persuasive essay covid 19

Persuasive Essay Guide

Persuasive Essay About Covid19

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

11 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:

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:

Step 5: Provide Background Information

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

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:

Step 7: Address Counterarguments

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

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:

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 Covid19

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:

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 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

Start by narrowing down your focus. COVID-19 is a broad topic, so selecting a specific aspect or issue related to it will make your essay more persuasive and manageable. For example, you could focus on vaccination, public health measures, the economic impact, or misinformation.

Provide Credible Sources

Support your arguments with credible sources such as scientific studies, government reports, and reputable news outlets. Reliable sources enhance the credibility of your essay.

Use Persuasive Language

Employ persuasive techniques, such as ethos (establishing credibility), pathos (appealing to emotions), and logos (using logic and evidence). Use vivid examples and anecdotes to make your points relatable.

Organize Your Essay

Structure your essay involves creating a persuasive essay outline and establishing a logical flow from one point to the next. Each paragraph should focus on a single point, and transitions between paragraphs should be smooth and logical.

Emphasize Benefits

Highlight the benefits of your proposed actions or viewpoints. Explain how your suggestions can improve public health, safety, or well-being. Make it clear why your audience should support your position.

Use Visuals -H3

Incorporate graphs, charts, and statistics when applicable. Visual aids can reinforce your arguments and make complex data more accessible to your readers.

Call to Action

End your essay with a strong call to action. Encourage your readers to take a specific step or consider your viewpoint. Make it clear what you want them to do or think after reading your essay.

Revise and Edit

Proofread your essay for grammar, spelling, and clarity. Make sure your arguments are well-structured and that your writing flows smoothly.

Seek Feedback

Have someone else read your essay to get feedback. They may offer valuable insights and help you identify areas where your persuasive techniques can be improved.

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

Are there any ethical considerations when writing a persuasive essay about covid-19.

Yes, there are ethical considerations when writing a persuasive essay about COVID-19. It's essential to ensure the information is accurate, not contribute to misinformation, and be sensitive to the pandemic's impact on individuals and communities. Additionally, respecting diverse viewpoints and emphasizing public health benefits can promote ethical communication.

What impact does COVID-19 have on society?

The impact of COVID-19 on society is far-reaching. It has led to job and economic losses, an increase in stress and mental health disorders, and changes in education systems. It has also had a negative effect on social interactions, as people have been asked to limit their contact with others.

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

Persuasive Essay Writing

Persuasive Essay About Covid 19

Top Examples of Persuasive Essay about Covid-19

Published on: Jan 10, 2023

Last updated on: Jan 29, 2024

Examples of Persuasive Essay About Covid-19

The coronavirus pandemic has everyone on edge. You can expect your teachers to give you an essay about covid-19. You might be overwhelmed about what to write in an essay.

Worry no more!

Here are a few examples to help get you started.

Persuasive Essay About Covid-19 Pandemic

Sample Of Persuasive Essay About Covid-19

Persuasive Essay About Covid-19 In The Philippines - Example

Check out some more persuasive essay examples to get more inspiration and guidance.

Examples of Persuasive Essay About the Covid-19 Vaccine

With so much uncertainty surrounding the Covid-19 vaccine, it can be challenging for students to write a persuasive essay about getting vaccinated.

Here are a few examples of persuasive essays about vaccination against covid-19.

Check these out to learn more.

Persuasive essay on the covid-19 vaccine

Tough Essay Due? Hire a Writer!

Examples of Persuasive Essay About Covid-19 Integration

Writing a persuasive essay on Covid-19 integration doesn't have to be stressful or overwhelming.

With the right approach and preparation, you can write an essay that will get them top marks!

Here are a few samples of compelling persuasive essays. Give them a look and get inspiration for your next essay.

Integration of Covid-19 Persuasive essay

Integration of Covid-19 Persuasive essay sample

Examples of Argumentative Essay About Covid-19

Writing an argumentative essay can be a daunting task, especially when the topic is as broad as the novel coronavirus pandemic.

Read the following examples of how to make a compelling argument on covid-19.

Argumentative essay on Covid-19

Argumentative Essay On Covid-19

Examples of Persuasive Speeches About Covid-19

Writing a persuasive speech about anything can seem daunting. However, writing a persuasive speech about something as important as the Covid-19 pandemic doesnât have to be difficult.

So let's explore some examples of perfectly written persuasive essays.

Persuasive Speech About Covid-19 Example

Tips to Write a Persuasive Essay

Here are seven tips that can help you create a strong argument on the topic of covid-19.

Check out this informative video to learn more about effective tips and tricks for writing persuasive essays.

1. Start with an attention-grabbing hook:

Use a quote, statistic, or interesting fact related to your argument at the beginning of your essay to draw the reader in.

2. Make sure you have a clear thesis statement:

A thesis statement is one sentence that expresses the main idea of your essay. It should clearly state your stance on the topic and provide a strong foundation for the rest of your content.

3. Support each point with evidence:

To make an effective argument, you must back up each point with credible evidence from reputable sources. This will help build credibility and validate your claims throughout your paper.

4. Use emotional language and tone:

Emotional appeals are powerful tools to help make your argument more convincing. Use appropriate language for the audience and evokes emotion to draw them in and get them on board with your claims.

5. Anticipate counterarguments:

Use proper counterarguments to effectively address all point of views.

Acknowledge opposing viewpoints and address them directly by providing evidence or reasoning why they are wrong.

6. Stay focused:

Keep your main idea in mind throughout the essay, making sure all of your arguments support it. Donât stray off-topic or introduce unnecessary information that will distract from the purpose of your paper.

7. Conclude strongly:

Make sure you end on a strong note. Reemphasize your main points, restate your thesis statement, and challenge the reader to respond or take action in some way. This will leave a lasting impression in their minds and make them more likely to agree with you.

Writing an effective persuasive essay is a piece of cake with our guide and examples. Check them out to learn more!

Tough Essay Due? Hire Tough Writers!

We hope that you have found the inspiration to write your next persuasive essay about covid-19.

However, If you're overwhelmed by the task, don't worry - our professional essay writing service is here to help.

Our expert and experienced persuasive essay writer can help you write a persuasive essay on covid-19 that gets your readers' attention.

Our professional essay writer can provide you with all the resources and support you need to craft a well-written, well-researched essay. Our essay writing service offers top-notch quality and guaranteed results.

Frequently Asked Questions

How do you begin a persuasive essay.

To begin a persuasive essay, you must choose a topic you feel strongly about and formulate an argument or position. Start by researching your topic thoroughly and then formulating your thesis statement.

What are good topics for persuasive essays?

Good topics for persuasive essays include healthcare reform, gender issues, racial inequalities, animal rights, environmental protection, and political change. Other popular topics are social media addiction, internet censorship, gun control legislation, and education reform.

What impact does COVID-19 have on society?

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a major impact on society worldwide. It has changed the way we interact with one another. The pandemic has also caused economic disruption, forcing many businesses to close or downsize their operations.

Cathy A. (Literature, Education)

For more than five years now, Cathy has been one of our most hardworking authors on the platform. With a Masters degree in mass communication, she knows the ins and outs of professional writing. Clients often leave her glowing reviews for being an amazing writer who takes her work very seriously.

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

Keep reading

Legal & Policies

Privacy Policy
Cookies Policy
Terms of Use
Refunds & Cancellations
Our Writers
Success Stories
Our Guarantees
Affiliate Program
Referral Program
AI Essay Writer

Disclaimer: All client orders are completed by our team of highly qualified human writers. The essays and papers provided by us are not to be used for submission but rather as learning models only.

How to Write About Coronavirus in a College Essay

Students can share how they navigated life during the coronavirus pandemic in a full-length essay or an optional supplement.

Writing About COVID-19 in College Essays

Serious disabled woman concentrating on her work she sitting at her workplace and working on computer at office

Getty Images

Experts say students should be honest and not limit themselves to merely their experiences with the pandemic.

The global impact of COVID-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus, means colleges and prospective students alike are in for an admissions cycle like no other. Both face unprecedented challenges and questions as they grapple with their respective futures amid the ongoing fallout of the pandemic.

Colleges must examine applicants without the aid of standardized test scores for many – a factor that prompted many schools to go test-optional for now . Even grades, a significant component of a college application, may be hard to interpret with some high schools adopting pass-fail classes last spring due to the pandemic. Major college admissions factors are suddenly skewed.

"I can't help but think other (admissions) factors are going to matter more," says Ethan Sawyer, founder of the College Essay Guy, a website that offers free and paid essay-writing resources.

College essays and letters of recommendation , Sawyer says, are likely to carry more weight than ever in this admissions cycle. And many essays will likely focus on how the pandemic shaped students' lives throughout an often tumultuous 2020.

But before writing a college essay focused on the coronavirus, students should explore whether it's the best topic for them.

Writing About COVID-19 for a College Application

Much of daily life has been colored by the coronavirus. Virtual learning is the norm at many colleges and high schools, many extracurriculars have vanished and social lives have stalled for students complying with measures to stop the spread of COVID-19.

"For some young people, the pandemic took away what they envisioned as their senior year," says Robert Alexander, dean of admissions, financial aid and enrollment management at the University of Rochester in New York. "Maybe that's a spot on a varsity athletic team or the lead role in the fall play. And it's OK for them to mourn what should have been and what they feel like they lost, but more important is how are they making the most of the opportunities they do have?"

That question, Alexander says, is what colleges want answered if students choose to address COVID-19 in their college essay.

But the question of whether a student should write about the coronavirus is tricky. The answer depends largely on the student.

"In general, I don't think students should write about COVID-19 in their main personal statement for their application," Robin Miller, master college admissions counselor at IvyWise, a college counseling company, wrote in an email.

"Certainly, there may be exceptions to this based on a student's individual experience, but since the personal essay is the main place in the application where the student can really allow their voice to be heard and share insight into who they are as an individual, there are likely many other topics they can choose to write about that are more distinctive and unique than COVID-19," Miller says.

Opinions among admissions experts vary on whether to write about the likely popular topic of the pandemic.

"If your essay communicates something positive, unique, and compelling about you in an interesting and eloquent way, go for it," Carolyn Pippen, principal college admissions counselor at IvyWise, wrote in an email. She adds that students shouldn't be dissuaded from writing about a topic merely because it's common, noting that "topics are bound to repeat, no matter how hard we try to avoid it."

Above all, she urges honesty.

"If your experience within the context of the pandemic has been truly unique, then write about that experience, and the standing out will take care of itself," Pippen says. "If your experience has been generally the same as most other students in your context, then trying to find a unique angle can easily cross the line into exploiting a tragedy, or at least appearing as though you have."

But focusing entirely on the pandemic can limit a student to a single story and narrow who they are in an application, Sawyer says. "There are so many wonderful possibilities for what you can say about yourself outside of your experience within the pandemic."

He notes that passions, strengths, career interests and personal identity are among the multitude of essay topic options available to applicants and encourages them to probe their values to help determine the topic that matters most to them – and write about it.

That doesn't mean the pandemic experience has to be ignored if applicants feel the need to write about it.

Writing About Coronavirus in Main and Supplemental Essays

Students can choose to write a full-length college essay on the coronavirus or summarize their experience in a shorter form.

To help students explain how the pandemic affected them, The Common App has added an optional section to address this topic. Applicants have 250 words to describe their pandemic experience and the personal and academic impact of COVID-19.

"That's not a trick question, and there's no right or wrong answer," Alexander says. Colleges want to know, he adds, how students navigated the pandemic, how they prioritized their time, what responsibilities they took on and what they learned along the way.

If students can distill all of the above information into 250 words, there's likely no need to write about it in a full-length college essay, experts say. And applicants whose lives were not heavily altered by the pandemic may even choose to skip the optional COVID-19 question.

"This space is best used to discuss hardship and/or significant challenges that the student and/or the student's family experienced as a result of COVID-19 and how they have responded to those difficulties," Miller notes. Using the section to acknowledge a lack of impact, she adds, "could be perceived as trite and lacking insight, despite the good intentions of the applicant."

To guard against this lack of awareness, Sawyer encourages students to tap someone they trust to review their writing , whether it's the 250-word Common App response or the full-length essay.

Experts tend to agree that the short-form approach to this as an essay topic works better, but there are exceptions. And if a student does have a coronavirus story that he or she feels must be told, Alexander encourages the writer to be authentic in the essay.

"My advice for an essay about COVID-19 is the same as my advice about an essay for any topic – and that is, don't write what you think we want to read or hear," Alexander says. "Write what really changed you and that story that now is yours and yours alone to tell."

Sawyer urges students to ask themselves, "What's the sentence that only I can write?" He also encourages students to remember that the pandemic is only a chapter of their lives and not the whole book.

Miller, who cautions against writing a full-length essay on the coronavirus, says that if students choose to do so they should have a conversation with their high school counselor about whether that's the right move. And if students choose to proceed with COVID-19 as a topic, she says they need to be clear, detailed and insightful about what they learned and how they adapted along the way.

"Approaching the essay in this manner will provide important balance while demonstrating personal growth and vulnerability," Miller says.

Pippen encourages students to remember that they are in an unprecedented time for college admissions.

"It is important to keep in mind with all of these (admission) factors that no colleges have ever had to consider them this way in the selection process, if at all," Pippen says. "They have had very little time to calibrate their evaluations of different application components within their offices, let alone across institutions. This means that colleges will all be handling the admissions process a little bit differently, and their approaches may even evolve over the course of the admissions cycle."

Searching for a college? Get our complete rankings of Best Colleges.

10 Ways to Discover College Essay Ideas

Tags: students , colleges , college admissions , college applications , college search , Coronavirus

2024 Best Colleges

Search for your perfect fit with the U.S. News rankings of colleges and universities.

College Admissions: Get a Step Ahead!

Sign up to receive the latest updates from U.S. News & World Report and our trusted partners and sponsors. By clicking submit, you are agreeing to our Terms and Conditions & Privacy Policy .

Ask an Alum: Making the Most Out of College

States' Responses to FAFSA Delays

Sarah Wood May 30, 2024

Nonacademic Factors in College Searches

Sarah Wood May 28, 2024

Takeaways From the NCAA’s Settlement

Laura Mannweiler May 24, 2024

New Best Engineering Rankings June 18

Robert Morse and Eric Brooks May 24, 2024

Premedical Programs: What to Know

Sarah Wood May 21, 2024

How Geography Affects College Admissions

Cole Claybourn May 21, 2024

Q&A: College Alumni Engagement

LaMont Jones, Jr. May 20, 2024

10 Destination West Coast College Towns

Cole Claybourn May 16, 2024

Scholarships for Lesser-Known Sports

Sarah Wood May 15, 2024

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.

Most Popular

Your favorite brand no longer cares about being woke, the nra just won a big supreme court victory. good., what’s really happening to grocery prices right now, the felon frontrunner: how trump warped our politics, the obscure federal intelligence bureau that got vietnam, iraq, and ukraine right, today, explained.

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

More in Culture

Why the uncanny “All eyes on Rafah” image went so viral

Leaked video reveals the lie of Miss Universe’s empowerment promise

The Sympathizer takes on Hollywood’s Vietnam War stories

The NCAA’s proposal to pay college athletes is fair. That's the problem.

The WNBA’s meteoric rise in popularity, in one chart

Why the ludicrous Republican response to Trump’s conviction matters

Trump’s remaining 3 indictments, ranked by the stakes

The felon frontrunner: How Trump warped our politics

A producer on The Apprentice alleges Trump used the n-word

The NRA just won a big Supreme Court victory. Good.

Congress’s online child safety bill, explained

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

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

President Michael S. Roth ’78: “We Must Learn to Practice Freedom, Better”

Gallery: wesleyan’s 192nd commencement.

Wesleyan University Celebrated its 192nd Commencement, Sunday

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.

Latest news
UCL in the media
Services for media
Student news
Tell us your story

Persuasion key in encouraging people to stay home during Covid-19

13 April 2021

Read: Telegraph (£)

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 & Services
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
Videos, Code & Data
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.

Priorities for the GSB's Future
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
Certificate & Award Recipients
Teaching Approach
Analysis and Measurement of Impact
The Corporate Entrepreneur: Startup in a Grown-Up Enterprise
Data-Driven Impact
Designing Experiments for Impact
Digital Business Transformation
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
2023 Awardees
2022 Awardees
2021 Awardees
2020 Awardees
2019 Awardees
2018 Awardees
Social Management Immersion Fund
Stanford Impact Founder Fellowships and Prizes
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
Career Advancement
Career Change
How You Will Learn
Admission Events
Personal Information
Information for Recommenders
GMAT, GRE & EA
English Proficiency Tests
After You’re Admitted
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
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
My Account Login
Explore content
About the journal
Publish with us
Sign up for alerts
Open access
Published: 28 October 2021

Discursive structures and power relations in Covid-19 knowledge production

Mario Bisiada ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3145-1512 1

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume 8 , Article number: 248 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

5333 Accesses

7 Citations

2 Altmetric

Metrics details

Cultural and media studies
Language and linguistics

This article critically examines the discourse around the Covid-19 pandemic to investigate the widespread polarisation evident in social media debates. The model of epidemic psychology holds that initial adverse reactions to a new disease spread through linguistic interaction. The main argument is that the mediation of the pandemic through social media has fomented the effects of epidemic psychology in the reaction to the Covid-19 pandemic by providing continued access to commentary and linguistic interaction. This social interaction in the absence of any knowledge on the new disease can be seen as a discourse of knowledge production, conducted largely on social media. This view, coupled with a critical approach to the power relations inherent in all processes of knowledge production, provides an approach to understanding the dynamics of polarisation, which is, arguably, issue-related and not along common ideological lines of left and right. The paper critiques two discursive structures of exclusion, the terms science and conspiracy theory , which have characterised the knowledge production discourse of the Covid-19 pandemic on social media. As strategies of dialogic contraction, they are based on a hegemonic view of knowledge production and on the simplistic assumption of an emancipated position outside ideology. Such an approach, though well-intentioned, may ultimately undermine social movements of knowledge production and thus threaten the very values it aims to protect. Instead, the paper proposes a Foucauldian approach that problematises truth claims and scientificity as always ideological and that is aware of power as inherent to all knowledge production.

Constructing collective identities and solidarity in premiers’ early speeches on COVID-19: a global perspective

Communicating science in the COVID-19 news in the UK during Omicron waves: exploring representations of nature of science with epistemic network analysis

Transmediatisation of the Covid-19 crisis in Brazil: The emergence of (bio-/geo-)political repertoires of (re-)interpretation

The first truly global, digitally mediated event.

The Covid-19 pandemic is the first truly global event:

Not the Black Plague, not the transatlantic slave trade nor the two World Wars, not the 9/11 terrorist attacks have affected everyone, on every continent, as instantly and intimately and acutely as the spread of coronavirus, uniting us as we fear and think and hope about the same thing. (Badhken, 2020 )

While other events of historical magnitude had a global impact, they “were not experienced by the entire world at the same time” (Milanović, 2020 )—though this experience takes a different form for each of us, in terms of both our personal reaction and that of the country we live in. What unites these personal experiences is that they have been largely digital because, apart from being the first truly global event, it is also “the first epidemic in history in which people around the world have been collectively expressing their thoughts and concerns on social media” (Aiello et al., 2021 , p. 1). So our first global event is also the one “where we never met face-to-face in real-time with other people who lived through it” (Milanović, 2020 ).

Social media turned into the prime channel of the public sphere in quarantined societies, and a rigid and noxious polarisation evidently dominates the discourse (European Court of Human Rights, 2021 ; Yang, 2021 ). The question of why a crisis that should unite us in our communal struggle against a virus has produced such a divided society has put the spotlight on social media, which are still commonly assumed to be geared to create polarisation. The banning of @realdonaldtrump from Twitter may be read by future media scholars as to the beginning of an era of control of social media, as the end of Silicon Valley companies’ innocence as mediators of discourse. Since the global communities’ engagement in a fight against information disorder may produce other bans and regulations of free speech on public networks, the discussion of the role of social media as a public sphere will take important turns in the coming years.

In Rosenberg’s ( 1989 , p. 2) terms, as particular societies construct their characteristic responses following dramaturgic forms, epidemics are extraordinary opportunities to gain an “understanding of the relationship among ideology, social structure, and the construction of particular selves”. To understand “our contemporary reaction to a traditional stimulus”, we must distinguish between what is unique and what seems to be universal to pandemic responses (Rosenberg, 1989 , p. 2). This article tries to take the first step towards this goal through a critical approach to the discourse on the Covid-19 pandemic. An aspect unique to this pandemic is that it has been mediated primarily by social media. How this has shaped the response will be subject to extensive study in years to come, and the large amount of language data this has produced will be of great interest to social media discourse analysts. I propose that the mediating role of social media has provided the opportunity to approach the pandemic through the mode of knowledge production practice that is already exhibited by social movements. Contests over this knowledge production, however, led to a polarisation that cannot be explained comprehensively by common partisan affiliations but that should be understood to be interpretative, that is, predominantly issue-related. I argue that this polarisation has caused, and is caused by, among other things, discursive structures of exclusion, specifically through the hegemonic use of terms such as conspiracy theories and science . The following section will begin this argument by introducing the model of epidemic psychology that I adopt to understand our reaction to the Covid-19 pandemic.

Epidemic psychology and the virtual public sphere

Strong ( 1990 ) proposes the “epidemic psychology” model to describe the early reaction to new fatal diseases. He comments on the “striking problems that large, fatal epidemics seem to present to social order; on the waves of fear, panic, stigma, moralising, and calls to action that seem to characterise the immediate reaction” and the “extraordinary emotional maelstrom which seems, at least for a time, to be beyond anyone’s immediate control” (Strong, 1990 , p. 249), descriptions that fit our experience in the first year of the Covid-19 pandemic quite well. Strong sees the capacity of language to enable coordinated action among large groups of people, our “shared intentionality” (Tomasello, 2008 , p. 343), as the key factor in epidemic psychology, making human societies “complex and, though elaborately organised, still potentially subject to fundamental change, simultaneously massively ordered and extraordinarily fragile” (Strong, 1990 , p. 256).

Most social action is based on routine: Strong ( 1990 , p. 257) cites Alfred Schütz’s idea that everyday life is “a matter neither of rationality nor irrationality, but of routine”. Similarly, Berger and Luckmann ( 1966 , p. 172) have argued that “the most important vehicle of reality-maintenance is casual conversation”, which “can afford to be casual precisely because it refers to the routines of a taken-for-granted world. The loss of casualness signals a break in the routines and, at least potentially, a threat to the taken-for-granted reality” (Berger and Luckmann, 1966 , p. 172). Such a threat to routine can lead to “epidemic psychology in which contagious waves of panic rip unpredictably through both individuals and the body politic, disrupting all manner of everyday practices, undermining faith in conventional authority” (Strong, 1990 , p. 257). In sum,

the human origin of epidemic psychology lies not so much in our unruly passions as in the threat of epidemic disease to our everyday assumptions, in the potential fragility of human social structure and interaction, and in the huge diversity and elaboration of human thought, morality and technology; based as all of these are upon words rather than genes. (Strong, 1990 , p. 258).

With language at the heart of epidemic psychology, the threshold at which epidemic psychology sets in may be lower in the digital age due to greater connectedness and thus exposure to language and conversation. The study of language use on social media is thus fundamental to understanding the social processes and transformations that will result from the Covid-19 pandemic. The Internet and social media are by now fundamentally important for all types of linguistic acts including casual conversation and coordinated social action. We produce and receive more language on a daily basis than ever (McCullock, 2019 , p. 2). In Foucauldian terms, social media provides the environment of commentary that keep alive a large amount of discourses which would otherwise disappear (Foucault, 1981 , pp. 56–57), thus creating the impression that particular knowledges are established. If we consider social media “important engines of context collapse, rather than enablers of ideological segregation” (Bruns, 2019 , p. 99), it should come as no surprise that the symptoms of epidemic psychology described by Strong ( 1990 ) set in so quickly and transversally in our societies (see, e.g. Esses and Hamilton, 2021 ; Aiello et al., 2021 ).

Social media use has increased vastly during the Covid-19 pandemic (Nguyen et al., 2020 ), and it is the connectedness through social media that makes this pandemic unlike any other (Aiello et al., 2021 ; Madrigal, 2020 ; Tsao et al., 2021 ). The possibility to experience it in a socially distanced way is afforded to us only by our digitalised world. As Harari ( 2021 ) observes, “[i]n 1918, […] if you ordered the entire population of a country to stay at home for several weeks, it would have resulted in economic ruin, social breakdown and mass starvation. In contrast, in 2020, […] automation and the Internet made extended lockdowns viable, at least in developed countries”. How viable they are in terms of long-term effects remains to be seen, and, as Harari ( 2021 ) rightfully notes, even this digital world could not function without “the crucial role that many low-paid professions play in maintaining human civilisation: nurses, sanitation workers, truck drivers, cashiers, delivery people”. Given this fundamental importance of digital access, the #StayHome narratives of lockdown life have been particularly developed-world, digitalised, middle class, childless narratives. But the key point is that “after 2020, we know that life can go on even when an entire country is in physical lockdown” (Harari, 2021 ).

How will this new importance of social media affect society? Whether virtual public spaces also constitute a virtual public sphere has long been discussed (for an overview, see Bruns and Highfield, 2016 ). While using social media empowers users by broadcasting their opinions more widely, “the same anonymity and absence of face-to-face interaction that expands our freedom of expression online keeps us from assessing the impact and social value of our words” (Papacharissi, 2002 , p. 16). In fact, this sense of empowerment may misrepresent the true impact of our opinions (Papacharissi, 2002 , p. 17) and also of those held by others: Because a few vocal users can create a lot of activity, browsing social media may give us a distorted view of society, making it appear more polarised than it actually is.

A case in point is the (now deleted) Twitter thread that made Eric Feigl-Ding famous: He summarised a paper about the new coronavirus with the words “HOLY MOTHER OF GOD—the new coronavirus is a 3.8!!!” and called this infectiousness “thermonuclear pandemic level bad” (24 January 2020). In a response thread on Twitter, science writer Ferris Jabr shows that Feigl-Ding’s thread “missed essential context and contains numerous errors” and argues that his “claim that ‘we are now faced with the most virulent virus epidemic the world has ever seen’ and that the new coronavirus is 8x as infectious as SARS is completely untrue” ( https://twitter.com/ferrisjabr/status/1220963553911271424 ). Feigl-Ding’s viral thread thus

exemplified a deep problem on Twitter: The most extreme statements can be far more amplified than more measured messages. In the information sphere, while public-health researchers are doing their best to distribute scientific evidence, viral Twitter threads, context-free videos, and even conspiracy theories are reaching far more people. (Madrigal, 2020 )

Some argue, however, that it’s exactly this recognition of constant evolution that should inform modern science, that Feigl-Ding has just understood how social media work and “committed the unpardonable sin of failing to act on Twitter like enough of a scientist—you know, terrified of getting something wrong, because science never does ” (Science+Story, 2020 ). As social media come under increasing pressure through debates over misinformation, one task the pandemic sets us is to work towards a virtual public sphere that goes beyond the imagined communities (Anderson, 1983 ) or virtual spheres “consist[ing] of several spheres of counterpublics that have been excluded from mainstream political discourse, yet employ virtual communication to restructure the mainstream that ousted them” (Papacharissi, 2002 , p. 21).

Most theorisations on the virtual public sphere consider it in conjunction with the non-virtual sphere. The new situation we face now is the temporary quasi-disappearance of physical interactions. As I have argued in this section, while epidemic psychology had been constrained in previous pandemics by the sheer absence of contact, it is now able to continue unchecked, simply because a lockdown no longer keeps us from conversing with the world. The public sphere has been forcibly moved into the virtual space, for a short yet decisive amount of time: Public shaming of “irresponsible” people, insults (“Covidiot”), dubious model predictions and all the other effects of epidemic psychology could be observed. This, as I argue in the following section, has made the Covid-19 pandemic a phenomenon of communal knowledge production practice.

The Covid-19 pandemic as process of knowledge production

The Covid-19 pandemic is a unique phenomenon of knowledge production practice in the history of humanity because the phenomena of epidemic psychology described by Strong ( 1990 ) are for the first time mediated by a global network, that is, social media. The knowledge production in the Covid-19 pandemic resembles, in an accelerated form, that of climate change. Our first global event also gave us the opportunity to learn together, in real time, across the globe. Social media turn not only politics from a closed space into “a conversation that can be joined by outsiders” (Ausserhofer and Maireder, 2013 , p. 306), but also science, by way of knowledge production practices. There has long been a discussion in the philosophy of science on how knowledge gets subsumed into “scientism”, defined as “the conviction that we can no longer understand science as one form of possible knowledge, but rather must identify knowledge with science” (Habermas, 1972 , p. 4). The Covid-19 pandemic has placed science along with its hegemonies in the spotlight of society, and it is thus informative to reflect on the relation between science and knowledge.

As a response to public fear, the Covid-19 pandemic has followed the model of epidemic psychology in generating an “exceptionally volatile intellectual state” (Strong, 1990 , p. 254), as little is known about the new disease (Davey Smith et al., 2020 ) and there was uncertainty about whether “a new disease or a new outbreak is trivial or whether it is really something enormously important”, leading to “collective disorientation” (Strong, 1990 , p. 254). This volatile intellectual state and disorientation have created discourses of knowledge production (Casas-Cortés et al., 2008 ; Della Porta and Pavan, 2017 ; Pavan and Felicetti, 2019 ), defined as “practices through which local and highly personal experiences, rationalities, and competences get connected and coordinated within shared cognitive systems which, in turn, provide movements and their supporters with a common orientation for making claims and acting collectively” (Pavan and Felicetti, 2019 , p. 3).

Such practices create what Foucault ( 1980 ) calls local, subjugated knowledges, defined as an “autonomous, non-centralised kind of theoretical production, one that is to say whose validity is not dependent on the approval of the established regimes of thought” (Foucault, 1980 , p. 81). While such theoretical production consists of “local, discontinuous, disqualified, illegitimate knowledges”, it does not constitute a right to ignorance or non-knowledge: it is opposed “not to the contents, methods or concepts of a science, but to the effects of the centralising powers which are linked to the institution and functioning of an organised scientific discourse” (Foucault, 1980 , p. 84). More recently, Fischer ( 2000 ) has shown how local contextual knowledge by citizens can help solve complex social and environmental problems. One example of these from the current pandemic are mutual aid groups (Engler, 2020 ; Mahanty and Phillipps, 2020 ; Sitrin and Colectiva Sembrar, 2020 ). However, the often centralising, heavy-handed or even authoritarian responses of governments, coupled with blanket policies that reflected little trust in the intelligence or autonomy of its citizens, hindered such knowledge production movements. Citizens were delegated to a passive role while a selected group of experts led the response, which mirrors the dynamics experienced by environmental movements (Fischer, 2000 , pp. 92–93).

A ready response to this volatile intellectual state tends to be that educated citizens should trust in science and condemn those who believe conspiracy theories, who spread fake news, who usher in an era of post-truth. Such a response, however, is often undergirded by a simplistic understanding of ideology, by the idea that we can and must somehow combat ideology and promote scientific truth through critical scrutiny of language and discourse in the media. Foucault criticised the usefulness of the notion of ideology for the fact that it “always stands in virtual opposition to something else which is supposed to count as truth” (Foucault, 1980 , p. 180). Rather than exploring a knowable reality, scientific enquiry has been described as constructive practice, that is, “oriented toward ‘making things work’ successfully and embedded in a reality which is highly artificial and essentially self-created” (Knorr-Cetina, 1977 , p. 670). In other words, assuming some kind of “false consciousness” within ideology presupposes the existence of a “consciousness which is not false (the position of critique)” (Mills, 2004 , p. 29), but such a position does not exist: “All knowledge is determined by a combination of social, institutional and discursive pressures” (Mills, 2004 , p. 30).

The dominating theoretical approaches to critical discourse studies hold that, through an awareness of linguistic/ideological oppression based on neo-Marxist or rationalist analysis, people are empowered to bring about social change and thus achieve emancipation (Hart and Cap, 2014 , p. 2). While this is a useful approach to studying language and social change, Pennycook ( 2001 , pp. 36–41) criticises such “emancipatory modernist” approaches as potentially patronising and argues that they lack the means to respond to the awareness of ideological oppression. Emancipatory modernist approaches to discourse are often grounded in a simplistic view of ideology juxtaposed with some “knowable reality” and hold the problematic notion that “scientific knowledge of reality can help us escape from the falsity of ideology” (Pennycook, 2001 , p. 41), a rationale that is itself often used by populist agitators (Bruns, 2019 , p. 114). Messianic attempts to help people see the light often fail, overlooking that many discourse practices aim to “explore others’ reaction to one’s identity and have it confirmed in interactions, including hostile reactions that confirm one’s status as a critical outsider” (Krämer, 2017 , p. 1302), thus cementing the very status one seeks to challenge into an emancipated position of its own. When studying epidemic psychology and the uncertain intellectual state it produces, it is thus more important than ever to remember that all language is political (Gee, 2011 , p. 10), all knowledge production is ideological and there is no truth or knowledge outside ideology (Pennycook, 2001 , p. 89).

As is the case with climate action, science’s indeterminacy, its raising more questions than it could answer, has led to its politicisation (Fischer, 2000 , p. 95). My argument in this section has been that, in the volatile intellectual state the Covid-19 pandemic has caused, the hegemonies of knowledge production, while always existing below the surface, have been made exceptionally visible. The restlessness of hypermediativity, fuelled by a constant generation and availability of data, allowed everyone to conduct “fact-based” statistical analyses and share them, around the clock. The fast exchange through social media and the way it empowers users to broadcast opinions and knowledge to wide audiences have caused a politicisation and polarisation of scientific debates (Clarke, 2020 ; Bhopal and Munro, 2021 ). In the context of the Covid-19 pandemic as a process of knowledge production, it is necessary to differentiate the concept of polarisation a bit further, as I will do in the next section.

Interpretative polarisation

In this paper, I understand polarisation as a dynamic phenomenon, driven by “interpretative” polarisation, “the process wherein different groups in a society contextualise a common topic in starkly different ways” so that “frames used by one camp are deemed unfounded, inappropriate, or illegitimate by other camps” (Kligler-Vilenchik et al., 2020 , p. 2). Social media are so rooted in our daily lives that they receive attention from a range of disciplines, and many commentators still purport that social media “foster extreme viewpoints by design” (Bhopal and Munro, 2021 ) and are thus inherently geared to produce polarisation.

A range of evidence argues against this deterministic view, however. In a review of a range of studies, Tucker et al. ( 2018 , pp. 15–16) argue that “[t]he consumption of political information through social media increases cross-cutting exposure, which has a range of positive effects on civic engagement, political moderation, and the quality of democratic politics, but also facilitates the spread of misinformation”. Bruns ( 2019 ) has cast doubt on Pariser’s ( 2011 ) concept of the “filter bubble”, and the popular idea that social bots on Twitter “pretend to be a human user and [are] operated by some sinister actor to manipulate public opinion” seems unfounded according to recent research (Gallwitz and Kreil, 2021 ). Frequent use of ever more available social media diversifies individuals’ networks, which may alleviate concerns about echo chambers on social media (Lee et al., 2014 ), though may not necessarily “create more informed citizens” (Papacharissi, 2002 , p. 15), or a public sphere as such: While social media use “may reduce ideological polarisation as a result of leading to higher cross-cutting exposure, it may simultaneously increase affective polarisation because of the negative nature of these interactions” (Tucker et al., 2018 , p. 21), of which the Covid-19 pandemic has provided many.

In the absence of knowledge on the disease, the reactions to the Covid-19 pandemic subverted the established ideological standpoints. The range of ideological persuasions observed at anti-lockdown protests and the fact that liberal thinkers argue for closed borders while conservative thinkers question night-time curfews and police presence shows that the conflict cannot be thought along the usual partisan lines. Research on polarisation has argued for the recognition of various dimensions of opinion polarisation: Where new issues arise, people are prepared to deviate from their regular partisan or ideological direction (Wojcieszak and Rojas, 2011 ). Studies suggest that partisan/ideological affiliation is not as directly influenced by knowledge as issue-related opinions:

[K]nowledge is found to predict the variance of two issue-related measures of polarisation, whereas there is no such association between knowledge and partisan/ideological polarisation. This is consistent with previous research that the more knowledgeable are likely to move to more extreme issue positions by counter arguing claims incompatible with their political predisposition. (Lee et al., 2014 , pp. 716–717)

People evaluate objects that they encounter frequently along different lines to rare but impactful objects: differing findings for party/ideology and issue-related polarisation suggest that the underlying mechanism of partisan and ideological polarisation is distinct from that of issue-related processes (Tucker et al., 2018 , pp. 40–48). This recognition shows that studies or surveys linking attitudes towards the Covid-19 pandemic to partisan affiliations are not entirely informative.

In a study of how citizens evaluate arguments about contested issues, Taber and Lodge ( 2006 ) find that prior attitudes decisively guide how new information is processed:

Far from the rational calculator portrayed in enlightenment prose and spatial equations, homo politicus would seem to be a creature of simple likes and prejudices that are quite resistant to change. […] Skepticism is valuable and attitudes should have inertia. But skepticism becomes bias when it becomes unreasonably resistant to change and especially when it leads one to avoid information as with the confirmation bias. (Taber and Lodge, 2006 , pp. 767–768)

The “boundary line between rational skepticism and irrational bias” (Taber and Lodge, 2006 , p. 768) is a key issue in discussions about the Covid-19 pandemic, and one that can perhaps not be established in a normative way.

To address the question of why a newly arisen issue that could not be addressed by existing political schemes has polarised society so quickly, we may argue, then, that different contextualisations of the same issue have produced different evaluations in people (Kligler-Vilenchik et al., 2020 ). While people can generally process multiple frames and evaluate different angles, this ability may be hampered where “competing groups rely exclusively on contrasting frames and reject (or are unaware of) those frames underlying divergent preferences”, which may lead to “contrasting interpretations that sustain irreconcilable positions”. It is this configuration that, I argue, leads to interpretative polarisation, which may make “meaningful conversation between groups almost impossible” (Kligler-Vilenchik et al., 2020 , p. 2) and reinforce political polarisation.

Examples of such contrasting interpretations abound. The term lockdown has had differing definitions in each country, which led to shadings such as hard/soft lockdown . The term new normal was perhaps meant to anchor hygiene measures in people’s thoughts, but is seen by many as an attempt to normalise draconian restrictions and situations that are clearly anything but normal. The dichotomy of health vs economy is another example of how the same issue can be presented in different lights, depending on the angle one takes.

Interpretative polarisation can explain why partisan analysis does not apply to the Covid-19 pandemic as an extraordinary phenomenon whose epidemic psychology, as I have argued so far, made necessary new reflections, a process of knowledge production. The Covid-19 pandemic challenges existing ideological boundaries, so an analysis of its discourse requires an approach that goes beyond seeing ideology as a given structural object and instead analyses hegemonies and power struggles inherent in all discourses of knowledge production.

Discursive structures of exclusion

Exclusion through dialogic contraction.

An oft-repeated charge in debates on the Covid-19 pandemic is that particular voices or opinions have been ignored or excluded from the debate, that particular things cannot be said. This is then countered by the reminder that there is free speech, that anyone can publish anything after all. Both positions forget that discourses are generally considered to be “principally organised around practices of exclusion” (Mills, 2004 , p. 11): Any notion of what seems natural to say or what seems unsayable is the result of such exclusion practices, of “battles ‘for truth’” where, in the words of Foucault, “by truth I do not mean ‘the ensemble of truths which are to be discovered and accepted’, but rather ‘the ensemble of rules according to which the true and the false are separated and specific effects of power attached to the true’” (Foucault, 1980 , p. 132).

Foucault ( 1981 , pp. 52–54) proposes three procedures of exclusion: prohibition, the division of reason/madness and the opposition between true/false (the “will to truth”). The argument that nobody is excluded because everyone is free to publish anything misunderstands practices of discursive exclusion by reducing them to the first of those principles (prohibition) while ignoring the existence of the other two. Based on Bakhtin’s concept of “centripetal-centrifugal struggle”, Baxter ( 2011 ) argues that, as it is “difficult to presume that all discourses are equal in the play for meaning, […] competing discourses are not equally legitimated. Some are centred (the centripetal) and others are marginalised (centrifugal). In the instance of monologue, all but a single totalising discourse is erased” (Baxter, 2011 , p. 14). Thus, the struggles of exclusion are regular phenomena of hegemony in discourse, made visible through the extraordinary process of knowledge generation. The fact that free speech is constrained and certain things become dominant in discourses while others become unsayable is a product of competing power relations in a discourse (see Mills, 2004 , p. 64). These power relations, as usual in Foucauldian thought, are not inherently negative or positive, but potentially dangerous if not questioned, which is the aim of this section.

In what follows, I investigate two discursive structures of exclusion via dialogic contraction that originate in the emancipatory modernist approach to ideology in discourse identified above: First, the reference to an abstract authority ( the science ) and second, accusations of conspiracy theories . I understand dialogic contraction with reference to Bakhtinian dialogism (for an introduction, see Robinson, 2011 ) as used in various theories of discourse analysis such as Appraisal Theory (Martin and White, 2005 ) and Relational Dialectics Theory. In the latter, discourses (defined roughly as systems of meaning or “voices”) compete in discursive struggle, on a cline between monologic and idealised dialogic (Baxter, 2011 ). While in idealised dialogism all discourses are given equal weight, monologism consists of “a discursive playing field so unequal that all but one monologic, authoritative discourse is silenced” (Baxter, 2011 , p. 9). This model is useful for analysing the discourse on the Covid-19 pandemic because it reflects the accusation that the public debate has increasingly become monologic, with the authoritative discourse of the respective political leaders and their close circles of experts in the dominant position.

One of the first demands on social media at the beginning of the pandemic was that people should be quiet and “let experts talk”. These calls were meant to reduce noise in the discourse, a defence mechanism to the heated reactions in the networks, in line with early reactions of epidemic psychology. They were initial reactionary attempts to exclude voices from commenting on what was from the beginning a complex social crisis that concerns everyone. Attempts to restrict the discourse to “experts” only later crystallised into the two frequent formulas that we should follow the science and that we must combat conspiracy theories .

This simplistic binary choice juxtaposing the science/experts/evidence with conspiracy theories/fake news is at the heart of the dialogic contraction in the Covid-19 pandemic. It makes it seem as though the only available positions are either to believe Covid-19 to be a global threat that eclipses all other threats or to deny its existence altogether, thus mirroring labellings used in the climate debate, which “isolate, exclude, ignore, and dismiss claim-makers of all types from constructive dialogue” (Howarth and Sharman, 2015 , p. 239).

These strategies of dialogic contraction work by appealing to taken-for-granted truths (science is good, populism is bad) and to an imagined neutral position outside ideology, power and discourse. This position is workable in routine debates, where challenges are either confined to academic circles or addressed by societies’ “general politics of truth” (Foucault, 1980 , p. 131). In an epistemologically disruptive event such as the Covid-19 pandemic, however, as I argue in this article, the role of science in the public enters the spotlight, epistemic psychology challenges our established routines, and discursive structures of dialogic contraction towards a monologic extreme rapidly translate into social polarisation.

Critical approaches to discourse that are conscious of and able to consider power relations as they emerge from discursive practice thus seem better suited to study our present situation. To study language with the aim of explaining power rather than just reveal it, we must show how power operates in discourses rather than how it is held by particular, pre-categorised actors or institutions (Pennycook, 2001 , p. 93). As Katsambekis and Stavrakakis ( 2020 ) argue:

In many cases, understanding the policies of certain actors through the lens of ‘populism’ […] and the vague notion of a ‘populist threat to democracy’, often adopted in typical anti-populist discourses, seems to be diverting attention from other imminent dangers to democracy, most importantly: nativism, nationalism, authoritarianism, racism. (Katsambekis and Stavrakakis, 2020 , p. 7)

Having established discursive structures of exclusion as inherent to all discourse, I now discuss two strategies of dialogic contraction that I consider to be fundamental to the polarisation that we have seen in this pandemic and that let us answer why a global health crisis and the knowledge production that ensued, where we are all on the same side, has become such a polarising topic.

The science as legitimating authority

A central claim made by most leaders throughout the Covid-19 pandemic has been that they “follow the science” (Pérez-González, 2020b ; Stevens, 2020 ; Pierce, 2021 ). In his first prime-time address to the nation on 11 March, Joe Biden said, “we know what we need to do to beat this virus. Tell the truth. Follow the scientists and the science”. What is unclear about such statements is what exactly “the science” refers to. Sweden, under Anders Tegnell’s advice, also “follows the science”, and the rate of agreement of the Swedish scientific community, when asked whether scientific advice had been taken into account, does not differ from that reported for other countries (Rijs and Fenter, 2020 ). Yet the Swedish approach, generally described as at best “unorthodox”, differs radically to that of many other countries, and mentioning “Sweden” in a current social network discussion is a safe way of being delegitimised as a reasonable discourse actor (Torjesen, 2021 ).

This suggests that the reductive notion of the science , like the similar formula the evidence (see Furedi, 2020 ), is defined based on particular principles of authority, established, though not overtly specified, by dominant discourse actors. It disclaims the multivoicedness, interdisciplinarity and plurality of processes of knowledge production (Knorr-Cetina, 1999 ) and serves as a discursive strategy of dialogic contraction, an expression of discursive hegemony: “The debate becomes polarised and binary: if the science says yes to face coverings, then challenging the orthodoxy or even questioning its universality becomes heretical” (Martin et al., 2020 , p. 506).

Taylor ( 2010 ) conducts a corpus-assisted study of the use of the term the science in UK press articles between 1993 and 2008. Referring to Aristotle’s model of rhetoric and argumentation, she argues that science , instead of being used as part of logos, providing logical proof, “is increasingly used as a part of ethos, that is, persuasion at the interpersonal level”, projecting a particular stance towards the audience and appealing to an unspecified or unexplained authority, “making the writer’s personal character appear more credible by enroling ‘science’ on their side of an argument” (Taylor, 2010 , p. 222). This is especially the case where authors “refer to some unspecified, autonomous, authoritative entity” such as the science (Taylor, 2010 , p. 236). These findings are echoed by Pérez-González’s ( 2020a , p. 13) study of a corpus of a wide range of climate change blogs, where bloggers attempt to construct authoritative voices of consensus by using the the science formula.

While scientific discourse in general is rarely characterised by consensus, it is much less so in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic. A review of studies shows that a lot of research on the issue has been biased or of low quality (Raynaud et al., 2021 ). Critiques of bias in the acceptation and rejection of evidence have long existed (Stevens, 2007 ) and are echoed in a cross-country report on populism in the Covid-19 pandemic:

“Experts” are not neutral actors that will save liberal democracy from “bad populists”. […] [T]he pandemic has rather revealed the deeply political character of scientific input in critical junctures as well as the very political agency of experts themselves. […] It becomes apparent then that exactly as populists do not form a coherent bloc in the pandemic, experts too cannot be treated as a unified front, thus the dichotomy “ experts vs populists” is exposed as fundamentally flawed once more in the context of the ongoing crisis. (Katsambekis and Stavrakakis, 2020 , pp. 7–8)

Many righteous approaches to the Covid-19 pandemic, but also to the climate emergency, succeed in identifying ideologically motivated harmful practices, but succumb to the emancipatory modernist lack of self-reflexivity on whether its messages, which are meant to convince the targeted audience, do not just patronise it, as discussed above. Populists will respond to this not by accepting that they are wrong, but by rejecting the entire frame of knowledge: “We’ll probably also start to hear calls for climate lockdowns. I know, right now that sounds completely preposterous, but don’t these kooky ideas always find a way to bleed into the mainstream? […] Don’t worry though, they’re just following the science ” (Miller, 2021 ).

It is understandable to want to reinforce a society that bases its actions on informed opinion, especially in the age of Trumpism. However, it is the very reductionism of an approach that makes an unspecified truth-claim to the science and disqualifies everything else as unreasonable that allows populist actors like Trump to gain power by turning the same simple strategy on its head. The postmodernist challenges of a simplified, messianic notion of the science remain valid. The formula represents a simplistic and hegemonic view of what “science” is and threatens to turn it into a buzzword of discursive exclusion and disciplining, undermining equal engagement in knowledge production.

Conspiracy theory as a sanctioning device

The second structure of exclusion I discuss is the term conspiracy theory . Husting and Orr ( 2007 ) critique this term as a metadiscursive “vocabulary of motive in struggles over the meaning of social and political worlds, events, and ideas” ( 2007 , p. 132). In simple terms, its use signifies a discursive move of “going meta”, that is, “elect[ing] to step back from the immediacy of a question to question the questioner’s motives, or tone, or premises, or right to ask certain questions, or right to ask any questions at all” (Simons, 1994 , p. 470). Invoking the label conspiracy theory thus has the function of “shifting the focus of discourse to reframe another’s claims as unwarranted or unworthy of full consideration” (Husting and Orr, 2007 , p. 129). While research has put into question whether applying the label has any negative effect on the targeted actor’s beliefs (Wood, 2016 ), the accusation of conspiracy theory seeks to discursively expel actors from the community of reasonable interlocutors, thus “protecting certain decisions and people from question in arenas of political, cultural, and scholarly knowledge construction” (Husting and Orr, 2007 , p. 130) by reverting the focus of attention onto the questioner.

This discursive structure is often used in “cultures of fear” that “generate new mechanisms of social control” (Husting and Orr, 2007 , p. 128). Considering that many European countries are still in constant alert mode from terrorism, the description of such a culture fits the past year quite well:

fear and threat become the means for media, politicians, and corporations to sell commodities, buy votes, and justify policies reducing civil rights and promoting war (Altheide, 2000 ). As a mythos of consensus has turned into a mythos of fear, we would expect to find new interactional mechanisms to shield authority and legitimacy from challenge or accountability. (Husting and Orr, 2007 , p. 130)

More recently, Husting ( 2018 ) identifies two problems with current academic and journalist discourse around conspiracy. First, a cognitive approach, which “attempts to diagnose traits like character and intelligence, intent on identifying hidden, usually individualised causes of constructing, believing in, and circulating conspiracy theories” (Husting, 2018 , p. 111). By psychologising the subjects of its analysis in this way, “it misses the political work done by the labels themselves” and overstates their coherence to argue for their danger to society (Husting, 2018 , p. 112). Husting argues that this cognitive analysis expresses a neoliberal responsibilisation of the individual in various ways to “follow expert advice to optimise well-being and health of body, mind, and polis” (Husting, 2018 , p. 113). As citizens, we “regulate ourselves by regulating, judging, and contemning others, and keeping our own thoughts and styles of reason and emotion clear” (Husting, 2018 , p. 123). The disputes over truth, falsity and conspiracy theories thus “serve to construct, circulate, and enact a ‘well-tempered’ citizen in liberal politics” (Husting, 2018 , p. 113).

The second problem Husting ( 2018 ) identifies with current conspiracy theory discourse is its affective register. According to dominant analyses, conspiracy theorists “step out of the sphere of reason and logic, and enter the terrain of the emotional and the psychotic” (Husting, 2018 , p. 117). Yet conspiracy discourse is itself “a form of emotional and political engagement driven by contempt and laced with anger and fear” by policing the boundaries of reasonable political doubt and theorising an “uncorrupted democratic sphere” (Husting, 2018 , p. 117) outside ideology. By constructing conspiracy theories as threats to the order of the state and to the uncorrupted citizen, conspiracy theory discourse falls victim to the same pseudo-messianic discursive approach it seeks to unravel.

In a study of Wikipedia edits of the article on the German word for conspiracy theory, Verschwörungstheorie , Vogel ( 2018 ) argues that the term is not used with a descriptive, analytical function, but is part of an established metadiscursive accusatory, stigmatising and disciplinary pattern to sanction views from a position or epistemology outside the collectivism and the “sayable” in the ingroup, whose validity is assumed to be taken for granted (Vogel, 2018 , p. 281). As Husting ( 2018 , p. 120) says, “[o]nce the label ‘conspiracy theory’ sticks to someone, it impugns their intellectual and moral competence and relieves hearers of the need to consider the validity of her or his claims”. The use of the term, thus, lacks a problematisation of one’s own supposed neutrality. Its use is hegemonic, not analytical.

Vogel ( 2018 ) studies Wikipedia discourse specifically, but his observations are transferable to general social media discourse. And in the pandemic knowledge production, the epistemological conditions and power relations among participants within such knowledge production movements (Esteves, 2008 ) are comparable. Due to the shift of the public sphere into the digital as discussed above, most people will have experienced debates in online worlds along with everything this entails.

In a comprehensive survey of the usage of conspiracy theory , Butter ( 2018 ) writes that, while the Internet and social media have made conspiracy theories more visible and fast-moving, they are no more frequent or influential than they used to be because they are still regarded as “stigmatised knowledge”. In the wake of the current surge of populism combined with the fragmentation of society through the Internet, Butter ( 2018 , p. 18) argues, the fragmented public sphere and the different notions of truth condition the current debate in which some are afraid again of conspiracies while others are still worried about the fatal effects of conspiracy theories. The dialogic contraction we are arguably seeing can thus be traced to a particular constellation of fears for the public sphere combined with the fear of the pandemic.

In sum, value-laden terms such as conspiracy theory are attempts to exercise discursive power over others by excluding them from being reasonable participants in the debate, both in everyday interactions by users and in official government acts. Mechanisms that define limits of the sayable “weaken public spaces that are central for interaction, contest, and deliberation: the spaces where we define our world” (Husting and Orr, 2007 , p. 147).

In this section, I have discussed two structures of exclusion by dialogic contraction: the science and conspiracy theory . These are common terms in everyday discourse, but, as I have shown, their appropriateness for academic study and debate is questionable due to their hegemonic nature and unreflected reference to accepted and sanctioned knowledge. This is not to say, of course, that we should endorse conspiracy theories or reject science. The aim is rather to become aware of how all types of knowledge are related to power. I am not interested here in evaluating the veracity of particular discourses on the Covid-19 pandemic (cf. Husting and Orr, 2007 , p. 131), or even in whether conspiracy theories are dangerous or not, but in the mechanisms whereby one discourse becomes considered dominant and thus supported by financial and social capital whereas the other becomes confined to the margins of society (Mills, 2004 , p. 17).

In this paper, I have adopted the model of epidemic psychology, which functions fundamentally through linguistic interaction, and argued that social media use has fomented its effects in the reaction to the Covid-19 pandemic by providing sustained access to commentary and linguistic interaction. I have suggested that this social interaction in a context of a volatile intellectual state can be seen as a discourse of knowledge production, conducted largely on social media. This view, along with the power relations it implies, provides an approach to understanding the dynamics of polarisation as interpretative, outside established partisan lines. To understand the polarisation better, I have discussed two discursive structures of exclusion, the terms the science and conspiracy theory , which have characterised the knowledge production discourse of the Covid-19 pandemic on social media. I have argued that these are strategies of dialogic contraction which are based on a hegemonic view of knowledge and a simplistic view of ideology based in the emancipatory modernist view of language that represents the currently dominant form of discourse analysis.

With this line of argument, I have intended to make sense of the Covid-19 pandemic discourse and take a step towards understanding the polarisation in our societies. As I have argued, this polarisation is due to discourse practices and not attributable to social media technology. The Covid-19 pandemic has forced us to reflect on many things, not just ourselves, but also the way we study society and (means of) communication. A great amount of data is being collected (see, e.g. Chen et al., 2020 ) and many studies will investigate the role of language and social media in the social transformation we are going to see in the coming years. I hope that the literature review conducted in this article has contributed some reflections on pertinent concepts and possible methodologies, or at least heuristics, for these future studies to consider.

From the perspective of discourse studies, I have endorsed the practice of Critical Applied Linguistics (Pennycook, 2001 ), which identifies both strengths and weaknesses of current approaches to discourse and seeks to improve on them by a greater foundation in critical theory and by a series of paradigmatic characteristics to problematise practice. Arguments are to be sought in texts, not in author profiles, so constructing corpora of texts harvested in “conspiracy theory” or “anti-vaxxer” forums or that consist of “fake news” means starting from a value position, a truth claim that can only confirm ideologies we already look for, but hardly explain their working in society. As Butter and Knight ( 2016 , p. 23) argue, “the aim of producing empirical, value-neutral research on the phenomenon of ‘conspiracy theory’ is misguided, because the term itself is not value-neutral”.

Categories such as “class”, “gender”, but also “identity” are often assumed to “exist prior to language”, to be reflected in language use, when really they need to be explained themselves, with language being a part of this explanation (Cameron, 1995 , p. 15). Like other conflicts, the polarisation in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic has unveiled “the processes of norm-making and norm-breaking, bringing into the open the arguments that surround rules […] and how unquestioned (‘conventional’) ways of behaving are implicitly understood by social actors” (Cameron, 1995 , p. 17). It is this kind of processes that should be studied from a self-reflexive position that is aware of its own subjection to ideology and power relations.

A promising approach might be found in the Critical Disinformation Studies syllabus (Marwick et al., 2021 ), which argues, among other things, that fake news do not originate in extremism, but that “strategic disinformation and its cousin ‘propaganda’ are state and media industry practices with very long histories”, so instead of “plac[ing] the responsibility on individuals to become better consumers of media”, this approach seeks to “foreground questions of power, institutions, and economic, social, cultural, and technological structures as they shape disinformation”. Research shows that greater public awareness of how science communication works increases the acceptance of scientific findings regardless of partisan ideologies (Weisberg et al., 2021 ).

The process of knowledge production on social media I envision in this paper in many ways resembles what is taking place in climate action and environmentalism (Pérez-González, 2020a ). One might counter that the pandemic response cannot be called a social movement, but has been more of an emergency response to a problem that was always short-lived, and much more fast-paced than climate change, so is not perfectly comparable. But the knowledge production conducted on social media, and some of the movements born from this (see Sitrin and Colectiva Sembrar, 2020 ), provides a blueprint for environmentalism, a social movement that could benefit from the same kind of knowledge-practice. Some see the Covid-19 pandemic as a “test run” for the climate emergency, as there is hope “that the great mobilisations of state resources currently being unspooled to address Covid-19 prove the possibility of a comparable or greater mobilisation against ecological catastrophe” (Clover, 2021 , p. S28). Nevertheless, the climate emergency has only recently been labelled thus and its perceived and mediatised urgency does not match that of Covid-19, though of course its destructive potential is far greater. The debate on science and knowledge in our societies and the ways in which these discourses are structured and mediated in social networks are thus of prime importance.

Aiello LM, Quercia D, Zhou K, Constantinides M, Šćepanović S, Joglekar S (2021) How epidemic psychology works on social media: evolution of responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 8:179. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00861-3

Article Google Scholar

Altheide D (2000) Identity and the definition of the situation in a mass-mediated context. Symb Interact 23(1):1–27. https://doi.org/10.1525/si.2000.23.1.1

Anderson B (1983) Imagined communities: reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. Verso, London

Google Scholar

Ausserhofer J, Maireder A (2013) National politics on Twitter: structures and topics of a networked public sphere. Inf Commun Soc 16(3):291–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2012.756050

Badhken A (2020) The pandemic, our common story. Granta. https://granta.com/the-pandemic-our-common-story/ . Accessed 11 Oct 2021

Baxter LA (2011) Voicing relationships: a dialogic perspective. SAGE, London

Book Google Scholar

Berger PL, Luckmann T (1966) The social construction of reality: a treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Penguin Books, London

Bhopal R, Munro APS (2021) Scholarly communications harmed by Covid-19. Br Med J 372:742. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n742

Bruns A (2019) Are filter bubbles real? Polity, Cambridge

Bruns A, Highfield T (2016) Is Habermas on Twitter? Social media and the public sphere. In: Enli G, Bruns A, Skogerbo E, Larsson AO, Christensen C (eds) The Routledge companion to social media and politics. Routledge, Abingdon, pp. 56–73

Butter M (2018) “Nichts ist, wie es scheint”: Über Verschwörungstheorien. Suhrkamp, Berlin

Butter M, Knight P (2016) Bridging the great divide: conspiracy theory research for the 21st century. Diogenes 62(3–4):17–29. 10.1177/0392192116669289

Cameron D (1995) Verbal hygiene. Routledge, Abingdon

Casas-Cortés MI, Osterweil M, Powell DE (2008) Blurring boundaries: recognising knowledge-practices in the study of social movements. Anthropol Q 81(1):17–58. https://doi.org/10.1353/anq.2008.0006

Chen E, Lerman K, Ferrara E (2020) Tracking social media discourse about the COVID-19 pandemic: development of a public coronavirus twitter data set. JMIR Public Health Surveill 6(2):e19273. https://doi.org/10.2196/19273

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Clarke L (2020) Why scientists fear the “toxic” Covid-19 debate. New Statesman. https://www.newstatesman.com/science-tech/coronavirus/2020/10/why-scientists-fear-toxic-covid-19-debate . Accessed 11 Oct 2021

Clover J (2021) The rise and fall of biopolitics: a response to Bruno Latour. Crit Inq 47(S2):S28–S32. https://doi.org/10.1086/711429

Davey Smith G, Blastland M, Munafò M (2020) Covid-19’s known unknowns. Br Med J 371:m3979. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m3979

Della Porta D, Pavan E (2017) Repertoires of knowledge practices: social movements in times of crisis. Qual Res Organ Manag 12(4):297–314. https://doi.org/10.1108/QROM-01-2017-1483

Engler P (2020) Coronavirus is a historic trigger event—and it needs a movement to respond. Waging Nonviolence. https://wagingnonviolence.org/2020/03/coronavirus-historic-trigger-event-needs-movement-response/ . Accessed 11 Oct 2021

Esses VM, Hamilton LK (2021) Xenophobia and anti-immigrant attitudes in the time of COVID-19. Group Process Intergroup Relat 24(2):253–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430220983470

Esteves AM (2008) Processes of knowledge production in social movements as multi-level power dynamics. Sociol Compass 2(6):1934–1953. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9020.2008.00146.x

European Court of Human Rights (2021) ECHR President: Polarisation and Covid-19 threaten difficult times ahead. Council of Europe. https://www.coe.int/en/web/portal/-/echr-president-polarisation-and-covid-19-threaten-difficult-times-ahead . Accessed 11 Oct 2021

Fischer F (2000) Citizens, experts, and the environment: the politics of local knowledge. Duke University Press, Durham

Foucault M (1980) Truth and power. In: Gordon C (ed) Power/knowledge: selected interviews and other writings 1972–1977. The Harvester Press, Brighton, pp. 107–133

Foucault M (1981) The order of discourse. In: Young R (ed) Untying the text: a post-structuralist reader. Routledge, Abingdon, pp. 48–78

Furedi F (2020) Why the government should not always “follow the science”. Spiked. https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/05/20/why-the-government-should-not-always-follow-the-science/ . Accessed 11 Oct 2021

Gallwitz F, Kreil M (2021) The rise and fall of “Social Bot” research. SSRN. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3814191 . Accessed 11 Oct 2021

Gee JP (2011) An introduction to discourse analysis: theory and method, 3rd edn. Routledge, Abingdon

Habermas J (1972) Knowledge and human interests (trans: Shapiro JJ). Heineman, London

Harari YN (2021) Lessons from a year of Covid. Financial Times. https://www.ft.com/content/f1b30f2c-84aa-4595-84f2-7816796d6841 . Accessed 11 Oct 2021.

Hart C, Cap P (2014) Introduction. In: Hart C, Cap P (eds) Contemporary critical discourse studies. Bloomsbury, London, p 1–16

Howarth CC, Sharman AG (2015) Labeling opinions in the climate debate: a critical review. WIREs Clim Change 6(2):239–254. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.332

Husting G (2018) Governing with feeling: conspiracy theories, contempt, and affective governmentality. In: Dentith MRX (ed) Taking conspiracy theories seriously. Rowman & Littlefield International, Lanham, pp. 109–123

Husting G, Orr M (2007) Dangerous machinery: “Conspiracy Theorist” as a transpersonal strategy of exclusion. Symb Interact 30(2):127–150. https://doi.org/10.1525/si.2007.30.2.127

Katsambekis G, Stavrakakis Y (2020) Populism and the pandemic: introduction and preliminary findings. In: Katsambekis G, Stavrakakis Y (eds) Populism and the pandemic: a collaborative report. POPULISMUS, Thessaloniki, pp. 3–9

Kligler-Vilenchik N, Baden C, Yarchi M (2020) Interpretative polarisation across platforms: How political disagreement developes over time on Facebook, Twitter, and WhatsApp. Soc Media+Soc 6(3):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120944393

Knorr-Cetina K (1977) Producing and reproducing knowledge: descriptive or constructive? Soc Sci Inf 16(6):669–96

Knorr-Cetina K (1999) Epistemic cultures: how the sciences make knowledge. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

Krämer B (2017) Populist online practices: the function of the Internet in right-wing populism. Inf Commun Soc 20(9):1293–1309. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1328520

Article ADS Google Scholar

Lee JK, Choi J, Kim C, Kim Y (2014) Social media, network heterogeneity, and opinion polarisation. J Commun 64(4):702–722. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12077

Madrigal AC (2020) How to misinform yourself about the coronavirus. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2020/01/china-coronavirus-twitter/605644/ . Accessed 11 Oct 2021

Mahanty S, Phillipps N (2020) The community-led movement creating hope in the time of coronavirus. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/the-community-led-movement-creating-hope-in-the-time-of-coronavirus-134391 .

Martin GP, Hanna E, McCartney M, Dingwall R (2020) Science, society, and policy in the face of uncertainty: Reflections on the debate around face coverings for the public during COVID-19. Crit Public Health 30(5):501–508. https://doi.org/10.1080/09581596.2020.1797997

Martin JR, White PRR (2005) The language of evaluation: appraisal in English. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke

Marwick A, Kuo R, Cameron SJ, Weigel M (2021) Critical disinformation studies: a syllabus. Center for Information, Technology, and Public Life. https://citap.unc.edu/research/critical-disinfo/ . Accessed 11 Oct 2021

McCullock G (2019) Because Internet: understanding the new rules of language. Riverhead Books, New York

Milanović B (2020) The first global event in the history of humankind. IPS. https://www.ips-journal.eu/topics/democracy/the-first-global-event-in-the-history-of-humankind-4848/ . Accessed 11 Oct 2021

Miller SL (2021) Are you ready for the climate lockdowns? It’s only a matter of time. The Spectator. https://spectatorworld.com/topic/ready-climate-lockdowns-environment/ . Accessed 11 Oct 2021

Mills S (2004) Discourse, 2nd edn. Routledge, Abingdon

Nguyen MH, Gruber J, Fuchs J, Marler W, Hunsaker A, Hargittai E (2020) Changes in digital communication during the COVID-19 global pandemic: implications for digital inequality and future research. Soc Media+Soc 6(3) https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120948255

Papacharissi Z (2002) The virtual sphere: the Internet as a public sphere. New Media Soc 4(1):9–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614440222226244

Pariser E (2011) The filter bubble: what the internet is hiding from you. Penguin Press, London

Pavan E, Felicetti A (2019) Digital media and knowledge production within social movements: insights from the transition movement in Italy. Soc Media+Soc 5(4):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119889671

Pennycook A (2001) Critical applied linguistics: a critical introduction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah

Pérez-González L (2020a) “Is climate science taking over the science?” A corpus-based study of competing stances on bias, dogma and expertise in the blogosphere. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 7:92. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00582-z

Pérez-González L (2020b) “The government is following the science”: why is the translation of evidence into policy generating so much controversy? London School of Economics Blogs. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2020/11/12/the-government-is-following-the-science-why-is-the-translation-of-evidence-into-policy-generating-so-much-controversy/ . Accessed 11 Oct 2021

Pierce K (2021) “Follow the science” and other principles of Biden’s pandemic response plan. The HUB. https://hub.jhu.edu/2021/01/15/biden-covid-response-hopkins-alums/ . Accessed 11 Oct 2021

Raynaud M, Zhang H, Louis K, Goutaudier V, Wang J, Dubourg Q, Wei Y, Demir Z, Debiais C, Aubert O, Bouatou Y, Lefaucheur C, Jabre P, Liu L, Wang C, Jouven X, Reese P, Empana JP, Loupy A (2021) Covid-19-related medical research: a meta-research and critical appraisal. BMC Med Res Methodol 21(1):1–11. 10.1186/s12874-020-01190-w

Article CAS Google Scholar

Rijs C, Fenter F (2020) The academic response to COVID-19. Front Public Health 8:621563. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2020.621563

Robinson A (2011) Bakhtin: dialogism, polyphony and heteroglossia. Ceasefire. https://ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/in-theory-bakhtin-1/ . Accessed 11 Oct 2021

Rosenberg CE (1989) What is an epidemic? AIDS in historical perspective. Daedalus 118(2):1–17

CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Science+Story (2020) Eric Feigl-Ding is good at Twitter. Sci+Story. https://scienceplusstory.com/eric-feigl-ding-is-good-at-twitter/ . Accessed 11 Oct 2021

Simons H (1994) “Going meta”: definition and political applications. Q J Speech 80(4):468–481. https://doi.org/10.1080/00335639409384088

Sitrin M, Colectiva Sembrar (2020) Pandemic solidarity. Pluto Books, London

Stevens A (2007) Survival of the ideas that fit: an evolutionary analogy for the use of evidence in policy. Soc Policy Soc 6(1):25–35. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474746406003319

Stevens A (2020) Governments cannot just “follow the science” on COVID-19. Nat Hum Behav 4:560. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0894-x

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Strong P (1990) Epidemic psychology: a model. Sociol Health Illn 12(3):249–259. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.ep11347150

Taber CS, Lodge M (2006) Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. Am J Political Sci 50(3):755–769. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00214.x

Taylor C (2010) Science in the news: a diachronic perspective. Corpora 5(2):221–250. https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2010.0106

Tomasello M (2008) Origins of human communication. MIT Press, Cambridge

Torjesen I (2021) Covid-19: Sweden vows greater protection for academics as researcher quits after aggressive social media attack. Br Med J 372:489. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n489

Tsao SF, Chen H, Tisseverasinghe T, Yang Y, Li L, Butt ZA (2021) What social media told us in the time of COVID-19: a scoping review. Lancet Digit Health 3(3):e175–e194. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2589-7500(20)30315-0

Tucker JA, Guess A, Barberá P, Vaccari C, Siegel A, Sanovich S, Stukal D, Nyhan B (2018) Social media, political polarisation, and political disinformation: a review of the scientific literature. SSRN. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3144139 . Accessed 11 Oct 2021

Vogel F (2018) Jenseits des Sagbaren: Zum stigmatisierenden und ausgrenzenden Gebrauch des Ausdrucks Verschwörungstheorie in der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia. Aptum: Z Sprachkrit Sprachkult 14(3):259–287

Weisberg DS, Landrum AR, Hamilton J, Weisberg M (2021) Knowledge about the nature of science increases public acceptance of science regardless of identity factors. Public Underst Sci 30(2):120–138. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662520977700

Wojcieszak M, Rojas H (2011) Correlates of party, ideology and issue based extremity in an era of egocentric publics. Int J Press/Politics 16(4):488–507. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161211418226

Wood MJ (2016) Some dare call it conspiracy: Labeling something a conspiracy theory does not reduce belief in it. Political Psychol 37(5):695–705. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12285

Yang A (2021) Politicisation and polarisation of Covid-19. Frontiers. https://frontiersmag.wustl.edu/2021/01/10/politicization-and-polarization-of-covid-19/ . Accessed 11 Oct 2021

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work is part of the project Frames and narratives of translation and of migration in Europe , funded by the Spanish Ministry for Science, Innovation and Universities (MCIU) and the Agencia Estatal de Investigación (AEI), with grant number PID2019-107971GA-I00.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain

Mario Bisiada

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mario Bisiada .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The author declares no competing interests.

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.

Bisiada, M. Discursive structures and power relations in Covid-19 knowledge production. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 8 , 248 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00935-2

Download citation

Received : 12 July 2021

Accepted : 12 October 2021

Published : 28 October 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00935-2

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

Quick links

Explore articles by subject
Guide to authors
Editorial policies

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Resources for

Prospective Students
Current Students
Admin Resources

Search form

Essays reveal experiences during pandemic, unrest.

Field study students share their thoughts

Members of Advanced Field Study, a select group of Social Ecology students who are chosen from a pool of applicants to participate in a year-long field study experience and course, had their internships and traditional college experience cut short this year. During our final quarter of the year together, during which we met weekly for two hours via Zoom, we discussed their reactions as the world fell apart around them. First came the pandemic and social distancing, then came the death of George Floyd and the response of the Black Lives Matter movement, both of which were imprinted on the lives of these students. This year was anything but dull, instead full of raw emotion and painful realizations of the fragility of the human condition and the extent to which we need one another. This seemed like the perfect opportunity for our students to chronicle their experiences — the good and the bad, the lessons learned, and ways in which they were forever changed by the events of the past four months. I invited all of my students to write an essay describing the ways in which these times had impacted their learning and their lives during or after their time at UCI. These are their voices. — Jessica Borelli , associate professor of psychological science

Becoming Socially Distant Through Technology: The Tech Contagion

The current state of affairs put the world on pause, but this pause gave me time to reflect on troubling matters. Time that so many others like me probably also desperately needed to heal without even knowing it. Sometimes it takes one’s world falling apart for the most beautiful mosaic to be built up from the broken pieces of wreckage.

As the school year was coming to a close and summer was edging around the corner, I began reflecting on how people will spend their summer breaks if the country remains in its current state throughout the sunny season. Aside from living in the sunny beach state of California where people love their vitamin D and social festivities, I think some of the most damaging effects Covid-19 will have on us all has more to do with social distancing policies than with any inconveniences we now face due to the added precautions, despite how devastating it may feel that Disneyland is closed to all the local annual passholders or that the beaches may not be filled with sun-kissed California girls this summer. During this unprecedented time, I don’t think we should allow the rare opportunity we now have to be able to watch in real time how the effects of social distancing can impact our mental health. Before the pandemic, many of us were already engaging in a form of social distancing. Perhaps not the exact same way we are now practicing, but the technology that we have developed over recent years has led to a dramatic decline in our social contact and skills in general.

The debate over whether we should remain quarantined during this time is not an argument I am trying to pursue. Instead, I am trying to encourage us to view this event as a unique time to study how social distancing can affect people’s mental health over a long period of time and with dramatic results due to the magnitude of the current issue. Although Covid-19 is new and unfamiliar to everyone, the isolation and separation we now face is not. For many, this type of behavior has already been a lifestyle choice for a long time. However, the current situation we all now face has allowed us to gain a more personal insight on how that experience feels due to the current circumstances. Mental illness continues to remain a prevalent problem throughout the world and for that reason could be considered a pandemic of a sort in and of itself long before the Covid-19 outbreak.

One parallel that can be made between our current restrictions and mental illness reminds me in particular of hikikomori culture. Hikikomori is a phenomenon that originated in Japan but that has since spread internationally, now prevalent in many parts of the world, including the United States. Hikikomori is not a mental disorder but rather can appear as a symptom of a disorder. People engaging in hikikomori remain confined in their houses and often their rooms for an extended period of time, often over the course of many years. This action of voluntary confinement is an extreme form of withdrawal from society and self-isolation. Hikikomori affects a large percent of people in Japan yearly and the problem continues to become more widespread with increasing occurrences being reported around the world each year. While we know this problem has continued to increase, the exact number of people practicing hikikomori is unknown because there is a large amount of stigma surrounding the phenomenon that inhibits people from seeking help. This phenomenon cannot be written off as culturally defined because it is spreading to many parts of the world. With the technology we now have, and mental health issues on the rise and expected to increase even more so after feeling the effects of the current pandemic, I think we will definitely see a rise in the number of people engaging in this social isolation, especially with the increase in legitimate fears we now face that appear to justify the previously considered irrational fears many have associated with social gatherings. We now have the perfect sample of people to provide answers about how this form of isolation can affect people over time.

Likewise, with the advancements we have made to technology not only is it now possible to survive without ever leaving the confines of your own home, but it also makes it possible for us to “fulfill” many of our social interaction needs. It’s very unfortunate, but in addition to the success we have gained through our advancements we have also experienced a great loss. With new technology, I am afraid that we no longer engage with others the way we once did. Although some may say the advancements are for the best, I wonder, at what cost? It is now commonplace to see a phone on the table during a business meeting or first date. Even worse is how many will feel inclined to check their phone during important or meaningful interactions they are having with people face to face. While our technology has become smarter, we have become dumber when it comes to social etiquette. As we all now constantly carry a mini computer with us everywhere we go, we have in essence replaced our best friends. We push others away subconsciously as we reach for our phones during conversations. We no longer remember phone numbers because we have them all saved in our phones. We find comfort in looking down at our phones during those moments of free time we have in public places before our meetings begin. These same moments were once the perfect time to make friends, filled with interactive banter. We now prefer to stare at other people on our phones for hours on end, and often live a sedentary lifestyle instead of going out and interacting with others ourselves.

These are just a few among many issues the advances to technology led to long ago. We have forgotten how to practice proper tech-etiquette and we have been inadvertently practicing social distancing long before it was ever required. Now is a perfect time for us to look at the society we have become and how we incurred a different kind of pandemic long before the one we currently face. With time, as the social distancing regulations begin to lift, people may possibly begin to appreciate life and connecting with others more than they did before as a result of the unique experience we have shared in together while apart.

Maybe the world needed a time-out to remember how to appreciate what it had but forgot to experience. Life is to be lived through experience, not to be used as a pastime to observe and compare oneself with others. I’ll leave you with a simple reminder: never forget to take care and love more because in a world where life is often unpredictable and ever changing, one cannot risk taking time or loved ones for granted. With that, I bid you farewell, fellow comrades, like all else, this too shall pass, now go live your best life!

Privilege in a Pandemic

Covid-19 has impacted millions of Americans who have been out of work for weeks, thus creating a financial burden. Without a job and the certainty of knowing when one will return to work, paying rent and utilities has been a problem for many. With unemployment on the rise, relying on unemployment benefits has become a necessity for millions of people. According to the Washington Post , unemployment rose to 14.7% in April which is considered to be the worst since the Great Depression.

Those who are not worried about the financial aspect or the thought never crossed their minds have privilege. Merriam Webster defines privilege as “a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor.” Privilege can have a negative connotation. What you choose to do with your privilege is what matters. Talking about privilege can bring discomfort, but the discomfort it brings can also carry the benefit of drawing awareness to one’s privilege, which can lead the person to take steps to help others.

I am a first-generation college student who recently transferred to a four-year university. When schools began to close, and students had to leave their on-campus housing, many lost their jobs.I was able to stay on campus because I live in an apartment. I am fortunate to still have a job, although the hours are minimal. My parents help pay for school expenses, including housing, tuition, and food. I do not have to worry about paying rent or how to pay for food because my parents are financially stable to help me. However, there are millions of college students who are not financially stable or do not have the support system I have. Here, I have the privilege and, thus, I am the one who can offer help to others. I may not have millions in funding, but volunteering for centers who need help is where I am able to help. Those who live in California can volunteer through Californians For All or at food banks, shelter facilities, making calls to seniors, etc.

I was not aware of my privilege during these times until I started reading more articles about how millions of people cannot afford to pay their rent, and landlords are starting to send notices of violations. Rather than feel guilty and be passive about it, I chose to put my privilege into a sense of purpose: Donating to nonprofits helping those affected by COVID-19, continuing to support local businesses, and supporting businesses who are donating profits to those affected by COVID-19.

My World is Burning

As I write this, my friends are double checking our medical supplies and making plans to buy water and snacks to pass out at the next protest we are attending. We write down the number for the local bailout fund on our arms and pray that we’re lucky enough not to have to use it should things get ugly. We are part of a pivotal event, the kind of movement that will forever have a place in history. Yet, during this revolution, I have papers to write and grades to worry about, as I’m in the midst of finals.

My professors have offered empty platitudes. They condemn the violence and acknowledge the stress and pain that so many of us are feeling, especially the additional weight that this carries for students of color. I appreciate their show of solidarity, but it feels meaningless when it is accompanied by requests to complete research reports and finalize presentations. Our world is on fire. Literally. On my social media feeds, I scroll through image after image of burning buildings and police cars in flames. How can I be asked to focus on school when my community is under siege? When police are continuing to murder black people, adding additional names to the ever growing list of their victims. Breonna Taylor. Ahmaud Arbery. George Floyd. David Mcatee. And, now, Rayshard Brooks.

It already felt like the world was being asked of us when the pandemic started and classes continued. High academic expectations were maintained even when students now faced the challenges of being locked down, often trapped in small spaces with family or roommates. Now we are faced with another public health crisis in the form of police violence and once again it seems like educational faculty are turning a blind eye to the impact that this has on the students. I cannot study for exams when I am busy brushing up on my basic first-aid training, taking notes on the best techniques to stop heavy bleeding and treat chemical burns because at the end of the day, if these protests turn south, I will be entering a warzone. Even when things remain peaceful, there is an ugliness that bubbles just below the surface. When beginning the trek home, I have had armed members of the National Guard follow me and my friends. While kneeling in silence, I have watched police officers cock their weapons and laugh, pointing out targets in the crowd. I have been emailing my professors asking for extensions, trying to explain that if something is turned in late, it could be the result of me being detained or injured. I don’t want to be penalized for trying to do what I wholeheartedly believe is right.

I have spent my life studying and will continue to study these institutions that have been so instrumental in the oppression and marginalization of black and indigenous communities. Yet, now that I have the opportunity to be on the frontlines actively fighting for the change our country so desperately needs, I feel that this study is more of a hindrance than a help to the cause. Writing papers and reading books can only take me so far and I implore that professors everywhere recognize that requesting their students split their time and energy between finals and justice is an impossible ask.

Opportunity to Serve

Since the start of the most drastic change of our lives, I have had the privilege of helping feed more than 200 different families in the Santa Ana area and even some neighboring cities. It has been an immense pleasure seeing the sheer joy and happiness of families as they come to pick up their box of food from our site, as well as a $50 gift card to Northgate, a grocery store in Santa Ana. Along with donating food and helping feed families, the team at the office, including myself, have dedicated this time to offering psychosocial and mental health check-ups for the families we serve.

Every day I go into the office I start my day by gathering files of our families we served between the months of January, February, and March and calling them to check on how they are doing financially, mentally, and how they have been affected by COVID-19. As a side project, I have been putting together Excel spreadsheets of all these families’ struggles and finding a way to turn their situation into a success story to share with our board at PY-OCBF and to the community partners who make all of our efforts possible. One of the things that has really touched me while working with these families is how much of an impact this nonprofit organization truly has on family’s lives. I have spoken with many families who I just call to check up on and it turns into an hour call sharing about how much of a change they have seen in their child who went through our program. Further, they go on to discuss that because of our program, their children have a different perspective on the drugs they were using before and the group of friends they were hanging out with. Of course, the situation is different right now as everyone is being told to stay at home; however, there are those handful of kids who still go out without asking for permission, increasing the likelihood they might contract this disease and pass it to the rest of the family. We are working diligently to provide support for these parents and offering advice to talk to their kids in order to have a serious conversation with their kids so that they feel heard and validated.

Although the novel Coronavirus has impacted the lives of millions of people not just on a national level, but on a global level, I feel that in my current position, it has opened doors for me that would have otherwise not presented themselves. Fortunately, I have been offered a full-time position at the Project Youth Orange County Bar Foundation post-graduation that I have committed to already. This invitation came to me because the organization received a huge grant for COVID-19 relief to offer to their staff and since I was already part-time, they thought I would be a good fit to join the team once mid-June comes around. I was very excited and pleased to be recognized for the work I have done at the office in front of all staff. I am immensely grateful for this opportunity. I will work even harder to provide for the community and to continue changing the lives of adolescents, who have steered off the path of success. I will use my time as a full-time employee to polish my resume, not forgetting that the main purpose of my moving to Irvine was to become a scholar and continue the education that my parents couldn’t attain. I will still be looking for ways to get internships with other fields within criminology. One specific interest that I have had since being an intern and a part-time employee in this organization is the work of the Orange County Coroner’s Office. I don’t exactly know what enticed me to find it appealing as many would say that it is an awful job in nature since it relates to death and seeing people in their worst state possible. However, I feel that the only way for me to truly know if I want to pursue such a career in forensic science will be to just dive into it and see where it takes me.

I can, without a doubt, say that the Coronavirus has impacted me in a way unlike many others, and for that I am extremely grateful. As I continue working, I can also state that many people are becoming more and more hopeful as time progresses. With people now beginning to say Stage Two of this stay-at-home order is about to allow retailers and other companies to begin doing curbside delivery, many families can now see some light at the end of the tunnel.

Let’s Do Better

This time of the year is meant to be a time of celebration; however, it has been difficult to feel proud or excited for many of us when it has become a time of collective mourning and sorrow, especially for the Black community. There has been an endless amount of pain, rage, and helplessness that has been felt throughout our nation because of the growing list of Black lives we have lost to violence and brutality.

To honor the lives that we have lost, George Floyd, Tony McDade, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, Eric Garner, Oscar Grant, Michael Brown, Trayon Martin, and all of the other Black lives that have been taken away, may they Rest in Power.

Throughout my college experience, I have become more exposed to the various identities and the upbringings of others, which led to my own self-reflection on my own privileged and marginalized identities. I identify as Colombian, German, and Mexican; however navigating life as a mixed race, I have never been able to identify or have one culture more salient than the other. I am visibly white-passing and do not hold any strong ties with any of my ethnic identities, which used to bring me feelings of guilt and frustration, for I would question whether or not I could be an advocate for certain communities, and whether or not I could claim the identity of a woman of color. In the process of understanding my positionality, I began to wonder what space I belonged in, where I could speak up, and where I should take a step back for others to speak. I found myself in a constant theme of questioning what is my narrative and slowly began to realize that I could not base it off lone identities and that I have had the privilege to move through life without my identities defining who I am. Those initial feelings of guilt and confusion transformed into growth, acceptance, and empowerment.

This journey has driven me to educate myself more about the social inequalities and injustices that people face and to focus on what I can do for those around me. It has motivated me to be more culturally responsive and competent, so that I am able to best advocate for those around me. Through the various roles I have worked in, I have been able to listen to a variety of communities’ narratives and experiences, which has allowed me to extend my empathy to these communities while also pushing me to continue educating myself on how I can best serve and empower them. By immersing myself amongst different communities, I have been given the honor of hearing others’ stories and experiences, which has inspired me to commit myself to support and empower others.

I share my story of navigating through my privileged and marginalized identities in hopes that it encourages others to explore their own identities. This journey is not an easy one, and it is an ongoing learning process that will come with various mistakes. I have learned that with facing our privileges comes feelings of guilt, discomfort, and at times, complacency. It is very easy to become ignorant when we are not affected by different issues, but I challenge those who read this to embrace the discomfort. With these emotions, I have found it important to reflect on the source of discomfort and guilt, for although they are a part of the process, in taking the steps to become more aware of the systemic inequalities around us, understanding the source of discomfort can better inform us on how we perpetuate these systemic inequalities. If we choose to embrace ignorance, we refuse to acknowledge the systems that impact marginalized communities and refuse to honestly and openly hear cries for help. If we choose our own comfort over the lives of those being affected every day, we can never truly honor, serve, or support these communities.

I challenge any non-Black person, including myself, to stop remaining complacent when injustices are committed. We need to consistently recognize and acknowledge how the Black community is disproportionately affected in every injustice experienced and call out anti-Blackness in every role, community, and space we share. We need to keep ourselves and others accountable when we make mistakes or fall back into patterns of complacency or ignorance. We need to continue educating ourselves instead of relying on the emotional labor of the Black community to continuously educate us on the history of their oppressions. We need to collectively uplift and empower one another to heal and rise against injustice. We need to remember that allyship ends when action ends.

To the Black community, you are strong. You deserve to be here. The recent events are emotionally, mentally, and physically exhausting, and the need for rest to take care of your mental, physical, and emotional well-being are at an all time high. If you are able, take the time to regain your energy, feel every emotion, and remind yourself of the power you have inside of you. You are not alone.

The Virus That Makes You Forget

Following Jan. 1 of 2020 many of my classmates and I continued to like, share, and forward the same meme. The meme included any image but held the same phrase: I can see 2020. For many of us, 2020 was a beacon of hope. For the Class of 2020, this meant walking on stage in front of our families. Graduation meant becoming an adult, finding a job, or going to graduate school. No matter what we were doing in our post-grad life, we were the new rising stars ready to take on the world with a positive outlook no matter what the future held. We felt that we had a deal with the universe that we were about to be noticed for our hard work, our hardships, and our perseverance.

Then March 17 of 2020 came to pass with California Gov. Newman ordering us to stay at home, which we all did. However, little did we all know that the world we once had open to us would only be forgotten when we closed our front doors.

Life became immediately uncertain and for many of us, that meant graduation and our post-graduation plans including housing, careers, education, food, and basic standards of living were revoked! We became the forgotten — a place from which many of us had attempted to rise by attending university. The goals that we were told we could set and the plans that we were allowed to make — these were crushed before our eyes.

Eighty days before graduation, in the first several weeks of quarantine, I fell extremely ill; both unfortunately and luckily, I was isolated. All of my roommates had moved out of the student apartments leaving me with limited resources, unable to go to the stores to pick up medicine or food, and with insufficient health coverage to afford a doctor until my throat was too swollen to drink water. For nearly three weeks, I was stuck in bed, I was unable to apply to job deadlines, reach out to family, and have contact with the outside world. I was forgotten.

Forty-five days before graduation, I had clawed my way out of illness and was catching up on an honors thesis about media depictions of sexual exploitation within the American political system, when I was relayed the news that democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden was accused of sexual assault. However, when reporting this news to close friends who had been devastated and upset by similar claims against past politicians, they all were too tired and numb from the quarantine to care. Just as I had written hours before reading the initial story, history was repeating, and it was not only I who COVID-19 had forgotten, but now survivors of violence.

After this revelation, I realize the silencing factor that COVID-19 has. Not only does it have the power to terminate the voices of our older generations, but it has the power to silence and make us forget the voices of every generation. Maybe this is why social media usage has gone up, why we see people creating new social media accounts, posting more, attempting to reach out to long lost friends. We do not want to be silenced, moreover, we cannot be silenced. Silence means that we have been forgotten and being forgotten is where injustice and uncertainty occurs. By using social media, pressing like on a post, or even sending a hate message, means that someone cares and is watching what you are doing. If there is no interaction, I am stuck in the land of indifference.

This is a place that I, and many others, now reside, captured and uncertain. In 2020, my plan was to graduate Cum Laude, dean's honor list, with three honors programs, three majors, and with research and job experience that stretched over six years. I would then go into my first year of graduate school, attempting a dual Juris Doctorate. I would be spending my time experimenting with new concepts, new experiences, and new relationships. My life would then be spent giving a microphone to survivors of domestic violence and sex crimes. However, now the plan is wiped clean, instead I sit still bound to graduate in 30 days with no home to stay, no place to work, and no future education to come back to. I would say I am overly qualified, but pandemic makes me lost in a series of names and masked faces.

Welcome to My Cage: The Pandemic and PTSD

When I read the campuswide email notifying students of the World Health Organization’s declaration of the coronavirus pandemic, I was sitting on my couch practicing a research presentation I was going to give a few hours later. For a few minutes, I sat there motionless, trying to digest the meaning of the words as though they were from a language other than my own, familiar sounds strung together in way that was wholly unintelligible to me. I tried but failed to make sense of how this could affect my life. After the initial shock had worn off, I mobilized quickly, snapping into an autopilot mode of being I knew all too well. I began making mental checklists, sharing the email with my friends and family, half of my brain wondering if I should make a trip to the grocery store to stockpile supplies and the other half wondering how I was supposed take final exams in the midst of so much uncertainty. The most chilling realization was knowing I had to wait powerlessly as the fate of the world unfolded, frozen with anxiety as I figured out my place in it all.

These feelings of powerlessness and isolation are familiar bedfellows for me. Early October of 2015, shortly after beginning my first year at UCI, I was diagnosed with Post-traumatic Stress Disorder. Despite having had years of psychological treatment for my condition, including Cognitive Behavior Therapy and Eye Movement Desensitization and Retraining, the flashbacks, paranoia, and nightmares still emerge unwarranted. People have referred to the pandemic as a collective trauma. For me, the pandemic has not only been a collective trauma, it has also been the reemergence of a personal trauma. The news of the pandemic and the implications it has for daily life triggered a reemergence of symptoms that were ultimately ignited by the overwhelming sense of helplessness that lies in waiting, as I suddenly find myself navigating yet another situation beyond my control. Food security, safety, and my sense of self have all been shaken by COVID-19.

The first few weeks after UCI transitioned into remote learning and the governor issued the stay-at-home order, I hardly got any sleep. My body was cycling through hypervigilance and derealization, and my sleep was interrupted by intrusive nightmares oscillating between flashbacks and frightening snippets from current events. Any coping methods I had developed through hard-won efforts over the past few years — leaving my apartment for a change of scenery, hanging out with friends, going to the gym — were suddenly made inaccessible to me due to the stay-at-home orders, closures of non-essential businesses, and many of my friends breaking their campus leases to move back to their family homes. So for me, learning to cope during COVID-19 quarantine means learning to function with my re-emerging PTSD symptoms and without my go-to tools. I must navigate my illness in a rapidly evolving world, one where some of my internalized fears, such as running out of food and living in an unsafe world, are made progressively more external by the minute and broadcasted on every news platform; fears that I could no longer escape, being confined in the tight constraints of my studio apartment’s walls. I cannot shake the devastating effects of sacrifice that I experience as all sense of control has been stripped away from me.

However, amidst my mental anguish, I have realized something important—experiencing these same PTSD symptoms during a global pandemic feels markedly different than it did years ago. Part of it might be the passage of time and the growth in my mindset, but there is something else that feels very different. Currently, there is widespread solidarity and support for all of us facing the chaos of COVID-19, whether they are on the frontlines of the fight against the illness or they are self-isolating due to new rules, restrictions, and risks. This was in stark contrast to what it was like to have a mental disorder. The unity we all experience as a result of COVID-19 is one I could not have predicted. I am not the only student heartbroken over a cancelled graduation, I am not the only student who is struggling to adapt to remote learning, and I am not the only person in this world who has to make sacrifices.

Between observations I’ve made on social media and conversations with my friends and classmates, this time we are all enduring great pain and stress as we attempt to adapt to life’s challenges. As a Peer Assistant for an Education class, I have heard from many students of their heartache over the remote learning model, how difficult it is to study in a non-academic environment, and how unmotivated they have become this quarter. This is definitely something I can relate to; as of late, it has been exceptionally difficult to find motivation and put forth the effort for even simple activities as a lack of energy compounds the issue and hinders basic needs. However, the willingness of people to open up about their distress during the pandemic is unlike the self-imposed social isolation of many people who experience mental illness regularly. Something this pandemic has taught me is that I want to live in a world where mental illness receives more support and isn’t so taboo and controversial. Why is it that we are able to talk about our pain, stress, and mental illness now, but aren’t able to talk about it outside of a global pandemic? People should be able to talk about these hardships and ask for help, much like during these circumstances.

It has been nearly three months since the coronavirus crisis was declared a pandemic. I still have many bad days that I endure where my symptoms can be overwhelming. But somehow, during my good days — and some days, merely good moments — I can appreciate the resilience I have acquired over the years and the common ground I share with others who live through similar circumstances. For veterans of trauma and mental illness, this isn’t the first time we are experiencing pain in an extreme and disastrous way. This is, however, the first time we are experiencing it with the rest of the world. This strange new feeling of solidarity as I read and hear about the experiences of other people provides some small comfort as I fight my way out of bed each day. As we fight to survive this pandemic, I hope to hold onto this feeling of togetherness and acceptance of pain, so that it will always be okay for people to share their struggles. We don’t know what the world will look like days, months, or years from now, but I hope that we can cultivate such a culture to make life much easier for people coping with mental illness.

A Somatic Pandemonium in Quarantine

I remember hearing that our brains create the color magenta all on their own.

When I was younger I used to run out of my third-grade class because my teacher was allergic to the mold and sometimes would vomit in the trash can. My dad used to tell me that I used to always have to have something in my hands, later translating itself into the form of a hair tie around my wrist.

Sometimes, I think about the girl who used to walk on her tippy toes. medial and lateral nerves never planted, never grounded. We were the same in this way. My ability to be firmly planted anywhere was also withered.

Was it from all the times I panicked? Or from the time I ran away and I blistered the soles of my feet 'til they were black from the summer pavement? Emetophobia.

I felt it in the shower, dressing itself from the crown of my head down to the soles of my feet, noting the feeling onto my white board in an attempt to solidify it’s permanence.

As I breathed in the chemical blue transpiring from the Expo marker, everything was more defined. I laid down and when I looked up at the starlet lamp I had finally felt centered. Still. No longer fleeting. The grooves in the lamps glass forming a spiral of what felt to me like an artificial landscape of transcendental sparks.

She’s back now, magenta, though I never knew she left or even ever was. Somehow still subconsciously always known. I had been searching for her in the tremors.

I can see her now in the daphnes, the golden rays from the sun reflecting off of the bark on the trees and the red light that glowed brighter, suddenly the town around me was warmer. A melting of hues and sharpened saturation that was apparent and reminded of the smell of oranges.

I threw up all of the carrots I ate just before. The trauma that my body kept as a memory of things that may or may not go wrong and the times that I couldn't keep my legs from running. Revelations bring memories bringing anxieties from fear and panic released from my body as if to say “NO LONGER!”

I close my eyes now and my mind's eye is, too, more vivid than ever before. My inner eyelids lit up with orange undertones no longer a solid black, neurons firing, fire. Not the kind that burns you but the kind that can light up a dull space. Like the wick of a tea-lit candle. Magenta doesn’t exist. It is perception. A construct made of light waves, blue and red.

Demolition. Reconstruction. I walk down the street into this new world wearing my new mask, somatic senses tingling and I think to myself “Houston, I think we’ve just hit equilibrium.”

How COVID-19 Changed My Senior Year

During the last two weeks of Winter quarter, I watched the emails pour in. Spring quarter would be online, facilities were closing, and everyone was recommended to return home to their families, if possible. I resolved to myself that I would not move back home; I wanted to stay in my apartment, near my boyfriend, near my friends, and in the one place I had my own space. However, as the COVID-19 pandemic worsened, things continued to change quickly. Soon I learned my roommate/best friend would be cancelling her lease and moving back up to Northern California. We had made plans for my final quarter at UCI, as I would be graduating in June while she had another year, but all of the sudden, that dream was gone. In one whirlwind of a day, we tried to cram in as much of our plans as we could before she left the next day for good. There are still so many things – like hiking, going to museums, and showing her around my hometown – we never got to cross off our list.

Then, my boyfriend decided he would also be moving home, three hours away. Most of my sorority sisters were moving home, too. I realized if I stayed at school, I would be completely alone. My mom had been encouraging me to move home anyway, but I was reluctant to return to a house I wasn’t completely comfortable in. As the pandemic became more serious, gentle encouragement quickly turned into demands. I had to cancel my lease and move home.

I moved back in with my parents at the end of Spring Break; I never got to say goodbye to most of my friends, many of whom I’ll likely never see again – as long as the virus doesn’t change things, I’m supposed to move to New York over the summer to begin a PhD program in Criminal Justice. Just like that, my time at UCI had come to a close. No lasts to savor; instead I had piles of things to regret. In place of a final quarter filled with memorable lasts, such as the senior banquet or my sorority’s senior preference night, I’m left with a laundry list of things I missed out on. I didn’t get to look around the campus one last time like I had planned; I never got to take my graduation pictures in front of the UC Irvine sign. Commencement had already been cancelled. The lights had turned off in the theatre before the movie was over. I never got to find out how the movie ended.

Transitioning to a remote learning system wasn’t too bad, but I found that some professors weren’t adjusting their courses to the difficulties many students were facing. It turned out to be difficult to stay motivated, especially for classes that are pre-recorded and don’t have any face-to-face interaction. It’s hard to make myself care; I’m in my last few weeks ever at UCI, but it feels like I’m already in summer. School isn’t real, my classes aren’t real. I still put in the effort, but I feel like I’m not getting much out of my classes.

The things I had been looking forward to this quarter are gone; there will be no Undergraduate Research Symposium, where I was supposed to present two projects. My amazing internship with the US Postal Inspection Service is over prematurely and I never got to properly say goodbye to anyone I met there. I won’t receive recognition for the various awards and honors I worked so hard to achieve.

And I’m one of the lucky ones! I feel guilty for feeling bad about my situation, when I know there are others who have it much, much worse. I am like that quintessential spoiled child, complaining while there are essential workers working tirelessly, people with health concerns constantly fearing for their safety, and people dying every day. Yet knowing that doesn't help me from feeling I was robbed of my senior experience, something I worked very hard to achieve. I know it’s not nearly as important as what many others are going through. But nevertheless, this is my situation. I was supposed to be enjoying this final quarter with my friends and preparing to move on, not be stuck at home, grappling with my mental health and hiding out in my room to get some alone time from a family I don’t always get along with. And while I know it’s more difficult out there for many others, it’s still difficult for me.

The thing that stresses me out most is the uncertainty. Uncertainty for the future – how long will this pandemic last? How many more people have to suffer before things go back to “normal” – whatever that is? How long until I can see my friends and family again? And what does this mean for my academic future? Who knows what will happen between now and then? All that’s left to do is wait and hope that everything will work out for the best.

Looking back over my last few months at UCI, I wish I knew at the time that I was experiencing my lasts; it feels like I took so much for granted. If there is one thing this has all made me realize, it’s that nothing is certain. Everything we expect, everything we take for granted – none of it is a given. Hold on to what you have while you have it, and take the time to appreciate the wonderful things in life, because you never know when it will be gone.

Physical Distancing

Thirty days have never felt so long. April has been the longest month of the year. I have been through more in these past three months than in the past three years. The COVID-19 outbreak has had a huge impact on both physical and social well-being of a lot of Americans, including me. Stress has been governing the lives of so many civilians, in particular students and workers. In addition to causing a lack of motivation in my life, quarantine has also brought a wave of anxiety.

My life changed the moment the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention and the government announced social distancing. My busy daily schedule, running from class to class and meeting to meeting, morphed into identical days, consisting of hour after hour behind a cold computer monitor. Human interaction and touch improve trust, reduce fear and increases physical well-being. Imagine the effects of removing the human touch and interaction from midst of society. Humans are profoundly social creatures. I cannot function without interacting and connecting with other people. Even daily acquaintances have an impact on me that is only noticeable once removed. As a result, the COVID-19 outbreak has had an extreme impact on me beyond direct symptoms and consequences of contracting the virus itself.

It was not until later that month, when out of sheer boredom I was scrolling through my call logs and I realized that I had called my grandmother more than ever. This made me realize that quarantine had created some positive impacts on my social interactions as well. This period of time has created an opportunity to check up on and connect with family and peers more often than we were able to. Even though we might be connecting solely through a screen, we are not missing out on being socially connected. Quarantine has taught me to value and prioritize social connection, and to recognize that we can find this type of connection not only through in-person gatherings, but also through deep heart to heart connections. Right now, my weekly Zoom meetings with my long-time friends are the most important events in my week. In fact, I have taken advantage of the opportunity to reconnect with many of my old friends and have actually had more meaningful conversations with them than before the isolation.

This situation is far from ideal. From my perspective, touch and in-person interaction is essential; however, we must overcome all difficulties that life throws at us with the best we are provided with. Therefore, perhaps we should take this time to re-align our motives by engaging in things that are of importance to us. I learned how to dig deep and find appreciation for all the small talks, gatherings, and face-to-face interactions. I have also realized that friendships are not only built on the foundation of physical presence but rather on meaningful conversations you get to have, even if they are through a cold computer monitor. My realization came from having more time on my hands and noticing the shift in conversations I was having with those around me. After all, maybe this isolation isn’t “social distancing”, but rather “physical distancing” until we meet again.

Follow us on social media

Persuasive messaging to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake intentions

Affiliations.

1 Yale Institute for Global Health, New Haven, CT, USA; Department of Internal Medicine, Section of Infectious Diseases, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
2 Institution for Social and Policy Studies, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA; Center for the Study of American Politics, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA.
3 Institution for Social and Policy Studies, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA; Center for the Study of American Politics, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA; Department of Political Science, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA.
4 Yale Institute for Global Health, New Haven, CT, USA; Department of Internal Medicine, Section of Infectious Diseases, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA; Department of Epidemiology of Microbial Diseases, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT, USA; Yale School of Nursing, West Haven, CT, USA.
5 Institution for Social and Policy Studies, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA; Center for the Study of American Politics, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA; Department of Political Science, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA. Electronic address: [email protected].
PMID: 34774363
PMCID: PMC8531257
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.10.039

Widespread vaccination remains the best option for controlling the spread of COVID-19 and ending the pandemic. Despite the considerable disruption the virus has caused to people's lives, many people are still hesitant to receive a vaccine. Without high rates of uptake, however, the pandemic is likely to be prolonged. Here we use two survey experiments to study how persuasive messaging affects COVID-19 vaccine uptake intentions. In the first experiment, we test a large number of treatment messages. One subgroup of messages draws on the idea that mass vaccination is a collective action problem and highlighting the prosocial benefit of vaccination or the reputational costs that one might incur if one chooses not to vaccinate. Another subgroup of messages built on contemporary concerns about the pandemic, like issues of restricting personal freedom or economic security. We find that persuasive messaging that invokes prosocial vaccination and social image concerns is effective at increasing intended uptake and also the willingness to persuade others and judgments of non-vaccinators. We replicate this result on a nationally representative sample of Americans and observe that prosocial messaging is robust across subgroups, including those who are most hesitant about vaccines generally. The experiments demonstrate how persuasive messaging can induce individuals to be more likely to vaccinate and also create spillover effects to persuade others to do so as well. The first experiment in this study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov and can be found under the ID number NCT04460703 . This study was registered at Open Science Framework (OSF) at: https://osf.io/qu8nb/?view_only=82f06ecad77f4e54b02e8581a65047d7.

Publication types

Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
COVID-19 Vaccines*
United States
Vaccination
COVID-19 Vaccines

Associated data

ClinicalTrials.gov/NCT04460703

Grants and funding

UL1 TR001863/TR/NCATS NIH HHS/United States

Share full article

Supported by

The Morning Newsletter

Vaccine Persuasion

Many vaccine skeptics have changed their minds.

By David Leonhardt

When the Kaiser Family Foundation conducted a poll at the start of the year and asked American adults whether they planned to get vaccinated, 23 percent said no.

But a significant portion of that group — about one quarter of it — has since decided to receive a shot. The Kaiser pollsters recently followed up and asked these converts what led them to change their minds . The answers are important, because they offer insight into how the millions of still unvaccinated Americans might be persuaded to get shots, too.

First, a little background: A few weeks ago, it seemed plausible that Covid-19 might be in permanent retreat, at least in communities with high vaccination rates. But the Delta variant has changed the situation. The number of cases is rising in all 50 states .

Although vaccinated people remain almost guaranteed to avoid serious symptoms, Delta has put the unvaccinated at greater risk of contracting the virus — and, by extension, of hospitalization and death. The Covid death rate in recent days has been significantly higher in states with low vaccination rates than in those with higher rates:

(For more detailed state-level charts, see this piece by my colleagues Lauren Leatherby and Amy Schoenfeld Walker. The same pattern is evident at the county level, as the health policy expert Charles Gaba has been explaining on Twitter.)

Nationwide, more than 99 percent of recent deaths have occurred among unvaccinated people, and more than 97 percent of recent hospitalizations have occurred among the unvaccinated, according to the C.D.C. “Look,” President Biden said on Friday, “the only pandemic we have is among the unvaccinated.”

The three themes

What helps move people from vaccine skeptical to vaccinated? The Kaiser polls point to three main themes.

(The themes apply to both the 23 percent of people who said they would not get a shot, as well as to the 28 percent who described their attitude in January as “wait and see.” About half of the “wait and see” group has since gotten a shot.)

1. Seeing that millions of other Americans have been safely vaccinated.

Consider these quotes from Kaiser’s interviews :

“It was clearly safe. No one was dying.” — a 32-year-old white Republican man in South Carolina “I went to visit my family members in another state and everyone there had been vaccinated with no problems.” — a 63-year-old Black independent man in Texas “Almost all of my friends were vaccinated with no side effects.” — a 64-year-old Black Democratic woman in Tennessee

This suggests that emphasizing the safety of the vaccines — rather than just the danger of Covid, as many experts (and this newsletter) typically do — may help persuade more people to get a shot.

A poll of vaccine skeptics by Echelon Insights, a Republican firm, points to a similar conclusion. One of the most persuasive messages, the skeptics said, was hearing that people have been getting the vaccine for months and it is “working very well without any major issues.”

2. Hearing pro-vaccine messages from doctors, friends and relatives.

For many people who got vaccinated, messages from politicians, national experts and the mass media were persuasive. But many other Americans — especially those without a college degree — don’t trust mainstream institutions. For them, hearing directly from people they know can have a bigger impact.

“Hearing from experts,” as Mollyann Brodie, who oversees the Kaiser polls, told me, “isn’t the same as watching those around you or in your house actually go through the vaccination process.”

Here are more Kaiser interviews:

“My daughter is a doctor and she got vaccinated, which was reassuring that it was OK to get vaccinated.” — a 64-year-old Asian Democratic woman in Texas “Friends and family talked me into it, as did my place of employment.” — a 28-year-old white independent man in Virginia “My husband bugged me to get it and I gave in.” — a 42-year-old white Republican woman in Indiana “I was told by my doctor that she strongly recommend I get the vaccine because I have diabetes.” — a 47-year-old white Republican woman in Florida

These comments suggest that continued grass-roots campaigns may have a bigger effect at this stage than public-service ad campaigns. The one exception to that may be prominent figures from groups that still have higher vaccine skepticism, like Republican politicians and Black community leaders.

3. Learning that not being vaccinated will prevent people from doing some things.

There is now a roiling debate over vaccine mandates , with some hospitals, colleges, cruise-ship companies and others implementing them — and some state legislators trying to ban mandates. The Kaiser poll suggests that these requirements can influence a meaningful number of skeptics to get shots, sometimes just for logistical reasons.

“Hearing that the travel quarantine restrictions would be lifted for those people that are vaccinated was a major reason for my change of thought.” — a 43-year-old Black Democratic man in Virginia “To see events or visit some restaurants, it was easier to be vaccinated.” — a 39-year-old white independent man in New Jersey “Bahamas trip required a COVID shot.” — a 43-year-old Hispanic independent man in Pennsylvania

THE LATEST NEWS

Remote voting in Congress has become a personal and political convenience for House members of both parties.

The Times’s Mark Leibovich profiled Ron Klain , Biden’s chief of staff, whom some Republicans call “Prime Minister Klain.”

Flooding in Western Europe killed at least 183 people, with hundreds still missing . “The German language has no words, I think, for the devastation,” Chancellor Angela Merkel said.

Burned-out landscapes and dwindling water supplies are threatening Napa Valley, the heart of America’s wine industry .

Here’s the latest on the extreme heat and wildfires in the West.

MORNING READS

Into the woods: Smartphones are steering novice hikers onto trails they can’t handle .

Driven: Maureen Dowd meets Dara Khosrowshahi, Uber’s “weirdly normal” C.E.O.

The Games: Has the world had enough of the Olympics ?

A Times classic: Try this science-based 7-minute workout .

Quiz time: The average score on our most recent news quiz is 8.1 out of 11. See if you can do better .

Lives Lived: Gloria Richardson famously brushed aside a National Guardsman’s bayonet as she led a campaign for civil rights in Cambridge, Md. She died at 99 .

ARTS AND IDEAS

What matters in a name sign.

Shortly after the 2020 presidential election, five women teamed up to assign Vice President-elect Kamala Harris a name sign — the equivalent of a person’s name in American Sign Language.

The women — Ebony Gooden, Kavita Pipalia, Smita Kothari, Candace Jones and Arlene Ngalle-Paryani — are members of the “capital D Deaf community,” a term some deaf people use to indicate they embrace deafness as a cultural identity and communicate primarily through ASL.

Through social media, people submitted suggestions and put the entries to a vote. The result: A name sign that draws inspiration, among other things, from the sign for “lotus flower” — the translation of “Kamala” in Sanskrit — and the number three, highlighting Harris’s trifecta as the first Black, Indian and female vice president.

“Name signs given to political leaders are usually created by white men, but for this one we wanted to not only represent women, but diversity — Black women, Indian women,” Kothari said. Read more about it, and see videos of the signs . — Sanam Yar, a Morning writer

PLAY, WATCH, EAT

What to cook.

Debate ham and pineapple pizza all you want. There’s no denying the goodness of caramelized pineapple with sausages .

What to Watch

Based on books by R.L. Stine, the “Fear Street” trilogy on Netflix offers gore and nostalgia.

“ Skipped History ,” a comedy web series, explores overlooked people and events that shaped America.

Now Time to Play

The pangram from Friday’s Spelling Bee was lengthened . Here is today’s puzzle — or you can play online .

Here’s today’s Mini Crossword , and a clue: Hot tub nozzles (four letters).

If you’re in the mood to play more, find all our games here .

Thanks for spending part of your morning with The Times. See you tomorrow. — David

P.S. Ashley Wu , who has worked for Apple and New York magazine, has joined The Times as a graphics editor for newsletters. You’ll see her work in The Morning soon.

Here’s today’s print front page .

“ The Daily ” is about booster shots. On the Book Review podcast , S.A. Cosby talks about his new novel.

Lalena Fisher, Claire Moses, Ian Prasad Philbrick, Tom Wright-Piersanti and Sanam Yar contributed to The Morning. You can reach the team at [email protected] .

David Leonhardt writes The Morning, The Times's main daily newsletter. Previously at The Times, he was the Washington bureau chief, the founding editor of The Upshot, an Op-Ed columnist, and the head of The 2020 Project, on the future of the Times newsroom. He won the 2011 Pulitzer Prize for commentary. More about David Leonhardt

Smart. Open. Grounded. Inventive. Read our Ideas Made to Matter.

Which program is right for you?

Through intellectual rigor and experiential learning, this full-time, two-year MBA program develops leaders who make a difference in the world.

A rigorous, hands-on program that prepares adaptive problem solvers for premier finance careers.

A 12-month program focused on applying the tools of modern data science, optimization and machine learning to solve real-world business problems.

Earn your MBA and SM in engineering with this transformative two-year program.

Combine an international MBA with a deep dive into management science. A special opportunity for partner and affiliate schools only.

A doctoral program that produces outstanding scholars who are leading in their fields of research.

Bring a business perspective to your technical and quantitative expertise with a bachelor’s degree in management, business analytics, or finance.

A joint program for mid-career professionals that integrates engineering and systems thinking. Earn your master’s degree in engineering and management.

An interdisciplinary program that combines engineering, management, and design, leading to a master’s degree in engineering and management.

Executive Programs

A full-time MBA program for mid-career leaders eager to dedicate one year of discovery for a lifetime of impact.

This 20-month MBA program equips experienced executives to enhance their impact on their organizations and the world.

Non-degree programs for senior executives and high-potential managers.

A non-degree, customizable program for mid-career professionals.

Credit: Marcela Viera/iStock

Social Media

Misleading COVID-19 headlines from mainstream sources did more harm on Facebook than fake news

MIT Sloan Office of Communications

May 30, 2024

New MIT Sloan research shows that unflagged but misleading content on Facebook was less persuasive, but much more widely seen, and thus generated more COVID-19 vaccine skepticism than flagged misinformation.

CAMBRIDGE, Mass., May 30, 2024 – Since the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccine in 2021, fake news on social media has been widely blamed for low vaccine uptake in the United States — but research by MIT Sloan School of Management PhD candidate Jennifer Allen and Professor David Rand finds that the blame lies elsewhere.

In a new paper published in Science and co-authored by Duncan J. Watts of the University of Pennsylvania, the researchers introduce a new methodology for measuring social media content’s causal impact at scale. They show that misleading content from mainstream news sources — rather than outright misinformation or “fake news” — was the primary driver of vaccine hesitancy on Facebook.

A new approach to estimating impact

“Misinformation has been correlated with many societal challenges, but there’s not a lot of research showing that exposure to misinformation actually causes harm,” explained Allen.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, for example, the spread of misinformation related to the virus and vaccine received significant public attention. However, existing research has, for the most part, only established correlations between vaccine refusal and factors such as sharing misinformation online — and largely overlooked the role of “vaccine-skeptical” content, which was potentially misleading but not flagged as misinformation by Facebook fact-checkers.

To address that gap, the researchers first asked a key question: What would be necessary for misinformation or any other type of content to have far-reaching impacts?

“To change behavior at scale, content has to not only be persuasive enough to convince people not to get the vaccine, but also widely seen,” Allen said. “Potential harm results from the combination of persuasion and exposure.”

To quantify content’s persuasive ability, the researchers conducted randomized experiments in which they showed thousands of survey participants the headlines from 130 vaccine-related stories — including both mainstream content and known misinformation — and tested how those headlines impacted their intentions to get vaccinated against COVID-19. Researchers also asked a separate group of respondents to rate the headlines across various attributes, including plausibility and political leaning. One factor reliably predicted impacts on vaccination intentions: the extent to which a headline suggested that the vaccine was harmful to a person’s health.

Using the “ wisdom of crowds ” and natural language processing AI tools, Allen and her co-authors extrapolated those survey results to predict the persuasive power of all 13,206 vaccine-related URLs that were widely viewed on Facebook in the first three months of the vaccine rollout. By combining these predictions with data from Facebook showing the number of users who viewed each URL, the researchers could predict each headline’s overall impact — the number of people it might have persuaded not to get the vaccine. The results were surprising.

The underestimated power of exposure

Contrary to popular perceptions, the researchers estimated that vaccine-skeptical content reduced vaccination intentions 46 times more than misinformation flagged by fact-checkers.

The reason? Even though flagged misinformation was more harmful when seen, it had relatively low reach. In total, the vaccine-related headlines in the Facebook data set received 2.7 billion views — but content flagged as misinformation received just 0.3% of those views, and content from domains rated as low-credibility received 5.1%.

“Even though the outright false content reduced vaccination intentions the most when viewed, comparatively few people saw it,” explained Rand. “Essentially, that means there’s this class of gray-area content that is less harmful per exposure but is seen far more often —and thus more impactful overall — that has been largely overlooked by both academics and social media companies.”

Notably, several of the most impactful URLs within the data set were articles from mainstream sources that cast doubt on the vaccine’s safety. For instance, the most-viewed was an article — from a well-regarded mainstream news source — suggesting that a medical doctor died two weeks after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. This single headline received 54.9 million views — more than six times the combined views of all flagged misinformation.

While the body of this article did acknowledge the uncertainty of the doctor’s cause of death, its “clickbait” headline was highly suggestive and implied that the vaccine was likely responsible. That’s significant since the vast majority of viewers on social media likely never click out to read past the headline.

How journalists and social media platforms can help

According to Rand, one implication of this work is that media outlets need to take more care with their headlines, even if that means they aren’t as attention-grabbing.

“When you are writing a headline, you should not just be asking yourself if it’s false or not,” he said. “You should be asking yourself if the headline is likely to cause inaccurate perceptions.”

For platforms, added Allen, the research also points to the need for more nuanced moderation — across all subjects, not just public health.

“Content moderation focuses on identifying the most egregiously false information — but that may not be an effective way of identifying the most overall harmful content,” she says. “Platforms should also prioritize reviewing content from the people or organizations with the largest numbers of followers while balancing freedom of expression. We need to invest in more research and creative solutions in this space – for example, crowdsourced moderation tools like X’s Community Notes .”

“Content moderation decisions can be really difficult because of the inherent tension between wanting to mitigate harm and allowing people to express themselves,” Rand said. “Our paper introduces a framework to help balance that trade-off by allowing tech companies to actually quantify potential harm.”

And the trade-offs could be large. An exploratory analysis by the authors found that if Facebook users hadn’t been exposed to this vaccine-skeptical content, as many as 3 million more Americans could have been vaccinated.

“We can’t just ignore this gray area-content,” Allen concluded. “Lives could have been saved.”

About the MIT Sloan School of Management

The MIT Sloan School of Management is where smart, independent leaders come together to solve problems, create new organizations, and improve the world. Learn more at mitsloan.mit.edu .

Graphic image of cellphone with bullhorn announcing "Fake News."

IMAGES

Examples for Crafting a Winning Persuasive Essay on Covid-19
"COVID-19 PR Reflection" by Madeline Dingle
Fourth Grader Pens Essay About Coronavirus Anger and Fears
Complete Essay on Coronavirus (COVID-19) (with latest statistics)
≫ Nationalism and Covid-19 Pandemic Free Essay Sample on Samploon.com
≫ Vaccinations: Are There any Real Benefits? Free Essay Sample on

VIDEO

A persuasive speech about Covid-19
Why not to get the covid-19 vaccine ( persuasive speech)
whats covid 19.by ‎@Inspiredrecitals . corona virus #covid19 #coronavirus
How to Structure Your Persuasive Essay
Persuasive Speech 3 11/19/2023
Essay Hslc 2021- Covid 19

COMMENTS

Persuasive Essay About Covid19
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. Start by narrowing down your focus. COVID-19 is a broad topic, so selecting a specific aspect or issue related to it will make ...
10+ Examples of a Persuasive Essay About Covid-19
Examples of Persuasive Essay About Covid-19 Integration. Writing a persuasive essay on Covid-19 integration doesn't have to be stressful or overwhelming. With the right approach and preparation, you can write an essay that will get them top marks! Here are a few samples of compelling persuasive essays.
How to Write About Coronavirus in a College Essay
Writing About COVID-19 in College Essays. Experts say students should be honest and not limit themselves to merely their experiences with the pandemic. The global impact of COVID-19, the disease ...
Examining persuasive message type to encourage staying at home during
Such articles convey messages from governors, public health experts, physicians, COVID-19 patients, and residents of outbreak areas, encouraging people to stay at home. This is the first study to examine which narrator's message is most persuasive in encouraging people to do so during the COVID-19 pandemic and social lockdown.
12 moving essays about life during coronavirus
Read these 12 moving essays about life during coronavirus. Artists, novelists, critics, and essayists are writing the first draft of history. A woman wearing a face mask in Miami. Alissa Wilkinson ...
Persuasive messaging to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake intentions
Here we use two survey experiments to study how persuasive messaging affects COVID-19 vaccine uptake intentions. In the first experiment, we test a large number of treatment messages. One subgroup of messages draws on the idea that mass vaccination is a collective action problem and highlighting the prosocial benefit of vaccination or the ...
12 Ideas for Writing Through the Pandemic With The New York Times
Here's what Addie Muller from San Jose, Calif., had to say about the Opinion essay "I'm 26. Coronavirus Sent Me to the Hospital": As a high school student and a part of Generation Z, I ...
Testing persuasive messaging to encourage COVID-19 risk reduction
RESEARCH ARTICLE Testing persuasive messaging to encourage COVID-19 risk reduction Scott E. Bokemper1,2, Gregory A. Huber ID 1,2,3*, Erin K. James4,5, Alan S. Gerber1,2,3, Saad B. Omer4,5,6 1 Institution for Social and Policy Studies, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America, 2 Center for the Study of American Politics, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, United
Persuasive narrative during the COVID-19 pandemic: Norwegian Prime
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.
The Science of Persuasion Offers Lessons for COVID-19 Prevention
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 ...
Mastering the art of persuasion during a pandemic
By. Elizabeth Svoboda. Credit: Sam Falconer. When Robb Willer looks back on the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic — when leaders still had a chance to stop the virus from bringing the world to ...
Students' Essays on Infectious Disease Prevention, COVID-19 Published
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.
Persuasion key in encouraging people to stay home during Covid-19
Persuading people to stay at home during the Covid-19 pandemic was key and included providing them with "an accurate perception of risk and therefore, for some, increasing the personal threat they perceive," says Professor Susan Michie (UCL Psychology & Language Sciences).
Misdirecting Persuasive Efforts During the Covid-19 Pandemic: The
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.
Discursive structures and power relations in Covid-19 knowledge
This article critically examines the discourse around the Covid-19 pandemic to investigate the widespread polarisation evident in social media debates. The model of epidemic psychology holds that ...
Testing persuasive messaging to encourage COVID-19 risk reduction
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.
Persuasive Messages for Improving Adherence to COVID-19 Prevention
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. ... Perceived COVID-19 threat was measured using four items (α=.89) adapted from previous ...
Covid 19 Essays: Examples, Topics, & Outlines
The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on individuals, societies, and economies worldwide. Its multifaceted nature presents a wealth of topics suitable for academic exploration. This essay provides guidance on developing engaging and insightful essay topics related to COVID-19, offering a comprehensive range of perspectives to choose from.
Essays reveal experiences during pandemic, unrest
The COVID-19 outbreak has had a huge impact on both physical and social well-being of a lot of Americans, including me. Stress has been governing the lives of so many civilians, in particular students and workers. In addition to causing a lack of motivation in my life, quarantine has also brought a wave of anxiety.
Persuasive messaging to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake ...
Without high rates of uptake, however, the pandemic is likely to be prolonged. Here we use two survey experiments to study how persuasive messaging affects COVID-19 vaccine uptake intentions. In the first experiment, we test a large number of treatment messages. One subgroup of messages draws on the idea that mass vaccination is a collective ...
COVID-19: How to persuade patients to practice social distancing
COVID-19: How to persuade patients to practice social distancing. Minimizing contact with others by staying home and practicing social distancing can help health systems better meet the needs of those who may have COVID-19. While many people are following recommendations by working from home and canceling trips, others view these precautions as ...
Vaccine Persuasion
Caroline Gutman for The New York Times. 2. Hearing pro-vaccine messages from doctors, friends and relatives. For many people who got vaccinated, messages from politicians, national experts and the ...
Misleading COVID-19 headlines from mainstream sources did ...
To quantify content's persuasive ability, the researchers conducted randomized experiments in which they showed thousands of survey participants the headlines from 130 vaccine-related stories — including both mainstream content and known misinformation — and tested how those headlines impacted their intentions to get vaccinated against ...
Misleading COVID-19 headlines from mainstream sources did
New MIT Sloan research shows that unflagged but misleading content on Facebook was less persuasive, but much more widely seen, and thus generated more COVID-19 vaccine skepticism than flagged ...

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

Steps to Write a Persuasive Essay About Covid-19

Step 1: Choose a Specific Thesis Statement

Step 2: Research and Gather Information

Step 3: Outline Your Essay

Step 4: Write the Introduction

Step 5: Provide Background Information

Step 6: Develop Body Paragraphs

Step 7: Address Counterarguments

Step 8: Write the Conclusion

Step 9: Revise and Proofread

Step 10: Cite Your Sources

Examples of Persuasive Essay About Covid19

Examples of Persuasive Essay About Covid-19 Vaccine

Examples of Persuasive Essay About Covid-19 Integration

Examples of Argumentative Essay About Covid 19

Examples of Persuasive Speeches About Covid-19

Tips to Write a Persuasive Essay About Covid-19

Choose a Specific Angle

Provide Credible Sources

Use Persuasive Language

Organize Your Essay

Emphasize Benefits

Use Visuals -H3

Call to Action

Revise and Edit

Seek Feedback

Common Topics for a Persuasive Essay on COVID-19

Frequently Asked Questions

What impact does COVID-19 have on society?

Keep reading

Top Examples of Persuasive Essay about Covid-19

Examples of Persuasive Essay About Covid-19

Examples of Persuasive Essay About the Covid-19 Vaccine

Examples of Persuasive Essay About Covid-19 Integration

Examples of Argumentative Essay About Covid-19

Examples of Persuasive Speeches About Covid-19

Tips to Write a Persuasive Essay

Frequently Asked Questions

What are good topics for persuasive essays?

What impact does COVID-19 have on society?

Keep reading

How to Write About Coronavirus in a College Essay

Writing About COVID-19 for a College Application

Writing About Coronavirus in Main and Supplemental Essays

10 Ways to Discover College Essay Ideas

College Admissions: Get a Step Ahead!

You May Also Like

States' Responses to FAFSA Delays

Nonacademic Factors in College Searches

Takeaways From the NCAA’s Settlement

New Best Engineering Rankings June 18

Premedical Programs: What to Know

How Geography Affects College Admissions

Q&A: College Alumni Engagement

10 Destination West Coast College Towns

Scholarships for Lesser-Known Sports

Read these 12 moving essays about life during coronavirus

Most Popular

More in Culture

Why the uncanny “All eyes on Rafah” image went so viral

Leaked video reveals the lie of Miss Universe’s empowerment promise

The Sympathizer takes on Hollywood’s Vietnam War stories

The NCAA’s proposal to pay college athletes is fair. That's the problem.

The WNBA’s meteoric rise in popularity, in one chart

Why the ludicrous Republican response to Trump’s conviction matters

Trump’s remaining 3 indictments, ranked by the stakes

A producer on The Apprentice alleges Trump used the n-word

Congress’s online child safety bill, explained

Select Your Interests

The Science of Persuasion Offers Lessons for COVID-19 Prevention

See More About

Manage citations:

Others Also Liked

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

Related Articles

President Michael S. Roth ’78: “We Must Learn to Practice Freedom, Better”

Wesleyan University Celebrated its 192nd Commencement, Sunday

Persuasion key in encouraging people to stay home during Covid-19

About Stanford GSB