尊重对话规范可提高未接种疫苗者对专家信息的接受程度。

IF 3 3区 医学 Q1 COMMUNICATION Health Communication Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2023-08-02 DOI:10.1080/10410236.2023.2243047
Sean M McCrea, J Lukas Thürmer, Matthew R Helm, C J Erion, Kem Krueger
{"title":"尊重对话规范可提高未接种疫苗者对专家信息的接受程度。","authors":"Sean M McCrea, J Lukas Thürmer, Matthew R Helm, C J Erion, Kem Krueger","doi":"10.1080/10410236.2023.2243047","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The association of medical experts with politically left-leaning cities and states early in the COVID-19 pandemic may have exacerbated vaccine hesitancy in right-leaning states of the US. Criticism from outside experts violates rules of communication between social groups (i.e. an <i>intergroup sensitivity effect</i>), leading to rejection of messages promoting vaccine safety and efficacy. In two studies, we document the effects of shared geographical group membership for medical expert messages promoting vaccination. We also found evidence that satisfying conversational norms against intergroup criticism reduces message rejection. Specifically, an invitation from ingroup political elites for a doctor to speak reduced the negative effects of unshared group identity.</p>","PeriodicalId":12889,"journal":{"name":"Health Communication","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Respecting Conversational Norms Improves Reception of Expert Messages Among Unvaccinated Individuals.\",\"authors\":\"Sean M McCrea, J Lukas Thürmer, Matthew R Helm, C J Erion, Kem Krueger\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10410236.2023.2243047\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The association of medical experts with politically left-leaning cities and states early in the COVID-19 pandemic may have exacerbated vaccine hesitancy in right-leaning states of the US. Criticism from outside experts violates rules of communication between social groups (i.e. an <i>intergroup sensitivity effect</i>), leading to rejection of messages promoting vaccine safety and efficacy. In two studies, we document the effects of shared geographical group membership for medical expert messages promoting vaccination. We also found evidence that satisfying conversational norms against intergroup criticism reduces message rejection. Specifically, an invitation from ingroup political elites for a doctor to speak reduced the negative effects of unshared group identity.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12889,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Communication\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Communication\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2023.2243047\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/8/2 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Communication","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2023.2243047","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/8/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在 COVID-19 大流行的早期,医学专家与政治左倾的城市和州的联系可能加剧了美国右倾州对疫苗的犹豫。来自外部专家的批评违反了社会群体之间的沟通规则(即群体间敏感效应),导致人们拒绝接受宣传疫苗安全性和有效性的信息。在两项研究中,我们记录了共同地理群体成员身份对医学专家宣传疫苗接种信息的影响。我们还发现有证据表明,满足反对群体间批评的会话规范会减少信息被拒绝的程度。具体来说,内群体政治精英邀请医生发言可减少非共同群体身份的负面影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Respecting Conversational Norms Improves Reception of Expert Messages Among Unvaccinated Individuals.

The association of medical experts with politically left-leaning cities and states early in the COVID-19 pandemic may have exacerbated vaccine hesitancy in right-leaning states of the US. Criticism from outside experts violates rules of communication between social groups (i.e. an intergroup sensitivity effect), leading to rejection of messages promoting vaccine safety and efficacy. In two studies, we document the effects of shared geographical group membership for medical expert messages promoting vaccination. We also found evidence that satisfying conversational norms against intergroup criticism reduces message rejection. Specifically, an invitation from ingroup political elites for a doctor to speak reduced the negative effects of unshared group identity.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.20
自引率
10.30%
发文量
184
期刊介绍: As an outlet for scholarly intercourse between medical and social sciences, this noteworthy journal seeks to improve practical communication between caregivers and patients and between institutions and the public. Outstanding editorial board members and contributors from both medical and social science arenas collaborate to meet the challenges inherent in this goal. Although most inclusions are data-based, the journal also publishes pedagogical, methodological, theoretical, and applied articles using both quantitative or qualitative methods.
期刊最新文献
Promoting Resilience and Well-Being of Young Adults with Diabetes Through Digital Storytelling in Arts-Based Research. Has it Really Been 37 Years? The Journey of Health Communication. Narrative Force: How Science and Storytelling Impact Parental Concussion Beliefs and Intentions Through Transportation and Trust. Following Medical Advice of an AI or a Human Doctor? Experimental Evidence Based on Clinician-Patient Communication Pathway Model. COVID-19 Vaccination Hesitancies: A Spanish-Language Focus Group Analysis in Texas.
×
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