Moral expression of "experts" and public engagement: Communicating COVID-19 vaccines on Facebook public pages in Chinese.

IF 3.5 2区 文学 Q1 COMMUNICATION Public Understanding of Science Pub Date : 2025-01-24 DOI:10.1177/09636625241310147
Yipeng Xi, Weiyu Zhang
{"title":"Moral expression of \"experts\" and public engagement: Communicating COVID-19 vaccines on Facebook public pages in Chinese.","authors":"Yipeng Xi, Weiyu Zhang","doi":"10.1177/09636625241310147","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This research investigates the moral frames employed by diverse Chinese-speaking \"experts\" on their Facebook public pages in relation to COVID-19 vaccines, leveraging Moral Foundations Theory for analysis. The analysis highlights that experts predominantly employ moral frames emphasizing care and authority in communicating COVID-19 vaccines. However, the moral frames of care, loyalty, and fairness are more effective in garnering public support. The research thus identifies a disparity between the moral rhetoric commonly espoused by different expert groups and the rhetoric that substantively influences public engagement. The implications of diverse experts' moral framing in public health crises are also discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":48094,"journal":{"name":"Public Understanding of Science","volume":" ","pages":"9636625241310147"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Understanding of Science","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625241310147","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This research investigates the moral frames employed by diverse Chinese-speaking "experts" on their Facebook public pages in relation to COVID-19 vaccines, leveraging Moral Foundations Theory for analysis. The analysis highlights that experts predominantly employ moral frames emphasizing care and authority in communicating COVID-19 vaccines. However, the moral frames of care, loyalty, and fairness are more effective in garnering public support. The research thus identifies a disparity between the moral rhetoric commonly espoused by different expert groups and the rhetoric that substantively influences public engagement. The implications of diverse experts' moral framing in public health crises are also discussed.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
本研究利用道德基础理论(Moral Foundations Theory)进行分析,调查了不同的讲中文的 "专家 "在其 Facebook 公共主页上就 COVID-19 疫苗所使用的道德框架。分析结果表明,专家们在传播 COVID-19 疫苗时主要使用了强调关爱和权威的道德框架。然而,关爱、忠诚和公平的道德框架在赢得公众支持方面更为有效。因此,研究发现了不同专家群体通常采用的道德修辞与对公众参与产生实质性影响的修辞之间的差异。研究还讨论了不同专家的道德框架在公共卫生危机中的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.30
自引率
9.80%
发文量
80
期刊介绍: Public Understanding of Science is a fully peer reviewed international journal covering all aspects of the inter-relationships between science (including technology and medicine) and the public. Public Understanding of Science is the only journal to cover all aspects of the inter-relationships between science (including technology and medicine) and the public. Topics Covered Include... ·surveys of public understanding and attitudes towards science and technology ·perceptions of science ·popular representations of science ·scientific and para-scientific belief systems ·science in schools
期刊最新文献
Advocacy - defending science or destroying it? Interviews with 47 climate scientists about their fundamental concerns. Narratives of hope and concern? Examining the impact of climate scientists' communication on credibility and engagement. Self-serving beliefs about science: Science justifies my weaknesses (but not other people's). Who is at risk of bias? Examining dispositional differences in motivated science reception. Does exposure necessarily lead to misbelief? A meta-analysis of susceptibility to health misinformation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1