Message framing and trust as moderated mediating mechanisms for effective government response to uncertain risk messages

References

• Chen, T., M. Dai, S. Xia, and Y. Zhou. 2022. “Do Messages Matter? Investigating the Combined Effects of Framing, Outcome Uncertainty, and Number Format on COVID-19 Vaccination Attitudes and Intention.” Health Communication 37 (8): 944–951. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2021.1876814
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chung, G. K.-K., Y.-H. Chan, S.-M. Chan, J.-K. Chen, H. Wong, and R. Y.-N. Chung. 2022. “The Impact of Trust in Government on Pandemic Management on the Compliance with Voluntary COVID-19 Vaccination Policy among Adolescents after Social Unrest in Hong Kong.” Frontiers in Public Health 10: 992895. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.992895
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Driedger, S. M., R. Maier, and C. Jardine. 2021. “Damned If You Do, and Damned If You Don’t’: Communicating about Uncertainty and Evolving Science during the H1N1 Influenza Pandemic.” Journal of Risk Research 24 (5): 574–592. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2018.1459793
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freimuth, V. S., D. Musa, K. Hilyard, S. C. Quinn, and K. Kim. 2014. “Trust during the Early Stages of the 2009 H1N1 Pandemic.” Journal of Health Communication 19 (3): 321–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2013.811323
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gallagher, K. M., and J. A. Updegraff. 2012. “Health Message Framing Effects on Attitudes, Intentions, and Behavior: A Meta-Analytic Review.” Annals of Behavioral Medicine: A Publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine 43 (1): 101–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-011-9308-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gustafson, A., and R. E. Rice. 2019. “The Effects of Uncertainty Frames in Three Science Communication Topics.” Science Communication 41 (6): 679–706. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547019870811
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gustafson, A., and R. E. Rice. 2020. “A Review of the Effects of Uncertainty in Public Science Communication.” Public Understanding of Science 29 (6): 614–633. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662520942122
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayes, A. F. 2018. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. 2nd ed. New York: Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hayes, A. F., and N. J. Rockwood. 2020. “Conditional Process Analysis: Concepts, Computation, and Advances in the Modeling of the Contingencies of Mechanisms.” American Behavioral Scientist 64 (1): 19–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764219859633
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holland, D., A. Krause, J. Provencher, and T. Seltzer. 2018. “Transparency Tested: The Influence of Message Features on Public Perceptions of Organizational Transparency.” Public Relations Review 44 (2): 256–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.12.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holland, D., T. Seltzer, and A. Kochigina. 2021. “Practicing Transparency in a Crisis: Examining the Combined Effects of Crisis Type, Response, and Message Transparency on Organizational Perceptions.” Public Relations Review 47 (2): 102017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2021.102017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jensen, J. D., C. L. Ratcliff, R. N. Yale, M. Krakow, C. L. Scherr, and S. K. Yeo. 2018. “Persuasive Impact of Loss and Gain Frames on Intentions to Exercise: A Test of Six Moderators.” Communication Monographs 85 (2): 245–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2017.1353699
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D., and A. Tversky. 1979. “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk.” Econometrica 47 (2): 263–292. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, K., and Y. Kim. 2017. “The Effects of Message Framing and Uncertainty on the Preventive Behavioral Intention: A Focus on Climate Change.” Advertising Research 112: 154–198. https://doi.org/10.16914/ar.2017.112.154
   Google Scholar
• Kim, S., and S. Kim. 2017. “Impact of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident on Belief in Rumors: The Role of Risk Perception and Communication.” Sustainability 9 (12): 2188. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9122188
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lavrakas, P. J., M. W. Traugott, C. Kennedy, A. L. Holbrook, E. D. de Leeuw, and B. T. West. 2019. Experimental Methods in Survey Research: Techniques That Combine Random Sampling with Random Assignment. Hoboken: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, C., and H. Woo. 2014. “Health Impact of Low Dose Radiation: Seeking Crisis Communication Strategies to Respond to Uncertainty.” Issue Report. HT. R&D 2014-001. Cheongju, South Korea: Korea Health Industry Development Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, S., N. Kim, J. Kim, I. Shin, M. Ha, S. Lee, and Y. Oh. 2011. Korea’s Health Effects and Countermeasures Affected Japan’s Nuclear Accident. Research Report, 2011-48. Sejong City, South Korea: Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs.
   Google Scholar
• Liu, B. F., and A. M. Mehta. 2021. “From the Periphery and toward a Centralized Model for Trust in Government Risk and Disaster Communication.” Journal of Risk Research 24 (7): 853–869. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2020.1773516
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lofstedt, R., and F. Bouder. 2021. “Evidence-Based Uncertainty Analysis: What Should we Now Do in Europe? A View Point.” Journal of Risk Research 24 (5): 521–540. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2017.1316763
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Metlay, D. 1999. “Institutional Trust and Confidence: A Journey into a Conceptual Quagmire.” In Social Trust and the Management of Risk, edited by G. T. Cvetkovich and R. E. L’Ofstedt, 100–116. New York: Earthscan.
   Google Scholar
• Meyerowitz, B. E., and S. Chaiken. 1987. “The Effect of Message Framing on Breast Self-Examination Attitudes, Intentions, and Behavior.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52 (3): 500–510. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.500
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morton, T. A., A. Rabinovich, D. Marshall, and P. Bretschneider. 2011. “The Future That May (or May Not) Come: How Framing Changes Responses to Uncertainty in Climate Change Communications.” Global Environmental Change 21 (1): 103–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.09.013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nabi, R. L., N. Walter, N. Oshidary, C. G. Endacott, J. Love-Nichols, Z. J. Lew, and A. Aune. 2020. “Can Emotions Capture the Elusive Gain-Loss Framing Effect? A Meta-Analysis.” Communication Research 47 (8): 1107–1130. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650219861256
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nisbet, M. C., and M. Huge. 2006. “Attention Cycles and Frames in the Plant Biotechnology Debate: Managing Power and Participation through the Press/Policy Connection.” Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 11 (2): 3–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/1081180X06286701
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Keefe, Daniel J., and Jakob D. Jensen. 2006. “The Advantages of Compliance or the Disadvantages of Noncompliance? A Meta-Analytic Review of the Relative Persuasive Effectiveness of Gain-Framed and Loss-Framed Messages.” Communication Yearbook 30 (1): 1–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2006.11679054
   Google Scholar
• O’Keefe, Daniel J., and Jakob D. Jensen. 2007. “The Relative Persuasiveness of Gain-Framed and Loss-Framed Messages for Encouraging Disease Prevention Behaviors: A Meta-Analytic Review.” Journal of Health Communication 12 (7): 623–644. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730701615198
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Keefe, Daniel J., and Jakob D. Jensen. 2009. “The Relative Persuasiveness of Gain-Framed and Loss-Framed Messages for Encouraging Disease Detection Behaviors: A Meta-Analytic Review.” Journal of Communication 59 (2): 296–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730701615198
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Keefe, Daniel J., and Xiaoli Nan. 2012. “The Relative Persuasiveness of Gain- and Loss-Framed Messages for Promoting Vaccination: A Meta-Analytic Review.” Health Communication 27 (8): 776–783. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2011.640974
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paek, H.-J., and T. Hove. 2019a. “Effective Strategies for Responding to Rumors about Risks: The Case of Radiation-Contaminated Food in South Korea.” Public Relations Review 45 (3): 101762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2019.02.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paek, H.-J., and T. Hove. 2019b. “Mediating and Moderating Roles of Trust in Government in Effective Risk Rumor Management: A Test Case of Radiation-Contaminated Seafood in South Korea.” Risk Analysis: An Official Publication of the Society for Risk Analysis 39 (12): 2653–2667. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13377
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peters, R. G., V. T. Covello, and D. B. McCallum. 1997. “The Determinants of Trust and Credibility in Environmental Risk Communication: An Empirical Study.” Risk Analysis: An Official Publication of the Society for Risk Analysis 17 (1): 43–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1997.tb00842.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Retzbach, A., and M. Maier. 2015. “Communicating Scientific Uncertainty: Media Effects on Public Engagement with Science.” Communication Research 42 (3): 429–456. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650214534967
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rothman, A. J., and P. Salovey. 1997. “Shaping Perceptions to Motivate Healthy Behavior: The Role of Message Framing.” Psychological Bulletin 121 (1): 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.121.1.3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seoul Public News. 2023. “Seoul Metropolitan Council, Democratic Party of Korea say, ‘Seven Out of 10 Seoul Citizens, Unstable Discharge of Radioactive Contaminated Water … Reduce Seafood Purchases.’” https://go.seoul.co.kr/news/newsView.php?id=20230808500038
   Google Scholar
• Su, Y., and J. Shi. 2021. “Extending the Risk Perception Attitude Framework to Predict Individuals’ Engagement in Collective Actions against Cancer.” Health Communication 38 (1): 91–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2021.1935540
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Bles, A. M., S. van der Linden, A. L. J. Freeman, and D. J. Spiegelhalter. 2020. “The Effects of Communicating Uncertainty on Public Trust in Facts and Numbers.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 117 (14): 7672–7683. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1913678117
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van ‘t Riet, Jonathan, Anthony D. Cox, Dena Cox, Gregory D. Zimet, Gert-Jan De Bruijn, Bas Van den Putte, Hein De Vries, Marieke Q. Werrij, and Robert A. C. Ruiter. 2014. “Does Perceived Risk Influence the Effects of Message Framing? A New Investigation of a Widely Held Notion.” Psychology & Health 29 (8): 933–949. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2014.896916
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wardman, J. K., and G. Mythen. 2016. “Risk Communication: Against the Gods or against All Odds? Problems and Prospects of Accounting for Black Swans.” Journal of Risk Research 19 (10): 1220–1230. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2016.1262002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Webb, T. L., and P. Sheeran. 2006. “Does Changing Behavioral Intentions Engender Behavior Change? A Meta-Analysis of the Experimental Evidence.” Psychological Bulletin 132 (2): 249–268. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.2.249
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wong, C. M. L., and O. Jensen. 2020. “The Paradox of Trust: Perceived Risk and Public Compliance during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Singapore.” Journal of Risk Research 23 (7-8): 1021–1030. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2020.1756386
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wong-Parodi, G., and I. Feygina. 2021. “Engaging People on Climate Change: The Role of Emotional Responses.” Environmental Communication 15 (5): 571–593. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2020.1871051
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. 2023. “Radioactivity in Food after a Nuclear Emergency.” https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/radioactivity-in-food-after-a-nuclear-emergency
   Google Scholar
• Xu, J., and G. Huang. 2020. “The Relative Effectiveness of Gain-Framed and Loss-Framed Messages in Charity Advertising: Meta-Analytic Evidence and Implications.” International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing 25 (4): e1675. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.1675
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar