The effects of responsibility frames and stigmatizing headlines in news on support for covid-19 policies in korea

This study examined the mechanisms through which responsibility frames and stigmatizing headlines influence support for governmental policies to address the pandemic. Based on a factorial design experiment, we examined the effects of 2 responsibility frames (individual vs. societal responsibility) and 4 headline types (non-stigmatized vs. name-stigmatized vs. characteristic-stigmatized vs. both-stigmatized). The results showed that the individual responsibility frame increased individual attribution of responsibility for the cause and spread of COVID-19 whereas reducing societal attribution of responsibility, compared to the societal responsibility frame. The headline that detailed both the stigmatized characteristic and name increased individual attribution of responsibility compared to the non-stigmatized headline. Furthermore, the effects of frames and headline types on policy support were sequentially mediated by attribution of responsibility and emotions. Individual attribution of responsibility led to anger whereas societal attribution of responsibility led to sympathy. Subsequently, anger increased support for punitive policies while sympathy increased support for assistive policies. This study contributes to the literature on news framing of pandemics by integrating cognitive and emotional mechanisms in forming policy attitudes. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved)

The Effects of Responsibility Frames and Stigmatizing Headlines in News on Support for COVID-19 Policies in Korea: The Mediating Roles of Responsibility Attribution and Emotions

This study examined the mechanisms through which responsibility frames and stigmatizing headlines influence support for governmental policies to address the pandemic. Based on a factorial design experiment, we examined the effects of 2 responsibility frames (individual vs. societal responsibility) and 4 headline types (non-stigmatized vs. name-stigmatized vs. characteristic-stigmatized vs. both-stigmatized). The results showed that the individual responsibility frame increased individual attribution of responsibility for the cause and spread of COVID-19 whereas reducing societal attribution of responsibility, compared to the societal responsibility frame. The headline that detailed both the stigmatized characteristic and name increased individual attribution of responsibility compared to the non-stigmatized headline. Furthermore, the effects of frames and headline types on policy support were sequentially mediated by attribution of responsibility and emotions. Individual attribution of responsibility led to anger whereas societal attribution of responsibility led to sympathy. Subsequently, anger increased support for punitive polices while sympathy increased support for assistive policies. This study contributes to the literature on news framing of pandemics by integrating cognitive and emotional mechanisms in forming policy attitudes. [ FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Mass Communication & Society is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full . (Copyright applies to all s.)

What message features influence the intention to share misinformation about COVID-19 on social media? The role of efficacy and novelty.

Given the amount of misinformation being circulated on social media during the COVID-19 pandemic and its potential threat to public health, it is imperative to investigate ways to hinder its transmission. To this end, this study aimed to identify message features that may contribute to misinformation sharing on social media. Based on the theory of social sharing of emotion and the extant research on message credibility, this study examined if emotions and message credibility serve as mechanisms through which novelty and efficacy of misinformation influence sharing intention. An online experiment concerning COVID-19 misinformation was conducted by employing a 2 (novelty conditions: high vs. low) × 2 (efficacy conditions: high vs. low) between-subjects design using a national quota sample in South Korea (N = 1,012). The findings suggested that, contrary to the expectation, the overall effects of novelty on sharing intention were negative. The specific mechanisms played significant and unique roles in different directions: novelty increased sharing intention by evoking surprise, while also exerting a negative influence on sharing intention through an increase in negative emotions and a decrease in positive emotions and message credibility. Consistent with the expectation, efficacy exhibited positive total effects on sharing intention, which was explained by higher levels of (self- and response-) efficacy of protective action increasing positive emotions and message credibility but decreasing negative emotions. The implications and limitations of the study are discussed.