals (deontological vs empathy vs goal proximity vs reciprocity vs identifiable victim) relative to a control message that simply listed the actions participants could take to help prevent the spread of COVID-19. A pretest-posttest design allowed us to assess and compare the change in intentions after exposure to the various messages. The study produced notable insights. First, baseline intentions across all conditions were relatively high (mean 87.18, SD 17.70 on a 100-point scale). Despite our effort to recruit a demographically representative sample, our pool of respondents may have been skewed toward higher compliance. High baseline intentions could also reflect a degree of social desirability bias in the responses. It is worth noting that similarly high levels of self-reported intentions have been observed in prior research [ 13 , 21 ].

Second, exposure to all messages, including the control message, resulted in a small but statistically significant increase in behavioral intentions. Moreover, the message featuring an empathy appeal increased behavioral intentions to a greater extent than the control message. Given how high intentions were to begin with, a small increase should be considered a significant win.

Third, the impact of persuasive appeals on change in intentions depended on how compliant people were in the first place. For those with lower baseline intentions, messages featuring empathy, deontological, reciprocity, and identifiable victim appeals resulted in greater change than the control message. These results are encouraging, as the intended persuasion targets are precisely those who are less compliant with public health measures.

Finally, the study confirmed much of what prior research had found regarding the correlates of public health compliance. Lower baseline intentions were associated with being male, younger, more politically conservative, residing in the Prairies, perceiving lower levels of COVID-19 threat, accepting less responsibility for the well-being of others, and lacking trust in public institutions [ 49 - 53 ]. These results provide a clear and actionable profile of the audiences that need to be targeted to maximize the efficiency of public health campaigns.

While the findings are reasonably informative, it is important to keep the study’s limitations in mind. For instance, the main outcome consisted of self-reported behavioral intentions. Since a gap often exists between intentions and behavior [ 56 ], the observed outcomes may not track perfectly with actual behavior. Moreover, as is the case for all studies of this kind, the results are likely context-dependent. The same appeals may produce vastly different responses in different countries and at different times, depending on cultural values and the COVID-19 situation on the ground. Thus, it is important not to overgeneralize when interpreting the results.

Importantly, the study used a single brief exposure to the messages, offering a conservative test of the messages’ persuasive power. Future research could investigate whether more frequent exposure or a prolonged exposure period would have a stronger impact. Future research could also test the impact of varying the message format (eg, video vs audio vs print), medium (eg, social media vs traditional media), and source. While the Public Health Agency of Canada is generally a trusted source [ 53 ], some groups may respond more positively to other sources (eg, trusted religious and community leaders). Although the focus of this study has been squarely on persuasive appeals, public health campaigns would do well to customize not only the content of the message but also its source, format, and media to maximize its impact across different audiences.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the team members at Critical Mass Inc who contributed to participant recruitment. This study was supported by an ImplementAB.digH Program Grant from Alberta Innovates (Grant 202101302).

Abbreviations

OLS	ordinary least squares
T1	pretest time point
T2	posttest time point

Multimedia Appendix 1

Multimedia appendix 2.

Authors' Contributions: MM, JLB, RL, MMF, JCB, KC, RJO, CC, TT, DAM, and JH conceived and designed the study. MM performed data analysis and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors participated in critical revision of the manuscript and approved the final version. MM is the guarantor of the work and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data.

Conflicts of Interest: DAM reports non-financial support from ISPOR, grants from Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), Genome Canada, Arthritis Society, and Alberta Innovates; personal fees from Analytica, Illumina, and Novartis. The grants and fees were received during the the timeline of this study but were unrelated to it.

Editorial Notice

This randomized study was only retrospectively registered, explained by authors with the formative nature of the study. The editor granted an exception from ICMJE rules mandating prospective registration of randomized trials because the risk of bias appears low and the study was considered formative. However, readers are advised to carefully assess the validity of any potential explicit or implicit claims related to primary outcomes or effectiveness, as retrospective registration does not prevent authors from changing their outcome measures retrospectively.

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Testing persuasive messaging to encourage COVID-19 risk reduction

Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliations Institution for Social and Policy Studies, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America, Center for the Study of American Politics, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America, Department of Political Science, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America

Roles Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliations Institute for Global Health, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America, Department of Internal Medicine, Infectious Diseases, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America

Roles Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Writing – review & editing

Scott E. Bokemper,
Gregory A. Huber,
Erin K. James,
Alan S. Gerber,
Saad B. Omer

Published: March 23, 2022
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264782
Reader Comments

What types of public health messages are effective at changing people’s beliefs and intentions to practice social distancing to slow the spread of COVID-19? We conducted two randomized experiments in summer 2020 that assigned respondents to read a public health message and then measured their beliefs and behavioral intentions across a wide variety of outcomes. Using both a convenience sample and a pre-registered replication with a nationally representative sample of Americans, we find that a message that reframes not social distancing as recklessness rather than bravery and a message that highlights the need for everyone to take action to protect one another are the most effective at increasing beliefs and intentions related to social distancing. These results provide an evidentiary basis for building effective public health campaigns to increase social distancing during flu pandemics.

Citation: Bokemper SE, Huber GA, James EK, Gerber AS, Omer SB (2022) Testing persuasive messaging to encourage COVID-19 risk reduction. PLoS ONE 17(3): e0264782. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264782

Editor: Camelia Delcea, Bucharest University of Economic Studies, ROMANIA

Received: October 20, 2021; Accepted: February 16, 2022; Published: March 23, 2022

Copyright: © 2022 Bokemper et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: Replication materials have been uploaded to Harvard Dataverse, https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/VUKNOQ .

Funding: The authors acknowledge support from the Yale Institution for Social and Policy Studies, the Center for the Study of American Politics, and the Yale Institute for Global Health for funding this research.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Governments and public health officials have emphasized the importance of social (physical) distancing and other related measures in mitigating the spread of COVID-19. Given ongoing vaccine hesitancy, that vaccines are not fully effective in preventing COVID-19 infections, and the lack of vaccine access in certain parts of the world, the need for interventions that cause individuals to take actions that reduces the risk of infection remain essential. In practice, many messaging and communication strategies have been observed. However, despite these widespread and varied efforts, we lack a robust evidentiary basis for understanding the messages that are effective at increasing individuals’ willingness to embrace actions that reduce the spread of COVID-19.

We conducted two experiments to examine how different public health messages affect people’s beliefs about the efficacy of social distancing, their intentions to practice social distancing, and their attitudes about enforcing social norms, such as persuading others to practice social distancing and negatively judging those who do not. Experiment 1 was exploratory in nature and tested a large number of messages that combined elements from different conceptual frameworks discussed below in an effort to find messages that increased respondents’ intentions to practice social distancing and willingness to encourage others to do so.

In Experiment 2, we take the two most successful messages from Experiment 1 and conduct a preregistered trial using a nationally-representative sample of American adults against both a Baseline Informational control similar to that used in Experiment 1 and a placebo-treated control group that is not exposed to any information about COVID-19 risk reduction. In our second study, in light of ongoing discussions about other practices to reduce the spread of COVID-19, we also examined mask wearing, willingness to self-isolate if exposed to COVID-19, and cooperation with government contact tracing. In both studies, we examine the possibility that certain messages are more effective among specific segments of the population.

This paper offers three important contributions. First, we conduct a large-scale multi-message study of different messages designed to encourage COVID-19 risk reduction actions with multiple outcomes followed by a replication study of the most promising messages. Testing a large number of messages means we can directly assess the relative effectiveness of different messages, decompose compound messages into their component parts to understand which elements of those messages make them effective, and address concerns that prior studies testing individual messages and finding them effective are driven by false positives. Our repeat testing of promising messages also allows us to understand whether messages that are initially effective remain effective, helping to further rule out sampling variability and understand the durability of apparently effective messages in light of changing public rhetoric about COVID-19 [ 1 ]. Finally, our focus on multiple outcomes means that we can understand both whether messages are effective only for the targeted individual’s own risk reduction behavior or also affect their likelihood of encouraging others to undertake these protective behaviors.

Second, we test a large number of different messages, drawn from three broad and theoretically relevant categories. First, we test messages that differ in whether they frame social distancing as a self- or other-regarding action and whether they highlight reciprocity in producing desirable outcomes. While several other papers have considered other-regarding messages, we also explicitly test whether it is easier to promote other-regarding behavior when highlighting reciprocity—that is how the other-regarding behavior of other individuals is also helping to protect the person targeted for persuasion. Second, we test a set of messages we characterize as “values consistent.” These are messages that try to frame social distancing in terms of values individuals likely hold, so that individuals who might otherwise be resistant to the behavior undertake it. We also test messages observed in public health and political rhetoric at the time these studies were fielded. In all cases, we test these messages relative to both a pure control that does not provide any COVID-19 relevant content and to a baseline public health message that provides a simple informational basis for social distancing as well as an injunctive appeal for doing so. This latter comparison provides further leverage in isolating the effects of any novel persuasive rhetoric.

Finally, these messaging studies provide an important window into the efficacy and limitations of efforts to promote COVID-19 risk reduction in the early stages of the pandemic in the United States and as it later evolved. Existing work on public health messaging has demonstrated behavioral change in response to specific messages about tobacco use, consumption of sugary beverages, high risk sexual behavior, and vaccination uptake [ 2 – 6 ]. Messages used in past work often target one or a very small number of behaviors at a time. However, successful public health strategies that address the COVID-19 pandemic require large numbers of people to change a broad range of daily behaviors, such as how they interact with friends and relatives, whether they wear face coverings in public, and cooperation with government efforts to identify infectious individuals. This suggests that a more fruitful messaging strategy needs to change attitudes towards social distancing more broadly rather than targeted messaging to increase the prevalence of a specific action. Changes in attitudes could also increase the willingness of individuals to encourage others to engage in these behaviors—that is, to reinforce desired behaviors through social norms [ 7 – 9 ]. Importantly, unlike other health behaviors, many individuals are at a relatively low risk of serious COVID-19 complications, but their behavior is nonetheless important for reducing the risk to individuals who are more vulnerable as the disease continues to spread throughout the general population.

Before proceeding, we note that we use the term social distancing rather than physical distancing as it reflects the language at the time the experiments were fielded. As has been noted by other researcher, the term physical distancing may be more appropriate [ 10 – 14 ].

The emergence of COVID-19 created an urgent need for governments and public health officials around the globe to induce behavioral change among people in society writ large. While formal restrictions, like closing schools, prohibiting large gatherings, and restricting travel, can quickly produce behavioral change, slowing the spread of infectious diseases also requires voluntary action by individuals like working from home, avoiding dining inside restaurants, and refraining from socializing with friends and family. An important challenge for public health officials is persuading people to change a large number of behaviors that cause a significant disruption to daily routines.

Given the novelty of social distancing in the United States early in the pandemic and the large number of people being told to distance to keep themselves, their families, and their community safe, it was not clear ex ante what types of messaging strategies would be effective at increasing people’s willingness to dramatically change their daily lives. While considerable work on public health messaging has been produced during the pandemic, in the early stages it was important to understand whether any component of the “kitchen sink” messages observed being used could be effective at increasing people’s beliefs about the importance of social distancing and their intentions to engage in the behavior.

The large number of messages we tested were motivated by different approaches in behavioral science. Specifically, we combined appeals about 1) social norms, 2) self-interest vs. other-regarding motives, 3) individual vs. collective action, and 4) values reframing, to better understand whether attitudes toward social distancing could be changed with written persuasive messages.

Social norms and health behaviors

Public health campaigns often invoke social norms to encourage the public to practice positive health behaviors, like wearing sunscreen [ 15 , 16 ], quitting smoking [ 17 ], and using condoms [ 18 ] (see also [ 19 ]). Beliefs about social norms have been shown to be powerful motivators of health behavior (for review, see [ 20 ]). Unsurprisingly, social norms theory has been applied to understanding people’s behaviors during the COVID-19, such as the decision to wear a mask [ 7 , 8 ] and whether to practice social distancing [ 9 , 21 – 23 ]. Social norms can be classified as either descriptive , i.e. what most people do, or injunctive , i.e. people’s beliefs about what they should do or what is believed to be the morally acceptable thing to do [ 24 ].

Early in the pandemic, public health experts had to rely on appealing to injunctive norms, emphasizing what most people should be doing to stay safe. Prior to COVID-19 infection becoming widespread in the United States, most people were not engaging in social distancing making it difficult to credibly appeal to descriptive norms as a way to increase the prevalence of the behavior. An appropriate baseline for comparison of messaging strategies about social distancing is therefore one that includes an appeal to injunctive norms, an approach that was relatively common at the beginning of the pandemic. Our baseline message therefore explains that public health officials believe individuals ought to socially distance to end the COVID-19 pandemic and details the specific health behaviors that people should undertake.

However, as social distancing became more widespread in the early months of the pandemic, public health messaging could also emphasize descriptive norms in conjunction with injunctive norms. For both social distancing and mask wearing, people report being more likely to engage in a public health promoting behavior when they report that others around them are doing so as well [ 7 , 9 ]. Descriptive social norms may also play a causal role in the decision to wear a mask. In a vignette-based experiment, respondents in the United States and Italy were more likely to report that they would wear a mask or ask someone to wear theirs properly when other people were described as wearing masks compared to when they were not [ 8 ]. This positive effect has also been observed when accounting for local ordinances and has been shown to be stronger when people also endorse the injunctive norm that social distancing is the morally correct behavior [ 25 ]. Thus, the combination of an injunctive norm with a descriptive norm may be especially likely to increase people’s willingness to engage in social distancing.

Self-interest vs. prosocial concern for social distancing

Descriptive social norms provide information about the prevalence of a behavior in a group of people, but this does not provide information as to why others are engaging in the behavior per se. That is, people may be practicing social distancing to protect themselves from contracting COVID-19, or they may also be practicing social distancing to protect others. It could also be that people are motivated by some combination of both motives. Past research has observed that both a concern for one’s own health and a concern for the health of others are motivations for social distancing behavior. In a survey of adults in North America and Europe, over 80% of respondents reported that they practice social distancing to protect themselves and to protect others [ 26 ]. Both motivations were also shown to be predictive of social distancing behavior in a computer-based scenario experiment in which participants reported their social distancing behavior in common daily situations, like meeting a friend or going to a grocery store [ 27 ]. Regarding concern for one’s own health, people who believe that they are more vulnerable to the disease are more likely to report higher levels of social distancing behavior [ 28 – 30 ]. Survey research has also examined the correlation between individual differences in personality and values has found that people who are more concerned about the well-being of others are more likely to engage in social distancing [ 31 – 34 ] and that this concern for others may be more predictive of behavior than concern for oneself [ 35 ]. Further, people who were less willing to place risk on others in an incentivized experiment were more likely to report engaging in social distancing than those who placed another individual at greater risk [ 36 ].

While both self-interested and prosocial motives are present in people’s decisions to engage in social distancing, research on persuasion and public health messaging has produced mixed results for the effectiveness of appealing to either motive on behavioral intentions related to social distancing. Posters highlighting an “identifiable victim” or the spread of the disease to many others have been shown to decrease the willingness to engage in behaviors that were thought to spread COVID-19, like meeting with a friend or relative in their house [ 37 ]. Other work has found that inducing empathy for someone who is particularly vulnerable to COVID-19 can increase social distancing intentions [ 38 ]. Jordan, Rand, and Yoeli [ 39 ] observed that a prosocial framing of social distancing on a flier, i.e. avoid spreading coronavirus, was more effective than a self-interested frame, i.e. avoid getting coronavirus, in March 2020, although the prosocial frame was no more effective than the self-interested frame in a related experiment fielded a month later. Prosocial and empathy-inducing messages delivered as text have also been shown to be no more effective than the informational control to which they were added [ 40 ]. Thus, it is not clear whether persuasive messaging that appeals to protecting oneself or protecting others consistently produces the intended behavioral change beyond simply providing people with information.

Individual action vs. collective action

Descriptive social norms also do not convey how individual actions produce a benefit. Fundamentally, an outcome can be produced by individual or collective action, and the nature of a cooperative production function can differ substantially. In the case of individual production, public health campaigns could emphasize that each individual’s action produces a benefit. This approach aligns with past work on how beliefs about self-efficacy, an individual’s belief that they have the ability to perform an action to bring about a specific outcome, are an important determinant of whether an individual will perform a positive health behavior [ 41 , 42 ]. Beliefs about self-efficacy have been associated with intentions to practice social distancing in response to COVID-19 [ 43 , 44 ] and a hypothetical flu pandemic [ 45 ]. Thus, public health messaging may emphasize the importance of individual action as a means of protecting oneself and protecting others against COVID-19.

Alternatively, public health appeals could instead emphasize that the overall success of social distancing depends on collective action. Social distancing can be thought of as a collective action problem in which people have to work together to produce a group benefit. These types of cooperation dilemmas are widespread in human society and they vary in how the successful provision of a collective benefit is achieved [ 46 ]. One important feature of arguments that combine cooperative production with descriptive norms is that they invoke notions of reciprocity, the idea that one’s (costly) actions are being reciprocated by others in society, a factor that is shown to increase a willingness to undertake costly action [ 47 – 49 ].

The mapping between cooperative actions and outcomes may also vary. For one, social distancing to reduce the spread of COVID-19 could be thought of as a linear public good in which each individual’s social distancing provides an additional benefit to others. In this view, even if many people do not practice social distancing, those who do will still provide some benefit, although the fact each person’s actions matter may also encourage free-riding. Alternatively, social distancing could be thought of as a threshold public good in which the benefits are not realized until a critical mass of individuals engage in the behavior [ 50 ]. In this case, the possibility of not reaching a critical threshold may counteract the tendency to free-ride, although if the number of individuals falls short of the threshold, the benefit of social distancing is not produced and so one’s willingness to act may depend on believing enough other people are doing so.

Values reframing

One limitation of norm based approaches for policymakers and public health officials is that some people believe that COVID-19 does not pose a threat [ 27 , 51 ] or that social distancing violates another value they care about, such as displaying bravery rather than living in fear, an argument that appeared in the rhetoric of then President Donald Trump [ 52 , 53 ]. Rather than attempting to convince people with these beliefs about the threat posed by COVID-19, it may instead be effective when trying to persuade them to social distance to instead frame the action of social distancing as aligning with a value that they already hold [ 54 ]. For instance, bravery and risk-taking are generally viewed as attractive traits across a variety of cultures [ 55 – 57 ]. And indeed, many individuals, like medical professionals and emergency responders, demonstrated these desirable traits during the COVID-19 pandemic. Is reframing the act of social distancing as demonstrating an individual’s strength and bravery an effective strategy? A values-based approach has been shown to be effective at increasing attitudes toward masking among American conservatives when messaging appealed to loyalty moral values [ 58 ]. More broadly, other work has considered how metaphors can be useful ways to frame responses to the pandemic in ways that people can easily relate to [ 59 ].

The present experiments

We present results from two experiments that combined elements of the theoretical approaches describe above to assess the efficacy of persuasive messages to increase people’s willingness to practice social distancing.

In Experiment 1, we tested the efficacy of a large number of messages against a Baseline Informational control message that defined social distancing and stated that public health experts believe it would reduce the spread of COVID-19. We note that this message also invoked an injunctive norm because it states public health experts believe people ought to be social distancing. This was a more conservative approach than testing against an untreated control group, which we chose because we were searching for promising messages that could outperform the baseline content most similar to extant public health outreach and to which they were added in the experimental context. Our focus in Experiment 1 is to examine whether any message outperforms that Baseline Informational content to which it was added.

In Experiment 2, we re-tested the two most promising messages from Experiment 1 on a nationally-representative sample of Americans against the Baseline Informational control and a separate placebo control message.

Experiment 1

Participants were randomly assigned to read a Baseline Informational message or to one of ten intervention messages. Due to the number of comparisons that utilize the baseline message, we assigned participants to this message with a 3/13 chance, while the remaining ten intervention messages each had a 1/13 chance of assignment. The survey was administered using Qualtrics survey software. Both experiments presented here were fielded under an exemption granted by the Yale IRB and written consent was obtained before participants could begin the study.

Study sample

We used a self-service online platform provided by the survey firm Lucid to recruit a sample of American adults ( n = 3,184). Lucid provides a diverse sample of respondents that more closely matches demographic characteristics of nationally representative samples than other survey platforms like Amazon Mechanical Turk [ 60 ]. Approximately 81% of respondents assigned to an intervention completed the survey. Attrition was lower among those assigned to most of the intervention messages apart from the Baseline Informational message, by up to 8 percentage points. We did not find that pre-treatment covariates that explain outcomes differentially predicted attrition. The final analyzed sample was 2,568 respondents.

Participants were randomly assigned to read a Baseline Informational message that defined social distancing and stated that public health experts believe it would reduce the spread of COVID-19 or to one of ten intervention messages grouped into three categories. Each intervention message was added to the Baseline Informational message that included an injunctive norm statement. Table 1 shows the full text of the treatment messages and displays which parts of each tap into various theoretical constructs.

PPT PowerPoint slide
PNG larger image
TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264782.t001

The first category of messages varied the beneficiary of social distancing behaviors and whether individual or collective action was needed to produce these benefits. In all of these messages, descriptive social norms were invoked by describing others as already social distancing (“Many other people are already social distancing.”). The beneficiary of social distancing was either the individual (“you could get sick and die”) or others (“members of your family and community could get sick and die”). We combined manipulation of the beneficiary with what was necessary to produce this benefit. Specifically, social distancing was framed as providing a benefit if an individual practiced it (individual action, “when you practice social distancing you reduce the risk”), if enough other people practiced it (threshold collective action, “if enough people practice social distancing then we can reduce the risk”), or for each additional person who practiced (linear collective action, “every person who practices social distancing reduces the risk”). As we note above, the latter two frames about collective production also emphasized norms of reciprocity in that they linked others’ behaviors to outcomes relevant for the respondent. Crossing these two dimensions of manipulation produced the six total intervention messages in this category.

The second category of messages were efforts at value reframing and stated that people who believe they are being brave by continuing with their daily routines despite the threat of the virus are actually being reckless. Theses message start with an example of people who are being brave during the pandemic, e.g. firefighters, and then takes a seemingly desirable action as incompatible with a value and reframes it instead as selfish and unattractive (“people who don’t practice social distancing… aren’t brave, they are reckless”). The message also emphasizes that by not social distancing, people are placing others at risk, i.e. the opposite of true bravery. This reframing was either presented alone (Reframing Bravery) or with language about how people who spread COVID-19 pollute the environment around them (Reframing Bravery + Pollution).

The final category of messages invoked the idea that practicing social distancing would facilitate returning to “normal” life before the COVID-19 pandemic (“Social distancing now means we can more quickly return to our normal way of life”) or that doing so involved adapting to an unavoidable “new normal” (“we are adapting to the ‘new normal’ necessary because of COVID-19”). These two messages were designed to mirror rhetoric being used by political leaders and in the media and were added to the Other-regarding, Linear Cooperation message.

We form four mean scales as outcome measures, with all scales ranging from 0 to 1 with 1 indicating behaviors or beliefs associated with reducing the spread of COVID-19. The four scales were: 1) a BELIEFS/norms scale that assesses agreement with beliefs about social distancing being important for your health and others people’s health and whether an individual would feel guilty for not practicing social distancing, 2) a social distancing (DISTANCING) scale that captures people’s intended willingness to social distance, avoid attending gatherings, forego elective medical procedures, and wear a mask, 3) a FOOD behavior scale that assesses people’s willingness to avoid high-risk food related behavior like going to a restaurant, and 4) a persuade/evaluate OTHERS scale that measures whether people would persuade others to social distance, report a business for violating rules, and negatively judge non-compliers. Several items in the DISTANCING and FOOD scales had previously been shown to be affected by rhetoric focusing on selfish and prosocial motivations for social distancing [ 39 ]. All of the outcomes were coded such that higher values corresponded to attitudes and behavioral intentions consistent with greater social distancing. The internal consistency of the scales was generally good with the exception of the FOOD scale, which had a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.65. Full text of outcome measures and scaling information appears in S1 Appendix .

We analyze our data using OLS regression comparing outcomes to the Baseline Informational message using indicators for each treatment and including pre-treatment demographic covariates to improve efficiency. Two messages appear particularly promising compared to the Baseline Informational message, with all treatment effect estimates plotted in Fig 1 . (Underlying regression analysis and distribution of scale outcomes appears in the S2 Appendix ). Among the messages that appear most effective, the Other-regarding, Linear Cooperation message also performs well relative to the Baseline Informational condition. For all four scales, the estimated effects of this message are positive. For the social distancing scale, the effect is .034 (95% CI: .002, .067) or 14.7% of a standard deviation. Respondents’ beliefs about the importance of social distancing also increase with an estimated effect of .040 (95% CI: -.002, .084) on the BELIEFS scale. The effect on the FOOD scale is .038 (95% CI: -.003, .079). The latter two effects are not statistically significant at the conventional 5% level, but do provide evidence that the Other-regarding, Linear Cooperation message broadly moved beliefs relevant to practicing social distancing.

Estimates displayed with 95% confidence intervals. Each panel shows the effect of each treatment message relative to the Baseline Informational condition for a primary outcome scale. All outcomes scales were coded such that higher values indicate more positive attitudes or intentions toward social distancing.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264782.g001

The Reframing Bravery message increases all four scale outcomes. The estimated effect on the OTHERS scale is .058 (95% CI: .023, .092), indicating that respondents who read the Reframing Bravery message report more willingness to enforce norms to promote social distancing. We also observe suggestive evidence that this message affects both the BELIEFS scale and the own social distancing scale. For the BELIEFS scale the estimate is .037 (95% CI: -.005, .079) or about 12.8% of a standard deviation, while the effect for the DISTANCING scale is .030 (95% CI: -.004, .064) or about 13% of a standard deviation. The estimated effect for the FOOD scale is positive, but imprecise.

It is also interesting that two messages appear, on average, less effective than the Baseline Informational content and the Other-regarding, Linear Cooperation message to which they are added. While no coefficient estimates are individually statistically significant, both the Return to Normal and New Normal messages are generally less effective than the content to which they were added across our primary outcome measures.

We also conduct a number of exploratory analyses for heterogeneous treatment effects by age, gender, partisanship, and geographic location and do not uncover large differences in average treatment effectiveness across these groups ( S3 Appendix ). Due to the rhetoric among the public and political elites surrounding the degree to which measures to address the spread of COVID-19 infringe upon people’s liberties, we elicited people’s adoption of a liberty moral foundation that captures their belief about the role of government in society [ 61 ]. We found evidence that intervention effectiveness varies by endorsement of liberty values. Compared to respondents below the mean in their adoption of liberty values, respondents who are above the mean in their adoption of liberty are more responsive to the Reframing Bravery message than to the Baseline Informational condition on the BELIEFS scale (p = .05) and OTHERS scale (p < .01), with weaker evidence for the DISTANCING scale (p = .14). The effects of the Reframing Bravery message are uniformly statistically insignificant for those low in liberty.

The two most promising messages were the Other-regarding, Linear Cooperation message and the Reframing Bravery message. Both were the highest performing messages on at least two of the four outcome scales when compared to the baseline content to which they were added. Given this, these messages were the ones that were selected to be re-tested on a nationally representative sample of Americans to discern whether they are more effective than the Baseline Informational content to which they were added. Additionally, we believe there was value in retesting the most effective messages at a later point in the time in the pandemic when attitudes about social distancing may have become more crystallized, perhaps making people harder to persuade.

Experiment 2

Experiment 2 retested the two most successful interventions in Experiment 1 (Reframing Bravery, and Other-regarding Linear Cooperation and the Baseline Informational compared to an untreated Control message about an unrelated topic (bird feeding)). Experiment 2 was a pre-registered trial fielded between mid-July and early August 2020, a time when the COVID-19 outbreak in the United States had become far more widespread than during Experiment 1 [ 62 ]. We allocated respondents with equal probability to each intervention and written consent was obtained prior to participation.

We used the survey firm YouGov to recruit a nationally-representative sample of American adults. Respondents completed the study on their personal electronic devices. Power calculations indicated greater than 80% power to detect treatment effects 75% as large as in Experiment 1 with an N of 3,000 assuming scale distributions were the same as observed in Experiment 1. The study was fielded twice because of an implementation error in programming by the vendor for survey content that followed the items analyzed here for the first fielding (the error was for items for an unrelated project that was not about COVID-19, and which followed all of the items analyzed here). Consequently, the vendor re-fielded the entire survey resulting in a sample that was approximately twice as large as the sample described in our pre-registration document ( n = 3,000 pre-registered, n = 6,079 in final analysis dataset). YouGov does not provide data for respondents who decline to participate or drop out during the study.

The Baseline Informational treatment message was slightly modified from Experiment 1 to reflect changing guidance during the pandemic. It read:

To end the COVID-19 pandemic, public health officials believe we should practice social distancing. Social distancing means that you should:

Work from home when possible
Wear a mask that covers your nose and mouth when outside of your home around other people
Stay at least 6 feet away from others if you need to go out in public, for example to shop for food or medicine
Avoid large gatherings, especially indoors
Stay home except to seek medical care if you are sick or have recently had close contact (closer than 6 feet for at least 15 minutes) with a person with COVID-19
Avoid pooled rides or rides where multiple passengers are picked up who are not in the same household

The additional content added to this baseline for the Other-regarding, Linear Cooperation and the Reframing Bravery messages was unchanged from how they appear in Table 1 .

We made incremental changes to the four scales (BELIEFS, DISTANCING, FOOD, and OTHERS) used in Experiment 1 to reflect changing policies and circumstances. Given that contemporary discourse around social distancing had changed, we included new items that reflected what people were likely thinking about in their daily lives. We added items to the DISTANCING scale about attendance at religious services, participation in political events, self-isolation following COVID-19 exposure, and alerting public health authorities if diagnosed with COVID-19. For the OTHERS scale we added an item about cooperating in contact tracing. In the months between our studies, the behaviors we added to the scales had become salient in public discourse about COVID-19 risk reduction. We also included a new MASK scale composed of items about wearing a face covering in six circumstances, as well as relative willingness to shop at a store that requires rather than prohibits face masks. These additional items (and perhaps the passage of time) increased the reliability of the four scales that were used in Experiment 1 with the FOOD scale having the lowest reliability (Cronbach’s alpha of 0.78). The modified outcome text and scale reliability appears in S4 Appendix .

At the time this experiment was fielded, messaging outside of the experimental context about the importance of items in our DISTANCING scale had become far more widespread, although mask wearing remained a contested policy tool. It was therefore unclear whether messaging would be similarly effective in this new context.

We find baseline increases in scores on the BELIEFS and DISTANCING scales over time (i.e., averages for these outcomes in the bird feeding Control message in Experiment 2 are greater than the averages in the Baseline Informational condition in Experiment 1). Fig 2 plots main effects of message efficacy compared to the Control message for all outcomes (underlying regression analysis and distribution of scale outcomes appears in S5 Appendix ). The Baseline Informational message is associated with increased BELIEFS and DISTANCING scores (p < .05, one-sided, in both cases) relative to the bird feeding message. The Reframing Bravery and Other-regarding, Linear Cooperation messages appear to be more effective, however. Each is associated with a statistically significant increase in four outcomes: the BELIEFS, DISTANCING, OTHERS, and MASKS scales, with p-values < .05, one-sided, in all cases. The magnitudes of these effects are approximately 0.1 standard deviation for each measure. None of the messages have large or statistically precise effects on the FOOD scale.

Compared to the placebo control, the Baseline Informational message, the Reframing Bravery message, and the Other-regarding, Linear Cooperation increase beliefs and reported behavioral intentions to practice social distancing. These are OLS regression coefficient estimates for each primary outcome by treatment compared to the placebo control with 90% confidence intervals. The dashed vertical line represents the effect of the Baseline Informational Message on an outcome. All outcomes scales were coded such that higher values indicate more positive attitudes or intentions toward social distancing.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264782.g002

There is less clear evidence that these messages are incrementally more effective that the Baseline Informational content to which they are added. For the BELIEFS, DISTANCING, OTHERS, and MASKS scales, both the Reframing Bravery and Other-regarding, Linear Cooperation messages are associated with effects that are always larger than the Baseline Informational message, with the magnitudes of these differences ranging from 22% to 88% and averaging 50%. Because effect sizes are still modest, however, these differences are not generally statistically distinguishable at p < .05, two-sided, with the notable exception of the Reframing Bravery message which has an effect 88% larger than the Baseline Informational message on the OTHERS scale.

Differences in effects for those who endorse liberty values partially confirm Study 1 (See S6 Appendix ). Compared to the Control message, the Reframing Bravery message is more effective among those who endorse liberty for encouraging social distancing—it increases DISTANCING measure by .027 units (90% CI: .009, .043), an effect that is 70% larger than the effect for those who do not endorse liberty values. This difference is not significant, however, and the estimates for the other outcomes are inconsistently signed. If we instead focus on the relative effectiveness of the Reframing Bravery message compared to the Baseline Informational message, a test that accounts for the fact that those who endorse liberty values may respond differently to the baseline content, we uncover more evidence that those who endorse liberty values respond more to the Reframing Bravery treatment. In particular, for those who endorse liberty values, the Reframing Bravery message is between 20% and 125% more effective than the Baseline message for the five primary outcomes. The largest difference is for the DISTANCING scale outcome, where the difference is .014 (90% CI: -.004, .033).

In addition to our scale outcomes, we also examine results for several individual items of particular interest, including the three measures of compliance with government policies to reduce the spread of COVID-19 discussed above: Self-isolation for those exposed, alerting authorities if testing positive, and cooperation with authorities in contact tracing. These items are included in the DISTANCING behavior index, but are also individually of interest because they are areas where governments have reported difficulty obtaining compliance. Fig 3 show that the Reframing Bravery message is associated with a statistically significant increase in self-isolation and willingness to alert authorities, effects that are larger than and statistically distinguishable from the effects of the Baseline Informational message. (Underlying regression results appear in S5 Appendix ) Similarly, the Other-regarding, Linear Cooperation message is associated with a statistically significant increase in self-isolation and willingness to cooperate in contact tracing, effects that are larger than and statistically distinguishable from the effects of the Baseline Informational message.

The Reframing Bravery and Other-regarding, Linear Cooperation message increase respondents reported intentions to not engage in key behaviors to reduce the spread of COVID-19 and to cooperate with government officials, even compared to the Baseline Informational message. This figure shows OLS regression coefficient estimates compared to the Control message with 95% confidence intervals. All outcomes scales were coded such that higher values indicate more positive attitudes or intentions toward social distancing.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264782.g003

Second, we also examine effects for three isolated behaviors, attendance at religious gatherings and inside visits to a friend and family member’s house. Religious gatherings emerged as sources of conflict over prohibitions on group meetings ( 18 ), while private indoor meetings are thought to be vehicles by which asymptomatic individuals expose those who are at more serious risk for infection. Once again, these items are individually in the DISTANCING behavior index. Results appear in Fig 3 . The Reframing Bravery Message is associated with statistically significant increases in all three outcomes, while the Other-regarding, Linear Cooperation message is associated with changes in both the family and friend small gathering outcomes. The Reframing Bravery effect for attendance at religious services is statistically distinguishable from the effect of the Baseline Informational message (p < .05). The Other-regarding, Linear Cooperation effect for each type of private gatherings is also statistically larger than the effect of the Baseline Informational message (p < .03 and .05, respectively).

In Experiment 2 we find that the Baseline Informational message, the Other-regarding Linear Cooperation message, and the Reframing Bravery message outperform the placebo control message on the primary outcome scales, with the exception of the FOOD scale. Moreover, this experiment replicates the finding from Experiment 1 that respondents who are high in liberty values are more responsiveness to the Reframing Bravery message.

General discussion

The results presented here show that public health messaging can increase behavioral intentions and beliefs about social distancing that helps reduce the spread of COVID-19. Specifically, we observed that an Other-regarding, Linear Cooperation message that 1) focused people on protecting others, 2) increased the salience of risk presented by COVID-19, 3) emphasized that other people were social distancing, and 4) stated that every person who practices social distancing protects others was effective at increasing attitudes and behavioral intentions related to social distancing. We also found that a Reframing Bravery message that 1) gave examples of bravery, 2) reframe not social distancing as not being brave, but being reckless, and 3) emphasized that not social distancing is not attractive and places others at risk was effective. Importantly, these messages are effective in both an initial study fielded in May 2020 and in a replication study fielded in August 2020, and this efficacy is in comparison to a Baseline Informational message communicating the factual basis for social distancing behavior and instructing others to do so. We observe these effects for measures of a respondent’s own intended social distancing activities as well as for how individuals are likely to behave toward others who do not social distance.

It is also worth noting that a simple Baseline Informational message that invoked an injunctive norm that people should be social distancing and explained what social distancing was outperformed a placebo-control condition in Experiment 2. This suggests that relatively early in the pandemic simply providing people with information and emphasizing that doing these things is the correct behavior may be enough to increase attitudes toward social distancing and behavioral intentions to do so.

Moral foundations theory, [ 61 , 63 ] which postulates that humans have several underlying common values that are differentially emphasized by various individuals, has been used to explain health behaviors such as vaccination [ 64 ]. Increasingly, opposition to public health measures is grounded in the language of personal freedoms [ 64 ] and, indeed, concerns about government infringement on personal freedoms have arisen during the COVID-19 pandemic [ 65 , 66 ]. We find that emphasis on liberty value modifies the impact of the Reframing Bravery intervention indicating that such messages are particularly powerful for those for whom personal freedoms are important.

A potential avenue future research could explore how messaging strategies interact with people’s motivation for social distancing. Past research has found that many people engage in social distancing to protect themselves and to protect others [ 26 ]. However, other work has observed that people who endorsed conspiracy theories were more concerned about themselves and were also less likely to report intentions to practice social distancing [ 67 ]. Given heterogeneity in people’s motivations to protect themselves or to protect others, some messaging strategies, like the Other-regarding, Linear Cooperation message, may have different effects depending on whether it aligns with the motivation that a given individual holds. More broadly, future work should consider how people’s concern for themselves and concern for others interact with how receptive they are to specific public health campaigns.

This work has several limitations that should be considered alongside the results. First, while we observe robust attitudinal change in response to persuasive messaging, we do not observe actual behavioral change. Given the relatively small effect sizes, approximately 0.1 standard deviation increases on the primary outcomes in Experiment 2, these treatment messages as written communication may be insufficient to push people to change their behavior. Second, we utilized compound treatments that invoked many different constructs that are thought to produce attitude and behavioral change. Future work should focus on disentangling whether specific elements of the messages are particularly effective at promoting social distancing. Third, policymakers and public health experts had repeatedly emphasized the importance of social distancing and survey respondents may have over-reported their intentions to social distance due to social desirability concerns, though past work has found that reported behavioral intentions correlate with actual behavior [ 68 ] and people’s self-reported behavior is not affected by social desirability bias [ 69 ]. Third, as the COVID-19 pandemic has rapidly evolved and different behaviors, like masking or vaccination, have become more salient in public discourse, the messages that we find to be effective in summer 2020 may not be as effective as the pandemic has progressed. Finally, we only measured attitudes and behavioral intentions at a single point in time so we cannot make claims about the duration of the effects that we observe.

Our findings can inform both mass public health messaging initiatives (e.g. those deployed on social and electronic media) as well as interpersonal communication strategies such as healthcare provider-level communication and persuasion. While this work shows robust attitudinal changes in response to public health messaging, additional research is necessary to determine which specific elements of the treatments produced these changes.

Supporting information

S1 appendix. experiment 1 outcomes..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264782.s001

S2 Appendix. Regression results for Fig 1 and distribution of outcomes for Experiment 1.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264782.s002

S3 Appendix. Subgroup analyses for Experiment 1.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264782.s003

S4 Appendix. Experiment 2 outcome measures.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264782.s004

S5 Appendix. Regression results for Figs 2 and 3 and distribution of outcomes for Experiment 2.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264782.s005

S6 Appendix. Liberty endorsement subgroup analysis for Experiment 2.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264782.s006

View Article
Google Scholar
PubMed/NCBI
10. Abel T, McQueen D. The COVID-19 pandemic calls for spatial distancing and social closeness: not for social distancing!: Springer; 2020. p. 231–.
20. Reid AE, Cialdini RB, Aiken LS. Social norms and health behavior. Handbook of behavioral medicine: Springer; 2010. p. 263–74.
46. Ostrom E. Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action: Cambridge university press; 1990.
52. Huppke R. Column: Trump wants ‘warrior’ Americans to face COVID-19 and reopen the country. You first, Mr. President.: Chicago Tribune; 2020 [cited 2021 October 18]. Available from: https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/rex-huppke/ct-coronavirus-trump-warrior-economy-reopen-businesses-huppke-20200506-dmg7iwujc5fovdeurnv2xjjp4q-story.html .
53. Cathey L. ’I had to do it’: Trump suggests he got virus as act of political courage: ABC News; 2020 [cited 2021 October 18]. Available from: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-suggests-virus-act-political-courage/story?id=73452023 .
62. Huber GA. Encouraging Behavior to Reduce the Spread of COVID-19: Experimental Analysis.: OSF; 2020. Available from: osf.io/vpafh.

About Stanford GSB

The Leadership
Dean’s Updates
School News & History
Commencement
Business, Government & Society
Centers & Institutes
Center for Entrepreneurial Studies
Center for Social Innovation
Stanford Seed

About the Experience

Learning at Stanford GSB
Experiential Learning
Guest Speakers
Entrepreneurship
Social Innovation
Communication
Life at Stanford GSB
Collaborative Environment
Activities & Organizations
Student Services
Housing Options
International Students

Full-Time Degree Programs

Why Stanford MBA
Academic Experience
Financial Aid
Why Stanford MSx
Research Fellows Program
See All Programs

Non-Degree & Certificate Programs

Executive Education
Stanford Executive Program
Programs for Organizations
The Difference
Online Programs
Stanford LEAD
Seed Transformation Program
Aspire Program
Seed Spark Program
Faculty Profiles
Academic Areas
Awards & Honors
Conferences

Faculty Research

Publications
Working Papers
Case Studies

Research Hub

Research Labs & Initiatives
Business Library
Data, Analytics & Research Computing
Behavioral Lab

Research Labs

Cities, Housing & Society Lab
Golub Capital Social Impact Lab

Research Initiatives

Corporate Governance Research Initiative
Corporations and Society Initiative
Policy and Innovation Initiative
Rapid Decarbonization Initiative
Stanford Latino Entrepreneurship Initiative
Value Chain Innovation Initiative
Venture Capital Initiative
Career & Success
Climate & Sustainability
Corporate Governance
Culture & Society
Finance & Investing
Government & Politics
Leadership & Management
Markets and Trade
Operations & Logistics
Opportunity & Access
Technology & AI
Opinion & Analysis
Email Newsletter

Welcome, Alumni

Communities
Digital Communities & Tools
Regional Chapters
Women’s Programs
Identity Chapters
Find Your Reunion
Career Resources
Job Search Resources
Career & Life Transitions
Programs & Webinars
Career Video Library
Alumni Education
Research Resources
Volunteering
Alumni News
Class Notes
Alumni Voices
Contact Alumni Relations
Upcoming Events

Admission Events & Information Sessions

MBA Program
MSx Program
PhD Program
Alumni Events
All Other Events
Operations, Information & Technology
Organizational Behavior
Political Economy
Classical Liberalism
The Eddie Lunch
Accounting Summer Camp
California Econometrics Conference
California Quantitative Marketing PhD Conference
California School Conference
China India Insights Conference
Homo economicus, Evolving
Political Economics (2023–24)
Scaling Geologic Storage of CO2 (2023–24)
A Resilient Pacific: Building Connections, Envisioning Solutions
Adaptation and Innovation
Changing Climate
Civil Society
Climate Impact Summit
Climate Science
Corporate Carbon Disclosures
Earth’s Seafloor
Environmental Justice
Operations and Information Technology
Organizations
Sustainability Reporting and Control
Taking the Pulse of the Planet
Urban Infrastructure
Watershed Restoration
Junior Faculty Workshop on Financial Regulation and Banking
Ken Singleton Celebration
Marketing Camp
Quantitative Marketing PhD Alumni Conference
Presentations
Theory and Inference in Accounting Research
Stanford Closer Look Series
Quick Guides
Core Concepts
Journal Articles
Glossary of Terms
Faculty & Staff
Researchers & Students
Research Approach
Charitable Giving
Financial Health
Government Services
Workers & Careers
Short Course
Adaptive & Iterative Experimentation
Incentive Design
Social Sciences & Behavioral Nudges
Bandit Experiment Application
Conferences & Events
Get Involved
Reading Materials
Teaching & Curriculum
Energy Entrepreneurship
Faculty & Affiliates
SOLE Report
Responsible Supply Chains
Current Study Usage
Pre-Registration Information
Participate in a Study

Misdirecting Persuasive Efforts During the Covid-19 Pandemic: The Targets People Choose May Not Be the Most Likely to Change

Persuading people to engage in specific health behaviors is critical to prevent the spread of and mitigate the harm caused by COVID-19. Most of the research and practice around this issue focuses on developing effective message content. Importantly, though, persuasion is often critically dependent on choosing appropriate targets — that is, on selecting the best audience for one’s message. Three experiments conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic explore this target selection process and demonstrate misalignment between who persuaders target and who will display the greatest attitude and behavior change. Although people prefer to send messages encouraging COVID-19 prevention behaviors to targets with slightly negative attitudes toward the behaviors in question, their messages can often have more impact when sent to targets whose attitudes are slightly favorable. Recent insights in categorical perception and message positioning effects in persuasion help explain this misalignment.

See the Current DEI Report
Supporting Data
Research & Insights
Share Your Thoughts
Search Fund Primer
Affiliated Faculty
Faculty Advisors
Louis W. Foster Resource Center
Defining Social Innovation
Impact Compass
Global Health Innovation Insights
Faculty Affiliates
Student Awards & Certificates
Changemakers
Dean Jonathan Levin
Dean Garth Saloner
Dean Robert Joss
Dean Michael Spence
Dean Robert Jaedicke
Dean Rene McPherson
Dean Arjay Miller
Dean Ernest Arbuckle
Dean Jacob Hugh Jackson
Dean Willard Hotchkiss
Faculty in Memoriam
Stanford GSB Firsts
Class of 2024 Candidates
Certificate & Award Recipients
Dean’s Remarks
Keynote Address
Teaching Approach
Analysis and Measurement of Impact
The Corporate Entrepreneur: Startup in a Grown-Up Enterprise
Data-Driven Impact
Designing Experiments for Impact
Digital Marketing
The Founder’s Right Hand
Marketing for Measurable Change
Product Management
Public Policy Lab: Financial Challenges Facing US Cities
Public Policy Lab: Homelessness in California
Lab Features
Curricular Integration
View From The Top
Formation of New Ventures
Managing Growing Enterprises
Startup Garage
Explore Beyond the Classroom
Stanford Venture Studio
Summer Program
Workshops & Events
The Five Lenses of Entrepreneurship
Leadership Labs
Executive Challenge
Arbuckle Leadership Fellows Program
Selection Process
Training Schedule
Time Commitment
Learning Expectations
Post-Training Opportunities
Who Should Apply
Introductory T-Groups
Leadership for Society Program
Certificate
2024 Awardees
2023 Awardees
2022 Awardees
2021 Awardees
2020 Awardees
2019 Awardees
2018 Awardees
Social Management Immersion Fund
Stanford Impact Founder Fellowships
Stanford Impact Leader Prizes
Social Entrepreneurship
Stanford GSB Impact Fund
Economic Development
Energy & Environment
Stanford GSB Residences
Environmental Leadership
Stanford GSB Artwork
A Closer Look
California & the Bay Area
Voices of Stanford GSB
Business & Beneficial Technology
Business & Sustainability
Business & Free Markets
Business, Government, and Society Forum
Second Year
Global Experiences
JD/MBA Joint Degree
MA Education/MBA Joint Degree
MD/MBA Dual Degree
MPP/MBA Joint Degree
MS Computer Science/MBA Joint Degree
MS Electrical Engineering/MBA Joint Degree
MS Environment and Resources (E-IPER)/MBA Joint Degree
Academic Calendar
Clubs & Activities
LGBTQ+ Students
Military Veterans
Minorities & People of Color
Partners & Families
Students with Disabilities
Student Support
Residential Life
Student Voices
MBA Alumni Voices
A Week in the Life
Career Support
Employment Outcomes
Cost of Attendance
Knight-Hennessy Scholars Program
Yellow Ribbon Program
BOLD Fellows Fund
Application Process
Loan Forgiveness
Contact the Financial Aid Office
Evaluation Criteria
GMAT & GRE
English Language Proficiency
Personal Information, Activities & Awards
Professional Experience
Letters of Recommendation
Optional Short Answer Questions
Application Fee
Reapplication
Deferred Enrollment
Joint & Dual Degrees
Entering Class Profile
Event Schedule
Ambassadors
New & Noteworthy
Ask a Question
See Why Stanford MSx
Is MSx Right for You?
MSx Stories
Leadership Development
How You Will Learn
Admission Events
Personal Information
GMAT, GRE & EA
English Proficiency Tests
Career Change
Career Advancement
Daycare, Schools & Camps
U.S. Citizens and Permanent Residents
Requirements
Requirements: Behavioral
Requirements: Quantitative
Requirements: Macro
Requirements: Micro
Annual Evaluations
Field Examination
Research Activities
Research Papers
Dissertation
Oral Examination
Current Students
Education & CV
International Applicants
Statement of Purpose
Reapplicants
Application Fee Waiver
Deadline & Decisions
Job Market Candidates
Academic Placements
Stay in Touch
Faculty Mentors
Current Fellows
Standard Track
Fellowship & Benefits
Group Enrollment
Program Formats
Developing a Program
Diversity & Inclusion
Strategic Transformation
Program Experience
Contact Client Services
Campus Experience
Live Online Experience
Silicon Valley & Bay Area
Digital Credentials
Faculty Spotlights
Participant Spotlights
Eligibility
International Participants
Stanford Ignite
Frequently Asked Questions
Founding Donors
Location Information
Participant Profile
Network Membership
Program Impact
Collaborators
Entrepreneur Profiles
Company Spotlights
Seed Transformation Network
Responsibilities
Current Coaches
How to Apply
Meet the Consultants
Meet the Interns
Intern Profiles
Collaborate
Research Library
News & Insights
Program Contacts
Databases & Datasets
Research Guides
Consultations
Research Workshops
Career Research
Research Data Services
Course Reserves
Course Research Guides
Material Loan Periods
Fines & Other Charges
Document Delivery
Interlibrary Loan
Equipment Checkout
Print & Scan
MBA & MSx Students
PhD Students
Other Stanford Students
Faculty Assistants
Research Assistants
Stanford GSB Alumni
Telling Our Story
Staff Directory
Site Registration
Alumni Directory
Alumni Email
Privacy Settings & My Profile
Success Stories
The Story of Circles
Support Women’s Circles
Stanford Women on Boards Initiative
Alumnae Spotlights
Insights & Research
Industry & Professional
Entrepreneurial Commitment Group
Recent Alumni
Half-Century Club
Fall Reunions
Spring Reunions
MBA 25th Reunion
Half-Century Club Reunion
Faculty Lectures
Ernest C. Arbuckle Award
Alison Elliott Exceptional Achievement Award
ENCORE Award
Excellence in Leadership Award
John W. Gardner Volunteer Leadership Award
Robert K. Jaedicke Faculty Award
Jack McDonald Military Service Appreciation Award
Jerry I. Porras Latino Leadership Award
Tapestry Award
Student & Alumni Events
Executive Recruiters
Interviewing
Land the Perfect Job with LinkedIn
Negotiating
Elevator Pitch
Email Best Practices
Resumes & Cover Letters
Self-Assessment
Whitney Birdwell Ball
Margaret Brooks
Bryn Panee Burkhart
Margaret Chan
Ricki Frankel
Peter Gandolfo
Cindy W. Greig
Natalie Guillen
Carly Janson
Sloan Klein
Sherri Appel Lassila
Stuart Meyer
Tanisha Parrish
Virginia Roberson
Philippe Taieb
Michael Takagawa
Terra Winston
Johanna Wise
Debbie Wolter
Rebecca Zucker
Complimentary Coaching
Changing Careers
Work-Life Integration
Career Breaks
Flexible Work
Encore Careers
Join a Board
D&B Hoovers
Data Axle (ReferenceUSA)
EBSCO Business Source
Global Newsstream
Market Share Reporter
ProQuest One Business
RKMA Market Research Handbook Series
Student Clubs
Entrepreneurial Students
Stanford GSB Trust
Alumni Community
How to Volunteer
Springboard Sessions
Consulting Projects
2020 – 2029
2010 – 2019
2000 – 2009
1990 – 1999
1980 – 1989
1970 – 1979
1960 – 1969
1950 – 1959
1940 – 1949
Service Areas
ACT History
ACT Awards Celebration
ACT Governance Structure
Building Leadership for ACT
Individual Leadership Positions
Leadership Role Overview
Purpose of the ACT Management Board
Contact ACT
Business & Nonprofit Communities
Reunion Volunteers
Ways to Give
Fiscal Year Report
Business School Fund Leadership Council
Planned Giving Options
Planned Giving Benefits
Planned Gifts and Reunions
Legacy Partners
Giving News & Stories
Giving Deadlines
Development Staff
Submit Class Notes
Class Secretaries
Board of Directors
Health Care
Sustainability
Class Takeaways
All Else Equal: Making Better Decisions
If/Then: Business, Leadership, Society
Grit & Growth
Think Fast, Talk Smart
Spring 2022
Spring 2021
Autumn 2020
Summer 2020
Winter 2020
In the Media
For Journalists
DCI Fellows
Other Auditors
Academic Calendar & Deadlines
Course Materials
Entrepreneurial Resources
Campus Drive Grove
Campus Drive Lawn
CEMEX Auditorium
King Community Court
Seawell Family Boardroom
Stanford GSB Bowl
Stanford Investors Common
Town Square
Vidalakis Courtyard
Vidalakis Dining Hall
Catering Services
Policies & Guidelines
Reservations
Contact Faculty Recruiting
Lecturer Positions
Postdoctoral Positions
Accommodations
CMC-Managed Interviews
Recruiter-Managed Interviews
Virtual Interviews
Campus & Virtual
Search for Candidates
Think Globally
Recruiting Calendar
Recruiting Policies
Full-Time Employment
Summer Employment
Entrepreneurial Summer Program
Global Management Immersion Experience
Social-Purpose Summer Internships
Process Overview
Project Types
Client Eligibility Criteria
Client Screening
ACT Leadership
Social Innovation & Nonprofit Management Resources
Develop Your Organization’s Talent
Centers & Initiatives
Student Fellowships

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

View all journals
Explore content
About the journal
Publish with us
Sign up for alerts
Open access
Published: 01 February 2022

Persuasive narrative during the COVID-19 pandemic: Norwegian Prime Minister Erna Solberg’s posts on Facebook

Sanjana Arora ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0107-7061 1 ,
Jonas Debesay 2 &
Hande Eslen-Ziya ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7113-6771 1

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume 9 , Article number: 35 ( 2022 ) Cite this article

7457 Accesses

5 Citations

5 Altmetric

Metrics details

Cultural and media studies
Politics and international relations

This article explores the Facebook posts of Norway’s Prime Minister Erna Solberg to highlight the key features of her crisis communication during the COVID-19 pandemic. It draws on data from Solberg’s Facebook posts from February 27, 2020 to February 9, 2021 (i.e., starting from the day when the first case of COVID-19 was recorded in Norway until the time of data collection for this study). Out of her 271 posts, 157 of them were about COVID-19 and were chosen for analysis. The analyses identified five major themes: (1) Promoting responsibility and togetherness (2) Coping (3) Being in control amidst uncertainty (4) Fostering hope and (5) Relating with the followers. Drawing inspiration from Boin, Stern and Sundelius’, work on persuasive narratives, this study shows the ways that Solberg’s posts about COVID-19 exhibit all five identified frame functions. In addition, the findings add contextual nuances to the frame functions through the theme of ‘Responsibilization and togetherness’, which are reflected through references to Norwegianness and the cultural concept and practice of dugnad . This study adds to our knowledge about how persuasive narratives are incorporated into the social media communication strategies of leaders and highlights the usefulness of this framework for studying ongoing and future crises.

Slovak MPs’ response to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine in light of conspiracy theories and the polarization of political discourse

Disinformation on the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russia-Ukraine War: Two sides of the same coin?

The gendered dimensions of the anti-mask and anti-lockdown movement on social media

Introduction.

The economic and social disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic is having major impacts on people’s livelihoods and their health. As of 18 April 2021, there have been 140,322,903 confirmed cases of SARS-CoV-2 infections and 3,003,794 deaths (WHO, 2021 ), making the COVID-19 pandemic an unprecedented global health crisis of the century. As countries across the world grapple with mitigating the risks associated with the pandemic, communication—an essential component of planning, response, and recovery during crisis (Houston et al., 2014 )—has been one of the integral parts of the crisis management (Reddy and Gupta, 2020 ). Crisis communication highlights legitimation strategies, but also indicates how government institutions themselves make sense of crises (Brandt and Wörlein, 2020 ). Moreover, crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic can disrupt the socio-political order of societies, leaving a cognitive void in the minds of the public that can be filled with fear and uncertainty (Boin et al., 2016 ). In Norway, COVID-19 has been called a fear-driven pandemic that is based on alarming information of long-term illness and disability that is out of politicians control (Vogt and Pahle, 2020 ). Having control over the dramaturgy of political communication is thus central to effective leadership and crisis management (Boin et al., 2016 ). Effective communication can help societies handle uncertainty and promote adherence to behaviour change while fostering hope among the citizens (Finset et al., 2020 ).

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to rapidly evolve, and social media plays a pivotal role in meeting the communication needs of the public during such crisis (Van Dijck, 2013 ). As social media use increases during crises, leaders and public officials may utilise this platform to communicate, which in return helps reduce public panic and builds trust (Kavanaugh et al., 2012 ). As a result of the cultural and symbolic value of social media in contemporary times (Jenzen et al., 2021 ), the communication of public leaders in the midst of uncertainty and fear facilitates interpersonal and group interaction. Research has shown that, when compared to the traditional media platforms, social media platforms are used by leaders and elected officials to communicate, inform, and engage with their citizens (Golbeck et al., 2010 ). They use social media to spread messages farther and faster than it would be possible with traditional media (Sutton et al., 2013 ). What leaders post on social media can give insights into their communication and leadership strategies during crises. Understanding how leaders communicate with the public during crises will not only provide us with the knowledge about their governance styles but will also guide us to their meaning-making in times of uncertainty. Based on this assumption we will be studying the Facebook posts of Norwegian Prime Minister Erna Solberg, with the aim to highlight the key features of her communication. In doing so, we will take an exploratory rather than confirmatory perspective (Boudreau et al., 2001 ).

Solberg, member of the Conservative Party and in power since 2013, was defeated by the centre-left as this paper was being revised. Solberg has had a long career in politics, becoming a deputy representative to the Bergen City Council in 1979 when she was 18 years old. She was elected to the Parliament in 1989 where she was the youngest member of her party group (Notaker and Tvedt, 2021 ). Solberg’s tough stance on issues such as immigration earned her the nickname of ‘Jern-Erna’ [Iron Erna] (Reuters, 2013 ). However, upon her appointment as Prime Minister, Solberg displayed a ‘softer side’ by caring about voters’ jobs, health, and schools (Notaker and Tvedt, 2021 ).

The first Norwegian COVID-19 patient was diagnosed on February 26, 2020. While the initial spread of infection was relatively slow, cases increased quickly by March 12 th , after winter break for schools ended and many Norwegians returned from skiing holidays in Northern Italy (Dagsavisen, 2020 ). On March 12, the Norwegian Directorate of Health (NDH) adopted comprehensive measures to prevent the spread, which included closing day care centres, schools, and educational institutions. The measures also included a ban on cultural events, closed swimming gyms and pools, a halt to all service provisions that involved being less than one meter away from another person, and prohibiting visits to recreational cabins Footnote 1 , among others. Behavioural measures such as recommendations to keep physical distance, encourage handwashing, quarantine, stay home when ill, work from home, and avoid public transportation were also included. Following the lockdown, Norway became the first European country to announce that the situation was under control due to low levels of hospitalizations and mortalities (Christensen and Lægreid, 2020 ). In Norway, as of March 22, 2021, there have been over eighty thousand confirmed cases of coronavirus infection and more than six hundred deaths due to COVID-19. Norway has had far fewer COVID-19 cases, deaths, and hospitalizations per capita than most other countries in Western Europe or the United States (Christensen and Lægreid, 2020 ). Compared to its Scandinavian neighbours Denmark and Sweden, the proportion of cases of infections and deaths have been much lower (WHO, 2021 ), despite the three countries sharing similar social welfare and healthcare systems. Recently, a report submitted by the Corona Committee in Norway also concluded that the overall handling of the crisis by the government has been good. Not only has the number of infections and deaths in Norway been much lower than most countries in Europe, but the healthcare services have also remained stable, and society has remained relatively open (Lund, 2021 ). It is probable that good governance and responsible leadership demonstrated by the Norwegian cabinet and Prime Minister Erna Solberg contributed to this success.

In Norway, there is considerably less focus on individualization of candidates in political parties as compared to for instance the US, since the electoral system in Norway is based on proportional representation (Karlsen and Enjolras, 2016 ). Despite this, with the presence of digital and social media, there has been increasing focus on the individual candidates, leading to ‘decentralising personalisation’ (Karlsen and Enjolras, 2016 ; Balmas et al., 2014 ). Given this context, Erna Solberg’s Facebook account during the COVID-19 pandemic serves as an intermediary platform between the government’s role and her own personal profile as the Prime Minister who has been handling the COVID-19 crisis. Solberg has used Facebook more actively than other outlets like Twitter and has more followers on Facebook than any other platform. The proportion of Facebook users in Norway vis-a-vis other social media platform is also the highest (for example, 84% of people use Facebook compared to 22% who use Twitter who use Twitter) (Werliin and Kokholm, 2016 ). Facebook thus serves as an important platform for public leaders in Norway during crises, and therefore, by analysing Solberg’s Facebook posts, we aim to demonstrate the key features of her communication strategy during the COVID-19 crisis.

Background on crisis and crisis communication

Crisis is defined as a rare, and significant public situation creating undesirable consequences (Coombs, 2015 ; Gruber et al., 2015 ). In most cases it is ‘an unpredictable event that threatens important expectancies of stakeholders and can seriously impact an organization’s performance and generate negative outcomes’ (Coombs, 2015 : p. 3). Crisis communication on the other hand is referred as the strategies used to lessen the uncertainties during crisis via the dissemination and exchange of information (Collins et al., 2016 ). Effective crisis communication establishes reliability and maintains public trust. It should be frequent, consistent and involve compassionate messages conveyed in an inspired and transformational communication style. It is essential that public officials and leaders when communicating crisis relevant information be efficient and informative. Past research has shown the importance of repetition of the consistent interaction to help the message reach the recipients clearly and increase compliance behaviour in cases of crisis (Stephens et al., 2013 ). Inconsistent messages on the other hand were found to cause misperception and confusion, leading to a non-compliant behaviour by the recipients. The content of the message as well as its tone is also an important indicator of whether the recipients will comply or not (Sutton et al., 2013 ). Sources of crisis communication, such as leaders and public health officials, are perceived to be reliable and trustworthy when they exhibit concern and care (Heath and O’ Hair, 2010 ). In addition, they can be more effective in building relationship with the public, if they consider the cultural factors that play a role in their communicating about risks (Aldoory, 2010 ).

Boin et al. ( 2016 ) argue that crisis communication is one of the key challenges, which leaders face during a crisis situation. During crisis communication, leaders are required to frame ‘meaning’ of the crisis in order to shape how public perceives the risks, consequences and how they respond to the measures being taken. Developing a persuasive narrative in communication is thus integral to succesful framing of the crisis and for a strategic leadership. The construction of a successful persuasive narrative requires five frame functions: namely that the narrative will offer a credible explanation of what happened, it will provide guidance, instil hope, show empathy, and suggest that leaders are in control (Boin et al., 2016 ). In doing so, leaders aid the public’s understanding of the facts associated with crisis while sumltaneously acknolwedging and appealing to collective emotions. In incorporating these frame functions, leaders are posed with various choices and decision-making such as how they choose to or not choose to dramatise the situation, the language that they use and how they appeal to the colleactive emotions and stress.

As digital media technologies became popular resources for getting and spreading information, public officials and leaders also increasingly started using them as domains during the crises. In fact, for some scholars the use of social media while enabling mutual interaction between the leaders and recipients has altered the field of crisis communication altogether. For instance, it was found that as social media enables constant and effective communication, it was used more regularly than traditional media outlets during crisis (Kim and Liu, 2012 ). Similarly, Utz et al. ( 2013 ) discussed how for effective crisis communication strategy, the use of media channels, social media—Twitter, and Facebook—versus traditional— newspapers—was more critical than the type of the crisis. Moreover, Schultz et al. ( 2011 ) concluded that when compared to traditional media networks, crisis communication received less negative response when social media was used. Hence, it is not to our surprise that public officials nowadays are turning to social media platforms for communicating with the masses during crisis. They not only use these tools to communicate about crisis but also request information from the public. This was the case during the COVID-19 pandemic crisis where social media was employed by political leaders across the globe to mediate the communication of information about the pandemic as well as for reaching out to their citizens. This paper by focusing on the Norwegian case and more specifically on the Norwegian Prime Minister’s Facebook use during the time of COVID-19 pandemic aims to explore the use of social media platforms by political leaders during crisis. Our goal is to better understand how political leaders adapt social media technologies in their communication strategies during crises.

Our data that covers Erna Solberg’s Facebook posts between February 27, 2020, and February 10, 2021 (a total of 271 posts) were extracted from Footnote 2 into an Excel sheet. A total of 114 posts were removed as they were not related to COVID-19 leaving us 157 posts for further analysis. To aid the coding process, we noted the variables presented in Table 1 . These are: date, number of interactions, number, and type of reactions (e.g., angry, sad, like, etc.), URLs of links shared, and a description of the content of the posts that was later used in the qualitative analysis. We also noted if the posts were made during any particularly critical period (e.g., before, during or after new restrictive measures were introduced). The content of the posts and the number of likes and other reactions derived from this data should be considered a ‘snapshot’ of Solberg’s posts as they appeared at the time of data collection (Brügger, 2013 ), as it is possible that some posts have been subsequently removed, or that the numbers and types of reactions to the posts have changed by the publication date

The data was analysed through thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006 ): in the first step, we read all posts and generated the first set of codes. Next, we combined all the similar codes while labelling them in clusters and organised them into analytical themes/categories (see Fig. 1 ). The authors then discussed and reviewed these analytical themes and merged them into aggregate/conceptual themes. Lastly, we reviewed the aggregate themes through the lens of the five frame functions of persuasive narrative and identified commonalities and differences. We have included some posts under each theme to illustrate our analytical process and illuminate the themes (Sandelowski, 1994 ). All posts presented here were translated from Norwegian to English by the authors.

Schematic formulation of a theme from the categories captured in posts.

Our analysis resulted in five themes: (1) Promoting responsibility and togetherness (2) Coping (3) Being in control amidst uncertainty (4) Fostering hope and (5) Relating with the followers. In reviewing our findings from the framework of Boin et al. ( 2016 ), we found that all five frame functions of persuasive narrative were embedded in Solberg’s posts and aligned with our themes. Below we discuss our themes with reference to frame functions of Boin et al. ( 2016 ) for a persuasive narrative and in doing so, add contextual nuances to each theme.

Promoting responsibility and togetherness: we are in this together

Analysis of Solberg’s posts revealed a strong message of responsibility and togetherness. In almost all shares, she not only emphasized solidarity but also called for courage and responsibility. This Facebook post, shared soon after comprehensive shut-down measures were introduced, shows how important, for Solberg, was Norwegian solidarity expressed as ‘we’ (March 12, 2020):

Dear everyone. In times of crisis, we understand how dependent we are on each other. What unites us is more important than what separates us. This is not the time for ‘I’. This is the time for ‘we’.

Lunn et al. ( 2020 ) note that citizens are isolated during government induced or self-imposed quarantines: appeals to collective action and a spirit of ‘we-are-in-it-together’ are important ways to ensure compliance with quarantine and hence curb the rate of infection. Leaders in countries such New Zealand, UK, Brazil have also been found to have used a similar narrative emphasizing patriotic duty, love of country, and coming together as one, to mobilise community action (Dada et al., 2021 ).

Her posts were also imbued with appreciation and expression of gratitude towards healthcare workers and those who follow rules. For example, after introduction of the ban to travel to cabins and after the government’s decision to extend regulations until after Easter, Solberg posted the following on April 4, 2020, receiving a high number of likes:

I feel proud when I see how we handle this together. Many thanks to everyone who follows the advice from the health authorities. Many thanks to everyone in the health service who works hard and perseveres. Many thanks to all Norwegians for the patience, love and solidarity we now show each other

The use of the word ‘I’ and how it was being used in reference to ‘feel[ing] proud’, we argue, highlights the ‘positioning of self’ by Solberg. Davies and Harré ( 1990 ) claim that development of the notion of ‘positioning’ is a contribution to the understanding of personhood, and how speakers choose to position their personal identity vis-a-vis their discontinuous personal diversity (such as being the Prime Minister, politician, Norwegian citizen, etc.). In such posts, whether intentionally or unintentionally, we also see the discursive practices through which Solberg allocates meaning to her position as a Prime Minister by emphasising that she feels proud upon seeing those who follow advice. At the same time, her emphasis on ‘we’, as in how ‘ we handle this together’, places her as a member of the Norwegian masses.

Moreover, such references to togetherness and solidarity also reflect attempts to utilise the existing nationalistic cultural repertoire of the Norwegian concept of dugnad . For example, on New Year’s Day following the Gjerdrum community disaster (a sudden and unexpected mudslide that destroyed several residential houses) and rise in the number of infections during the holiday period (2125 reported cases on December 29, 2020), Solberg posted the following post:

[…] During the year we have put behind us, Norway has lined up for the big dugnad . People have put their interests and dreams on hold to protect the elderly and the risk groups. It has saved lives. I am deeply grateful, proud and touched, for the way the Norwegian people have handled the biggest challenge for our society since World War II. We lined up for each other when it mattered most…

Dugnad in Norwegian is voluntary work that is performed as a collective effort (Moss and Sandbakken, 2021 ). Nilsen and Skarpenes ( 2020 ) discuss how the concept of dugnad is embedded in a moral repertoire of the socially responsible citizen that is indicative of a specifically Norwegian welfare mentality and conclude that dugnad is imperative for the sustainability and resilience of the Norwegian welfare model. Before the pandemic, Simon and Mobekk ( 2019 ) argued that the concept of dugnad is central to Norwegian culture, inculcating prosocial and cooperative behaviour, and thereby plays a role in Norway being one of the most egalitarian democracies and having high levels of equality and reciprocity. In the context of COVID-19, social anthropologist Thomas Hylland Eriksen ( 2020 ) pointed out that one reason for the success of the Norwegian approach was the mobilisation of broader society to fight COVID-19, driven by the notion of dugnad . Similarly, Moss and Sandbakken ( 2021 ) analysed data from press conferences and interviews with members of the public and found that many participants mentioned liking how the government talked of ‘a spirit of dugnad ’ ( dugnadsånd ), appealing to shared voluntary work rather than strict rules. The authors posit that in a pandemic it is crucial to create and use meta-narratives that are a good fit with the context in order to aid meaning-making and increase compliance. The use of dugnad as a cultural repertoire has, however, met with criticism from some scholars, who argue that ‘a word associated with solidarity, unity, and voluntary work obscures the forced nature of the measures’ (Tjora, 2020 ) and shifts the onus for finding solutions onto individual citizens or groups (Nilsen and Skarpenes, 2020 ; Hungnes, 2016 ).

Despite the criticism of imbibing such cultural repertoire, the alignment of the key values of Norwegian society with the core message of encouraging collective action is essential for a crisis narrative to be politically effective (Boin et al., 2016 ). Furthermore, the theme of ‘Promoting responsibility and togetherness’ shows the context specific nature of crisis communication narrative in the case of COVID-19 in Norway and therefore adds to the components for a persuasive narrative.

Coping: everything will be fine

Solberg’s Footnote 3 posts also carried messages that address the consequences of coping with COVID-19, namely self-isolation, and loneliness. For instance, her posts guided followers in dealing with loneliness and maintaining general physical and mental health. The Norwegian government, like that of many other countries, had introduced measures such as mandatory quarantine and social distancing rules to manage the spread of the virus. Studies have shown that home confinement during COVID-19 has negatively affected the emotional state of individuals due to depression and anxiety and has led to or increased a sedentary lifestyle (Sang et al., 2020 ). Thus, emphasis on the well-being of the population during COVID-19 is important for effective crisis management (WHO, 2020a ) because increased well-being would reinforce its coping abilities during illness and hardships. As these are not the direct effects of the COVID-19 infection, but a result of the contagion containment measures imposed on citizens by the government, we observe Solberg taking responsibility and providing solutions to help. In doing so, she appears sensitive and caring towards the public.

Christensen and Lægreid ( 2020 ) attribute the ‘high-performing’ handling of the pandemic in Norway to the initial focus on suppression, followed by a control strategy. The authors further examine the ideas that having successful communication with the public, a collaborative and pragmatic decision-making style, the country’s resourcefulness, and high trust of government all contributed to the relative success in Norway. Adopting the correct and effective strategy indeed heavily influences the outcomes of crises. However, to fill the ‘cognitive void’ that the public might be experiencing, leaders need to manage the meaning-making process and ensure legitimacy of their actions (Boin et al., 2016 ). Solberg and the other ministers played an important role in communicating with citizens and the media through daily media briefings together with the NDH (Norwegian Directorate of Health) and NIPH (Norwegian Institute of Public Health) (Christensen and Lægreid, 2020 )

Solberg emphasized the impact of loneliness, for example, during one of the first holiday periods during the pandemic when comprehensive shut-down measures were introduced, she wrote:

Many people may feel lonely during holidays such as Easter, and the corona crisis exacerbates this. Therefore, I would like to encourage everyone to call someone you know is alone at Easter. The little things can mean a lot. Happy Easter!

A study by Blix et al. ( 2021 ) on the topic of mental health in the Norwegian population during the COVID-19 pandemic found that a substantial proportion of the population experienced significant psychological distress in the early phases. More than one out of four reported ongoing psychological distress over the threshold for clinically significant symptoms. Two other categories of individuals (those recently exposed to violence and those with pre-existing mental health problems) were found to be at special risk but worrying about the consequences of the pandemic was also found to contribute negatively to mental health. In this regard, Shah et al. ( 2020 ) argued that several nations have failed to address the mental health aspect among the public, as far more effort is being focused on understanding the epidemiology, clinical features, transmission patterns, and management of COVID-19. Solberg’s open discussion about mental health during the pandemic implies a situation-specific and data-driven strategy of managing the less visible effects of the pandemic and show insight in anticipating future needs (Han et al., 2020 ).

Moreover, Solberg’s posts also subtly utilised the Norwegian concept of friluftsliv , which translates as ‘free air life,’ a philosophy of outdoor living and connection with nature (Henderson and Vikander 2007 ). Friluftsliv is associated with grand narratives of Norwegian national identity depicting outdoor adventures, foraging, and a deep connection to nature (Jørgensen-Vittersø, 2021 ). For example, with the re-opening of DNT [Den Norske Turistforening] cabins in mid-2020, Solberg in her post on June 11 emphasized the importance of being outdoors in fresh air:

We need to use our bodies and get out into the light and fresh air. It is important for both physical and mental health! I hope many have a good and active Norwegian holiday this year!

In these posts, Solberg also shared pictures of herself being outdoors. In such ways, Solberg appeared to be offering not only guidance for coping with the challenges and consequences of living during the pandemic, but also emphasizing one characteristic of the Norwegian culture, which they are proud of—spending time in nature. Be it advice to spend time in nature, or to keep social distance or self-isolation, we consider that Solberg’s approach to coping aligns with the frame function of ‘offering guidance’. During a crisis, leaders have a window of opportunity during which they can communicate a frame to not only make sense of the crisis but also to provide guidance and to portray themselves as attentive and concerned about the challenging circumstances faced by the public (Boin et al., 2016 ). By depicting herself as attuned to the emotions experienced by her followers during the pandemic and by utilising the moment to suggest ways of coping, Solberg’s communication encapsulates the frame function of offering guidance for a persuasive narrative.

Being in control amidst uncertainty

In her posts, Solberg presented a narrative of being in control amidst uncertainty, which aligns with two of the frame functions of Boin et al. ( 2016 ), namely offering a credible explanation and suggesting that leaders are in control. In times of a crisis, it is important that leaders do not downplay the gravity of the situation or claim unrealistically optimistic scenarios (Boin et al., 2016 ). We see that Solberg maintained a balance by providing a detailed explanation of her actions and the reasons behind the restrictive measures taken. At the same time, she acknowledged the uncertainty inherent in the ever-changing crisis and demonstrated her concern. According to Lunn et al. ( 2020 ), in situations characterised by uncertainty and fear, responsible leaders need to signal that they are in control of the situation, which can be demonstrated by making decisions with confidence and honesty. Moreover, it is also essential that leaders do not make promises that are impossible or unrealistic, because doing that can impede the persuasiveness of their narrative by affecting their credibility later (Boin et al., 2016 ). In Solberg’s posts, we see that she displays confidence but also the reality of uncertainty and concern, which is a sign of effective leadership and shows ‘bounded optimism’ (Brassey and Kruyt, 2020 ). The following post where she writes about her worries and concerns followed by advice is a good example of credibility and control:

I am worried. Right now, we have ongoing outbreaks in Bergen, Oslo, Trondheim and Hammerfest… We know that vigorous work is being done intensively in these municipalities with infection detection and other measures. Although Norway has relatively low infection rates, we also register here at home that the number of hospital admissions and the number of infected have increased recently. We now have the highest number of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 since May… We also see that the infection has begun to spread to older age groups. And there is a significant risk that the numbers will continue to rise as we see in Europe. That is why we have today announced new national austerity measures next week. We can still reverse the trend here at home…

A demonstration of concern from role models has been shown to have a role in persuading the public to adhere to recommendations (Simon and Mobekk, 2019 ). Tannenbaum et al. ( 2015 ) note that fear is easier to handle when it is acknowledged, which relates to the idea of ‘citizens being anxious enough to take the advice from the authorities to heart and optimistic enough as to feel that their actions make a difference’ (Petersen, 2020 ). Inculcating ‘optimistic anxiety’ (Tannenbaum et al., 2015 ) is therefore an important feature of crisis communication narratives.

Another important nuance that emerges from Solberg’s posts is her comparisons to other countries to draw attention to the seriousness of the situation. For example, on November 5, 2020, Solberg made the following post announcing new national measures, which received over 5000 likes:

My message to the Norwegian people is: Stay at home as much as possible. Have the least possible social contact with others. It is absolutely necessary to avoid a new shutdown. Norway is at the beginning of the second wave of infection… The virus is spreading rapidly and all counties now have outbreaks. The government is therefore introducing new national infection control measures… If the current rate of infection continues, the number of inpatients in intensive care units will increase sharply in the coming weeks. This will lead to less intensive capacity for other seriously ill people. We are now where the Netherlands was at the beginning of September. A very rapid increase in infection in the Netherlands quickly led to more patients in the intensive care unit… Other European countries have similar experiences. There is therefore a heavy seriousness about the situation. And we must take responsibility together

By giving detailed reasoning behind measures being taken amidst uncertainty, Solberg exhibits both confidence and honesty in her narratives (Lunn et al., 2020 ). Another key feature that emerges from the post above is the emphasis on the risks of an increase in infection, and the possibility of a new lockdown and overburdening of intensive care capacity, thereby reflecting a more strongly persuasive intent. Such emphasis on the risks is different from other posts where Solberg exhibits control and optimism much more strongly. This adaption from a communicative stance to a more persuasive one could result from not only the perceived severity of the situation, but also the perceived risks of pandemic fatigue. Pandemic fatigue has been defined by the WHO as a lack of motivation to adhere to recommended protective behaviours (WHO, 2020b ). According to surveys conducted in different countries, most people have been shown to possess adequate knowledge of COVID-19 and the precautions required to keep safe, yet factors like emotions and context have been found to have greater impact on behaviours than knowledge (Gavi the Vaccine Alliance, 2020 ). A study of different ways of communicating healthcare messages suggested that believability of the messages and the recipients’ reactions to them can be influenced by the persuasive intent (Wang and Shen, 2019 ). Koh et al. ( 2020 ) also discuss the importance of devising effective and successful communications for a sustained period without message fatigue setting in, which includes concern for the way the communication is framed. Overall, we see that Solberg’s posts provide a rationale with portrayal of the government being in control of managing the crisis.

Fostering hope and return to normalcy

Solberg’s posts also emphasized the hopeful aspects of the crisis by appealing to followers to look forward to a return to everyday life, and new educational and economic prospects, despite the difficult current circumstances. This theme aligns with the frame of ‘instilling hope’ as per frame functions for a persuasive narrative by Boin et al. ( 2016 ). During a crisis, more than ever, effective leaders embody the hopes and fears of the society under threat, and therefore they should strive to inculcate optimism of a better future (Boin et al., 2016 ). Previous research has documented that in times of turmoil, followers especially look up to leadership that serves as a beacon of hope for and faith in a positive future, more than they do in times of prosperity (Stam et al., 2018 ; Shamir et al., 1993 ). According to Boin et al., leadership during crisis always has a moral dimension. On January 10, 2021, by which time Norway had witnessed over 50000 cases of infection and over 400 deaths as well as the Gjerdrum disaster, Solberg made the following post:

Dear everyone. This year I hope we can take our dreams back. After a year of pandemic and fear. Then I look forward to seeing creativity unleashed…

Another post that emphasized the optimism for educational prospects was made on April 15, 2020, and drew over 5000 likes:

Today is the last deadline to apply to a vocational school, college or university. I understand that it can feel strange to apply for an education this autumn while the educational institutions keep their campuses closed. Maybe someone also thinks the idea of moving from home to a new city seems extra scary these days. To you I want to say that everyday life will return. Therefore, my appeal to you who want to study: do not put your life on hold, but apply for education this year!

Lessons from previous crises tell us that leaders need to pay attention to the fear of the ongoing threat, as well as sadness and grief, and to provide hope to mitigate social disruption (Maak et al., 2021 ). Here, we see that Solberg’s is attempting to convey hope while also acknowledging the challenges and impact of COVID-19. In doing so, the messages also emphasise self-efficacy and trust in the government. Hope and resilience are closely aligned constructs, as they both include a tendency towards maintaining an optimistic outlook in the face of adversity (Duggal et al., 2016 ). Thus, fostering hope during crisis can help the community cope with the consequences of the crisis. Moreover, by using emotional appeals, leaders can influence attitudes and behaviours as well as induce compassion (Ghio et al., 2020 ).

The theme of fostering hope in Solberg’s posts was found to be particularly emphasized during and before national holidays or important events. Her posts often utilised humour to foster positivity, particularly during critical periods such as during or after implementation of stricter COVID-19 measures. For example, a day after it was announced that infection-reduction measures would continue throughout Christmas, Solberg shared a snipped of her response to a question asked in a press conference and posted:

Can Santa actually come to visit this year?

Creating human moments and hope is a sign of compassionate leadership and helps to establish the relational foundation for widespread support for pandemic control measures (Maak et al., 2021 ). Also, by utilising humour, Solberg adapts the tone of her messages, a tactic that has been found to significantly affect audiences’ attitudes and behaviours, help people manage their emotions, and strengthen support for pandemic measures (Lee and Basnyat, 2013 )

Relating with followers

The last theme is about the posts in which Solberg relates to the public by providing personal information, acknowledging, and relating with the difficult circumstances, and using humour or a private tone in her posts. For example, the post below was made just before Easter and it received more than 13000 likes, making it to be the third-most liked post of Solberg related to COVID-19 during this period.

It will be a different Easter this year. Let’s make the best of it. We can play fun board games with our loved ones, read the book we never have time to read, listen to an audiobook or explore the local area. The last few weeks have been challenging for all of us, but we want to get through this… Sindre and I have recharged with board games and wish you all a very happy Easter!

Empathy is an important component of the persuasive narrative, especially during crises when the decisions made by authorities to mitigate, and control can also have consequences for people’s lives. For crisis communication to be effective, the information provided to the public should not be too factual or portray leaders as distant from the citizens (Shen, 2010 ; Lunn et al., 2020 ). By demonstrating concern and acknowledging the impact of crises, leaders can empathise with the public (Shen, 2010 ; Lunn et al., 2020 ). We see Solberg personifying the challenges of COVID-19 by referring to how the times have been challenging for ‘all of us’. According to Boin et al. ( 2016 ), a leader’s personification of suffering is instrumental in showing empathy because the public is then able to relate to them.

Further, previously in a study by Larsson ( 2015 ) about Norwegian party leaders on Facebook during the 2013 ‘short campaign’, it was found that personal content referencing private life is increasingly employed by Norwegian party leaders. Enli and Rosenberg ( 2018 ) investigated voters’ evaluations of politicians as authentic or ‘real,’ and Solberg was found to be one of the most perceived authentic politicians. Enli ( 2014 ) had earlier suggested that Erna Solberg’s public profile as predictable, anti-elitist and imperfect constructs her authenticity.

A similar example of relatability with followers during the pandemic was the instance when she forgot the rule of not shaking hands during public meetups and press conferences. After the event, she wrote:

It is important that we can have some humour in a difficult time Even a prime minister can forget, but now it is important that we all remember to follow the advice of the health authorities…

She also used an engaging communicative style when interacting with her followers:

Then the holiday is over… a different summer, a little cold, weekly meetings in the Government’s Corona Committee on video, beautiful nature experiences from Norway and a lot of rain. Let me share a wonderful little meeting with a lynx on the lawn on Varaldsøy… Have you had a nice summer?

Thus, Solberg embeds references to her private life, which also helps to personify the messages in her posts and thus relate with the public. In addition, by relating with the public on an everyday basis and through the acknowledgment of shared challenges during crisis, Solberg’s narrative also appears empathetic. Our theme of ‘Relating to the public’ thus encapsulates frame function of ‘showing empathy’ for developing a persuasive narrative, as per Boin et al. ( 2016 ).

Concluding remarks

This paper was an attempt to explore the Facebook posts of Norway’s Prime Minister Erna Solberg to highlight the key features of her crisis communication during the COVID-19 pandemic. By drawing on data from Solberg’s Facebook posts during the pandemic our analyses identified five major themes, (1) Promoting responsibility and togetherness (2) Coping (3) Being in control amidst uncertainty (4) Fostering hope and (5) Relating with the followers, where we went in detail explanation by using frame functions of a persuasive narrative by Boin et al. ( 2016 ). We furthermore discussed the specific Norwegian contextual nuances to the frame functions. These were the theme ‘Responsibilization and togetherness’, presented via the references to Norwegianness and the cultural concept and practice of dugnad . Hence, our paper showed how during crisis persuasive narratives are incorporated into the social media communication strategies of political leaders.

The paper also showed how persuasive narratives are delivered through praising the public’s efforts, promoting togetherness, caring about the public’s well-being, displaying optimism and confidence in the government’s measures. It elaborated on how crisis management on social media was done via the use of humour and personal information. Humour was used as a tool to engage with the public and help them relate and comply to the COVID-19 restrictions. Hence, Solberg used Facebook to capitalise on a wide-reaching social medium (Hallahan, 2010 ). While the communication of leaders during crises helps to fill the cognitive void, the use of social media helps build societal resilience by improving awareness and encouraging preparedness (Boin et al., 2016 )

Even so, the success of a persuasive narrative is to a great extent dependant on the credibility of its proponents (Boin et al., 2016 ). The reputation of the leader and the organisation that they represent plays a key role in framing a successful persuasive narrative. In general, Norwegians have more trust in each other and their institutions than most other countries (Skirbekk and Grimen, 2012 ). A survey conducted by the Norwegian Citizen’s Panel [Norsk Medborgerpanel] in March 2020 found that trust in government, in the health authorities, in parliament, and in national and local politicians had increased, as did trust in the Prime Minister during the pandemic (Dahl, 2020 ). Clearly, Solberg seems to have benefitted from the trust capital in Norwegian society with her Facebook communications during a crisis. More recently, Erna Solberg has received heavy criticism for breach of COVID-19 restrictions during a family trip to Geilo for her 60th birthday (The Guardian, 2021a ). Following which, Erna Solberg, has been investigated by police and fined (The Guardian, 2021b ). Thus, while her Facebook posts exhibiting components of a persuasive narrative received popularity, her actions have nevertheless been subjected to scrutiny and criticisms in mainstream media (Larsen, 2021 ). According to Boin et al. ( 2016 : p. 72), the retainment of confidence of the public is essential for the communication strategies to be effective. Therefore, such media criticism might undermine the credibility of Solberg and her cabinet, leading to less credible and politically ineffective narratives. On the other hand, past performances, and reputation also play an important role in increasing leaders’ personal credibility in the face of crisis (Boin et al., 2016 ). Consequently, Solberg’s long career in politics and her reputation of caring about the citizens as previously discussed, could buffer the recent impact on her credibility. Moreover, communication during and after a crisis affects long-term impressions (Coombs, 2007 ). With the personification of politics in Norway or ‘decentralising personalization’ (Balmas et al., 2014 ), the criticisms paved at Erna, however, reflect more of a personal crisis than a national crisis. And while we do not analyse Solberg’s posts beyond 9 th Feb. 2021 i.e., after Solberg spoke about the Geilo trip incident on her Facebook account, we see that she follows similar strategy in handling this personal crisis as the national crisis of COVID-19, through use of a persuasive narrative. Future studies can therefore focus on how Solberg and other political leaders utilise the strategy of persuasive narrative in management of personal crisis in nexus with national crisis such as that of COVID-19.

Further, we concur with Christensen and Lægreid ( 2020 ) who write that the ‘political leadership has succeeded well in connecting governance capacity and legitimacy using the argument that Norway had sufficient resources to deal with the crisis. While the health resource capacity and preparedness of Norway inarguably contributes to the outcomes of the crisis, communicating a successful persuasive narrative with credibility is integral to gaining legitimacy and filling the cognitive void (Boin et al., 2016 ). Erna Solberg’s use of persuasive narrative in Facebook posts, seems therefore to have been effective in the management of the COVID-19 pandemic, but her latest unfortunate incident goes to show how politicians’ management of crises is tenuous and highly dependent on public trust.

Our study adds to the significance and knowledge of how persuasive narratives are incorporated into the communication strategy of leaders on a social media platform and highlights the usefulness of this framework for studies about ongoing and future crises. By using data from social media, our findings also add to the understanding of the increased personification of politics and how leaders utilise this personification to communicate government measures and engage with the public during a crisis. Future research can further explore how public leaders and health authorities’ frame crises situations, actions, issues, and responsibility to dramatise and reinforce key ideas (Hallahan, 1999 ). Such insights can pave way for understanding public’s shaping of risk perceptions and compliance to behavioural measures during crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

Data availability

The dataset analysed during the current study is available through the public profile of Erna Solberg on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ernasolberg/ . This dataset was derived from Crowd Tangle which can be accessed through request at https://www.crowdtangle.com/ .

Known as ‘hyttetur’, cabin trips are deeply rooted in Norwegian culture and way of life

Crowdtangle extracts both historical and current data of post contents and metadata such as the date the post was made, number of likes, other reactions and shares. Information about how to access raw material included in this study can be found in the data availability statement at the end of the article.

‘Everything will be fine’ [ Alt blir bra ] was one of the campaigns that spread because of the COVID-19 crisis in Norway depicting pictures of a rainbow.

Aldoory L (2010) The ecological perspective and other ways to (re)consider cultural factors in risk communication. In: Heath R, O’ Hair (eds) Handbook of risk and crisis communication. Routledge, New York, pp. 227–246

Google Scholar

Balmas M, Rahat G, Sheafer T, Shenhav SR (2014) Two routes to personalized politics: Centralized and decentralized personalization. Party Polit 20(1):37–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068811436037

Article Google Scholar

Blix I, Birkeland MS, Thoresen S (2021) Worry and Mental Health in the COVID-19 Pandemic: Vulnerability Factors in the General Norwegian Population. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-192098/v1 . Accessed 10 Jun 2021

Boin A, Stern E, Sundelius B (2016) The politics of crisis management: Public leadership under pressure. Cambridge University Press

Boudreau MC, Gefen D, Straub DW (2001) Validation in information systems research: a state-of-the-art assessment. MIS Quart 25(1):1. https://doi.org/10.2307/3250956

Brandt P, Wörlein J (2020) Government crisis communication during the pandemic. https://www.sciencespo.fr/en/news/news/government-crisis-communications-during-the-pandemic/4862 . Accessed 20 May 2021

Braun V, Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 3(2):77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Brassey J, Kruyt M (2020) How to demonstrate calm and optimism in a crisis. McKinsey & Company, April. 2020. https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-insights/how-to-demonstrate-calm-and-optimism-in-a-crisis . Accessed 27 May 2021

Brügger N (2013) Historical network analysis of the web. Soc Sci Comput Review 31(3):306–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439312454267

Christensen T, Lægreid P (2020) Balancing governance capacity and legitimacy: how the Norwegian government handled the COVID‐19 crisis as a high performer. Public Admin Rev 80(5):774–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13241

Collins M, Neville K, Hynes W, Madden M (2016) Communication in a disaster-the development of a crisis communication tool within the S-HELP project. J Decis Syst 25(1):160–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/12460125.2016.1187392

Coombs WT (2007) Protecting organization reputations during a crisis: the development and application of situational crisis communication theory. Corp Reput Rev 10(3):163–176. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.crr.1550049

Coombs WT (2015) Ongoing crisis communication: planning, managing and responding. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA

CrowdTangle (2021) CrowdTangle Team. Facebook, Menlo Park, California, United States. List ID: 1504404 2021

Dada S, Ashworth HC, Bewa MJ, Dhatt R (2021) Words matter: political and gender analysis of speeches made by heads of government during the COVID-19 pandemic. BMJ Global Health 6(1):e003910. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.09.10.20187427

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Dagsavisen (2020) FHI: Norge ble varslet om koronasmitte fra Østerrike allerede 4. mars 2020 (Norway was notified of corona infection from Austria as early as 4 March 2020). https://www.dagsavisen.no/nyheter/innenriks/2020/10/30/fhi-norge-ble-varslet-om-koronasmitte-fra-osterrike-allerede-4-mars/ . Accessed on 1 Apr 2021

Dahl T (2020) Stolar meir på Erna og mindre på naboen (Rely more on Erna and less on the neighbor). https://www.uib.no/aktuelt/135017/stolar-meir-p%C3%A5-erna-og-mindre-p%C3%A5-naboen . Accessed 3 Jul 2021

Davies B, Harré R (1990) Positioning: the discursive production of selves. J Theory Soc Behav 20(1):43–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5914.1990.tb00174.x

Duggal D, Sacks-Zimmerman A, Liberta T (2016) The impact of hope and resilience on multiple factors in neurosurgical patients. Cureus 8(10). https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.849

Enli G (2014) Mediated authenticity. Peter Lang Incorporated, New York

Enli G, Rosenberg LT (2018) Trust in the age of social media: Populist politicians seem more authentic. Soc Media Soc 4(1):2056305118764430. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305118764430

Eriksen TH (2020) Norway’s response to Covid-19 and the Janus face of Nordic trust. https://www.coronatimes.net/norway-covid-19-nordic-trust/ . Accessed on 15 May 2021

Finset A, Bosworth H, Butow P, Gulbrandsen P, Hulsman RL, Pieterse AH et al. (2020) Effective health communication–a key factor in fighting the COVID-19 pandemic. Patient Educ Couns 103(5):873. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2020.03.027

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Gavi the Vaccine Alliance (2020) 10 reasons why pandemic fatigue could threaten global health in 2021. https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/10-reasons-why-pandemic-fatigue-could-threaten-global-health-2021 . Accessed 15 Jun 2021

Ghio D, Lawes-Wickwar S, Tang M, Epton T, Howlett N, Jenkinson E (2020) What influences people’s responses to public health messages for managing risks and preventing infectious diseases? A rapid systematic review of the evidence and recommendations. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/nz7tr . Accessed 28 May 2021

Golbeck J, Grimes JM, Rogers A (2010) Twitter use by the US Congress. J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol 61(8):1612–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21344

Gruber DA, Smerek RE, Thomas-Hunt MC, James EH (2015) The real-time power of Twitter: Crisis management and leadership in an age of social media. Bus Horizon 58(2):163–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2014.10.006

Hallahan K (1999) Seven models of framing: implications for public relations. J Public Relat Res 11(3):205–242. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532754xjprr1103_02

Hallahan K (2010) Crises and risk in cyberspace. In: Heath R, Hair O’ (ed) Handbook of risk and crisis communication. Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 412–445

Han RH, Schmidt MN, Waits WM, Bell AK, Miller TL (2020) Planning for mental health needs during COVID-19. Curr Psychiatry Rep 22(12):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-020-01189-6

Heath R, O’ Hair H (2010) The significance of crisis and risk communication. In: Heath R, Hair O’ (ed) Handbook of risk and crisis communication. Routledge, New York, pp. 5–30

Chapter Google Scholar

Henderson B, Vikander N (eds) (2007) Nature first: outdoor life the friluftsliv way. Dundurn

Houston JB et al. (2014) Social media and disasters: a functional framework for social media use in disaster planning, response, and research. Disasters 39(1):1–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/disa.12092

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Hungnes S (2016) Den norske dugnadskulturen (The Norwegian voluntary culture. https://agendamagasin.no/kommentarer/den-norske-dugnadskulturen/ . Accessed 25 May 2021

Jenzen O, Erhart I, Eslen-Ziya H, Korkut U, McGarry A (2021) The symbol of social media in contemporary protest: Twitter and the Gezi Park movement. Convergence 27(2):414–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856520933747

Jørgensen-Vittersø KA (2021) From fresh air and sunbathing to wildlife and snow caves: ‘Friluftsliv’in norwegian primary schools, 1939–1980. In: Roos M, Berge KL, Edgren H (eds) Exploring textbooks and cultural change in nordic education 1536–2020. Brill, pp 245–259

Karlsen R, Enjolras B (2016) Styles of social media campaigning and influence in a hybrid political communication system: linking candidate survey data with Twitter data. Inte J Press/Politics 21(3):338–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161216645335

Kavanaugh AL, Fox EA, Sheetz SD, Yang S, Li LT, Shoemaker DJ et al. (2012) Social media use by government: from the routine to the critical. Gov Inform Q 29(4):480–91. https://doi.org/10.1145/2037556.2037574

Kim S, Liu BF (2012) Are all crises opportunities? A comparison of how corporate and government organizations responded to the 2009 flu pandemic. J Public Relat Res 24(1):69–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726x.2012.626136

Koh PK-K, Chan LL, Tan E-K (2020) Messaging fatigue and desensitisation to information during pandemic. Arch Med Res 51(7):716–717. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arcmed.2020.06.014

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Larsen K (2021) Erna Solbergs popularitet stuper (Erna Solberg’s popularity plummets). https://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/erna-solbergs-popularitet-stuper/73597485 . Accessed 15th Apr

Larsson AO (2015) Pandering, protesting, engaging. Norwegian party leaders on Facebook during the 2013 ‘Short campaign’. Inform Commun Soc 18(4):459–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2014.967269

Lee ST, Basnyat I (2013) From press release to news: mapping the framing of the 2009 H1N1 A influenza pandemic. Health Commun 28(2):119–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2012.658550

Lund J (2021) Somling, rot og ulovligheter (Procrastination, clutter and illegalities). https://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/kommentar/i/BlPRjw/somling-rot-og-ulovligheter . Accessed on 25 May 2021

Lunn P, Belton C, Lavin C, McGowan F, Timmons S, Robertson D (2020) Using behavioural science to help fight the coronavirus. J Behav Public Administration, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.30636/jbpa.31.147

Maak T, Pless NM, Wohlgezogen F (2021) The fault lines of leadership: Lessons from the global Covid-19 crisis. J Change Manag 21(1):66–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2021.1861724

Moss SM, Sandbakken EM (2021) “Everybody needs to do their part, so we can get this under control.” reactions to the norwegian government meta‐narratives on COVID‐19 measures. Polit Psychol 42(5):881–898. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12727

Notaker H, Tvedt KA (2021) Stor Norske Leksikon: Erna Solberg ( https://snl.no/Erna_Solberg . Accessed on 20 Apr 2021

Nilsen ACE, Skarpenes O (2020) Coping with COVID-19. Dugnad: a case of the moral premise of the Norwegian welfare state. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy. (ahead-of-print). https://doi.org/10.1108/ijssp-07-2020-0263

Petersen MB (2020) The unpleasant truth is the best protection against coronavirus. Politiken. https://pure.au.dk/portal/files/181464339/The_unpleasant_truth_is_the_best_protection_against_coronavirus_Michael_Bang_Petersen.pdf . Accessed 11 Jun 2021

Reddy BV, Gupta A (2020) Importance of effective communication during COVID-19 infodemic. J Fam Med Prim Care 9(8):3793. https://doi.org/10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_719_20

Reuters (2013) Iron Erna’s softer side wins through in Norway election 2013. https://www.scmp.com/news/world/article/1307898/iron-ernas-softer-side-wins-through-norway-election . Accessed 27 Apr 2021

Sandelowski M (1994) Focus on qualitative methods. The use of quotes in qualitative research. Res Nurs Health 17(6):479–482. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.4770170611

Sang X, Menhas R, Saqib ZA, Mahmood S, Weng Y, Khurshid S, et al. (2020) The psychological impacts of CoViD-19 home confinement and physical activity: a structural equation model analysis. Front Psychol 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.614770

Schultz F, Utz S, Göritz A (2011) Is the medium the message? Perceptions of and reactions to crisis communication via twitter, blogs and traditional media. Public Relat Rev 37(1):20–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2010.12.001

Shah K, Kamrai D, Mekala H, Mann B, Desai K, Patel RS (2020) Focus on mental health during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic: applying learnings from the past outbreaks. Cureus 12(3). https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.7405

Shamir B, House RJ, Arthur MB (1993) The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: a self-concept based theory. Organ Sci 4(4):577–94. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.4.4.577

Shen L (2010) Mitigating psychological reactance: the role of message-induced empathy in persuasion. Hum Commun Res 36(3):397–422. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2010.01381.x

Article ADS Google Scholar

Simon C, Mobekk H (2019) Dugnad: a fact and a narrative of Norwegian prosocial behavior. Perspect Behav Sci 42(4):815–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-019-00227-w

Skirbekk H, Grimen H (2012) Tillit i Norge (Trust in Norway). Res Publica, Oslo

Stam D, van Knippenberg D, Wisse B, Nederveen Pieterse A (2018) Motivation in words: promotion-and prevention-oriented leader communication in times of crisis. J Manag 44(7):2859–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316654543

Stephens KK, Barrett AK, Mahometa MJ (2013) Organizational communication in emergencies: Using multiple channels and sources to combat noise and capture attention. Hum Commun Res 39(2):230–251. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12002

Sutton J, Spiro E, Butts C, Fitzhugh S, Johnson B, Greczek M (2013) Tweeting the spill: Online informal communications, social networks, and conversational microstructures during the Deepwater Horizon oilspill. Int J Inform Syst Crisis Resp Manag 5(1):58–76. https://doi.org/10.4018/jiscrm.2013010104

Tannenbaum MB, Hepler J, Zimmerman RS, Saul L, Jacobs S, Wilson K et al. (2015) Appealing to fear: a meta-analysis of fear appeal effectiveness and theories. Psychol Bull 141(6):1178. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039729

The Guardian (2021a) Norwegian PM Erna Solberg investigated for Covid rules breach. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/19/norwegian-pm-erna-solberg-investigated-for-covid-rules-breach . Accessed 25th Mar 2021

The Guardian (2021b) Norwegian PM fined after breaking Covid rules with birthday party. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/09/norway-prime-minister-erna-solberg-fined-breaking-covid-rules-birthday . Accessed 15th Mar 2021

Tjora A (2020) Tillitsfull dugnad eller instruert solidaritet (Trusting voluntary work or instructed solidarity) https://www.universitetsavisa.no/koronavirus-ytring/tillitsfull-dugnad-eller-instruert-solidaritet/111642 . Accessed on 21 May 2021

Utz S, Schultz F, Glocka S (2013) Crisis communication online: How medium, crisis type and emotions affected public reactions in the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. Public Relat Rev 39(1):40–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2012.09.010

Van Dijck J (2013) Facebook and the engineering of connectivity: A multi-layered approach to social media platforms. Convergence 19(2):141–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856512457548

Vogt H, Pahle A (2020) En fryktdrevet pandemi av varige helseproblemer (A fear-driven pandemic of lasting health problems) https://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/kronikk/i/opdB6a/en-fryktdrevet-pandemi-av-varige-helseproblemer . Accessed 20 May 2021

Wang W, Shen F (2019) The effects of health narratives: Examining the moderating role of persuasive intent. Health Market Q 36(2):120–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/07359683.2019.1575061

Article MathSciNet Google Scholar

Werliin R, Kokholm M (2016) Device study: Social media across the Nordics. https://www.audienceproject.com/wp-content/uploads/study_social_media_across_the_nordics.pdf . Accessed 18 Jun 2021

World Health Organization (2020a) Mental health and psychosocial considerations during the COVID-19 outbreak, 18 March 2020. https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/mental-health-considerations.pdf . Accessed 10 Jun 2021

World Health Organization (2020b) Pandemic fatigue: reinvigorating the public to prevent COVID-19: policy framework for supporting pandemic prevention and management: revised version November 2020. World Health Organization. Regional Office for Europe. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/337574 . Accessed 17 Jun 2021

World Health Organization (2021) WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard 2021 https://covid19.who.int/?gclid=Cj0KCQjw9_mDBhCGARIsAN3PaFNVuA3kABELXjY66cXUIVcTNNBkPrX57w1OtZL1GYBomSnvTRflQTcaAoxkEALw_wcB . Accessed 18 Apr 2021

Download references

Acknowledgements

This article is published as part of the research project ‘Fighting Pandemics with Enhanced Risk Communication: Messages, Compliance and Vulnerability During the COVID-19 Outbreak (PAN-FIGHT)’, which is financed by the Norwegian Research Council (Project number: 312767).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway

Sanjana Arora & Hande Eslen-Ziya

Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway

Jonas Debesay

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sanjana Arora .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Additional information.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Arora, S., Debesay, J. & Eslen-Ziya, H. Persuasive narrative during the COVID-19 pandemic: Norwegian Prime Minister Erna Solberg’s posts on Facebook. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 9 , 35 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01051-5

Download citation

Received : 12 October 2021

Accepted : 17 January 2022

Published : 01 February 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01051-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Norwegian “dugnad” as a rhetorical device in public health communication during the covid-19 pandemic. a qualitative study from immigrant’s perspectives.

Raquel Herrero-Arias
Irina Vladimirovna Halbostad
Esperanza Diaz

Archives of Public Health (2024)

Quick links

Explore articles by subject
Guide to authors
Editorial policies

All health topics

Handwashing an effective tool to prevent COVID-19, other diseases

SEAR/PR/1744 New Delhi - Ten months into the pandemic, handwashing with soap remains one of our best defenses against the virus, along with other public health measures such as maintaining physical distance, avoiding crowded places, practising cough etiquette and wearing a mask wherever recommended.

Global Handwashing Day observed annually on October 15 to raise awareness and highlight the importance of handwashing as an effective means of disease prevention – this year marks a critical reminder for the world and the Region that this simple, cost effective practice can save lives.

‘Handwashing has always been one of most effective ways of keeping diseases at bay. It is a simple act that pays in dividends when it comes to keeping ourselves healthy and safe. Handwashing is also one of the key cornerstones of COVID-19 prevention. Now more than ever as we embrace the new normal and live with COVID-19, hand hygiene needs to become an integral part of our daily routine and our lives, as we live through this pandemic, and beyond, to protect us from diseases,’ said Dr Poonam Khetrapal Singh, Regional Director, WHO South-East Asia Region.

With COVID-19 transmission mainly spreading between people through direct, indirect (through contaminated objects or surfaces), or close contact with infected people via mouth and nose secretions, washing hands with soap and running water is of critical importance. To stop the spread of COVID-19, along with other COVID appropriate behaviours, the practice of handwashing at regular intervals is a must, after coughing or sneezing, when caring for the sick, after using the toilet, before eating, while preparing food and after handling animals or animal waste. Handwashing after touching common surfaces such as doorknobs or handles, or after one comes back home from visiting a public place will keep ourselves and others around us safe.

“Promoting hand hygiene at all levels of health care is also critical. Hand hygiene, a very simple action, is well accepted to be one of the primary modes of reducing health care-associated infection and of enhancing patient safety,” the Regional Director said.

The pandemic is still among us and it is far from over. We must remind ourselves of the basics that we as individuals can do to keep ourselves safe, she said.

This year’s Global Handwashing Day theme is Hand Hygiene for All and calls for all of society to achieve universal hand hygiene. To beat the virus today and ensure better health outcomes beyond the pandemic, handwashing with soap must be a priority now and in the future.

Media Contacts

Shamila Sharma

Public Information and Advocacy Officer WHO South-East Asia Regional Office

Masks Strongly Recommended but Not Required in Maryland, Starting Immediately

Due to the downward trend in respiratory viruses in Maryland, masking is no longer required but remains strongly recommended in Johns Hopkins Medicine clinical locations in Maryland. Read more .

Vaccines
Masking Guidelines
Visitor Guidelines

Staying Safe from COVID-19

Reviewed By:

Lisa Lockerd Maragakis, M.D., M.P.H.

The coronavirus that causes COVID-19 spreads primarily from person to person through respiratory droplets. This can happen when someone with the virus coughs, sneezes, sings or talks when close to others. By closely following a few safety measures, you can help protect yourself and others from getting sick.

Lisa Maragakis , senior director of infection prevention at Johns Hopkins, shares these guidelines:

Get vaccinated for COVID-19 and get a booster as soon as you’re eligible

Several COVID-19 vaccines have been approved or authorized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for emergency use among specific age groups and recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Johns Hopkins Medicine views all authorized COVID-19 vaccines as highly effective at preventing serious disease, hospitalization and death from COVID-19.

Learn more about coronavirus vaccine safety and COVID-19 boosters .

Be aware of infection rates in your area

As more people get vaccinated, the rates of infection and hospitalization will vary in your area. For the foreseeable future, it’s a good idea to be familiar with the vaccination and COVID-19 data for your area and follow the local, state and federal safety guidelines.

Practice physical distancing

The coronavirus spreads mainly from person to person. If an infected person coughs or sneezes, their droplets can infect people nearby. People, including children, may be infected and have only mild symptoms, so physical distancing (staying at least 6 feet apart from others) is an important part of coronavirus protection.

Wear a mask

Wear a face mask in crowded, indoor situations since people carrying the SARS-CoV-2 virus and unvaccinated or vulnerable people might be present. Johns Hopkins Medicine and other health care institutions require all visitors, patients and staff to wear masks in all of their hospitals, treatment centers and offices. Learn more information about how masks help prevent the spread of COVID-19.

Practice hand hygiene

After being in public places and touching door handles, shopping carts, elevator buttons or handrails
After using the bathroom
Before preparing food or eating
If soap and water are not available, use hand sanitizer with at least 60% alcohol.
Avoid touching your eyes, nose or mouth, especially with unwashed hands.
If you cough or sneeze, do so in the bend of your elbow. If you use a tissue, throw it away immediately.

Take precautions if you are living with or caring for someone who is sick

Wear a mask if you are caring for someone who has respiratory symptoms.
Clean counters, door knobs, phones and tablets frequently, using disinfectant cleaners or wipes.

If you feel sick, follow these guidelines:

Stay home if you feel sick unless you are experiencing a medical emergency such as severe shortness of breath.
Take measures to keep others in your home safe, and follow precautions recommended by the CDC to avoid infecting others .
Call your doctor or urgent care facility and explain your symptoms over the phone.
If you leave your home to get medical care, wear a mask if you have respiratory symptoms.

Coronavirus (COVID-19)

Scientist carefully insets a pipette into a test tube.

What you need to know from Johns Hopkins Medicine.

Trauma Team Puts an Athlete Back in the Saddle

Illustrated doctor and patient speaking together

Patient Safety Infographic

Comparación entre la COVID-19 y la gripe