Effects of Narrative Messages on Key COVID-19 Protective Responses: Findings From a Randomized Online Experiment

We investigated the effectiveness of narrative vs non-narrative messages in changing COVID-19-related perceptions and intentions.

The study employed a between-subjects two-group (narratives vs non-narratives) experimental design and was administered online.

1804 U.S. adults recruited via Amazon MTurk in September 2020 were randomly assigned to one of two experimental conditions and read either three narrative or three non-narrative messages about social distancing, vaccination, and unproven treatments.

Perceptions and intentions were assessed before and after message exposure (7-point scales).

Using multivariable regression, we assessed main effects of the experimental condition (controlling for baseline measures) and interactions between the condition and pre-exposure perceptions/intentions in predicting post-exposure outcomes.

Compared to non-narratives, narratives led to (1) less positive perceptions about the benefits of unproven treatments (M = 3.60, M = 3.77, P = .007); and (2) less willingness to receive an unproven drug (M = 3.46, M = 3.77, P < .001); this effect was stronger among individuals with higher baseline willingness to receive unproven drugs (baseline willingness = 2.09: b = -.06, P = .461; baseline willingness = 3.90: b = -.30, P < .001; baseline willingness = 5.71: b = -.55, P < .001). Narratives also led to more positive perceptions of vaccine safety/effectiveness, but only among individuals with lower baseline vaccine perceptions (baseline perceptions = 4.51: b = .10, P = .008; baseline perceptions = 5.89: b = .04, P = .167; baseline perceptions = 7: b = -.01, P = .688).

Narratives are a promising communication strategy, particularly for topics where views are not entrenched and among individuals who are more resistant to recommendations.