Physical risk messaging enhances favorable attitudes toward mask wearing

Abstract

While masks slow the transmission of COVID-19, many resist wearing them. Extant public service messaging focuses on creating social norms around mask wearing.Drawing on protection motivation theory, we conduct a copy test to determine whether focusing on the physical risks or focusing on the social risks of contracting COVID-19 is more persuasive in motivating mask wearing. We find that physical risk messaging is more persuasive than social risk messaging and find that the effect is partially mediated by fear of COVID-19. The mediation is moderated by germ aversion. Specifically, we find people who are high in germ aversion respond to both physical and social risk messaging. However, people low in germ aversion respond only to physical risk messaging-and these are the people who are less likely to wear masks. Our findings offer public health agencies a fresh approach for encouraging those who are resistant to mask wearing to wear a mask.

The role of response efficacy and risk aversion in promoting compliance during crisis

“…In doing so, it aligns with early research on government mandates (i.e., seatbelt requirements) and risk perceptions (Dardis, 1983, 1988). Additionally, these findings align with recent research which finds that consumers who have high levels of aversion to germs are more likely to have positive attitudes toward mask wearing in the context of the COVID‐19 pandemic (Yeh et al, 2021).…”

“…We contribute to the existing literature that has examined messaging strategies in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic (Jiang & Dodoo, 2021;van Esch et al, 2021;Yeh et al, 2021), while also providing managerial implications that are specific to our findings. Indeed, our research suggests that marketers and policymakers need to be aware of the importance of response efficacy, risk aversion, and anticipated guilt in affecting prosocial behaviors during crisis.…”

“…Further, this work contributes to our knowledge of Protection Motivation Theory and response efficacy, which has received limited attention in the marketing literature. Past marketing research which has employed PMT as its theoretical lens has done so primarily in the context of advertising (e.g., Pechmann et al, 2003; Tanner Jr et al, 1991; Yeh et al, 2021) and online consumption behaviors (e.g., Milne et al, 2009; Wottrich et al, 2019; Youn, 2009). In addition to applying PMT to aid in our understanding of consumer responses during the COVID‐19 pandemic, this research contributes to PMT by identifying anticipated guilt as a mediating mechanism underlying the relationship between our focal coping‐appraisal (response efficacy) and protective behaviors such as COVID‐compliance.…”

Seeking thrills during a crisis? A TSR and hierarchy of effects perspective of the transformative potential of travel

“…Wei et al (2021) focus specifically on the risk of contracting COVID-19 and the severity of symptoms and intentions to dine out. Thus, while prior work on the perceived risks of the COVID-19 pandemic in travel and service-related literature has provided important initial insights (Joo et al , 2021; Sánchez-Cañizares et al , 2021; Yeh et al , 2021), there is an opportunity to refine and extend understanding of the variety of perceptions of risks related to the COVID-19 crisis. Another influential factor that impacts both risk perceptions and well-being is resilience, and this concept is reviewed and defined next.…”

“…Despite health and financial risks being of concern in COVID-19-related studies, a review of the literature demonstrates many studies have focused on broad, nonspecified types of risk (Joo et al, 2021;S anchez-Cañizares et al, 2021) or solely on health-related risks (Yeh et al, 2021) The impact of travel for well-being is strongest for those with low sensationseeking perceptions of risks of travelling due to the COVID-19 pandemic broadly and its impact on attitude to travel and intentions to travel, not specifying whether the risk was related solely to health, financial or both. Wei et al (2021) focus specifically on the risk of contracting COVID-19 and the severity of symptoms and intentions to dine out.…”