RESUMEN

Communicators commonly present two-sided messages to avoid being perceived as biased. This approach equates bias with one-sidedness rather than divergence from the position supported by available data. Messages often concern topics with mixed qualities: a product is exceptional but expensive; a politician is inexperienced but ethical. For these topics, providing a two-sided message should reduce perceived bias according to both views of bias as one-sidedness and divergence from available data. However, if perceived bias follows divergence from available data, for topics viewed as one-sided (univalent), a two-sided message should not reduce perceived bias. Across five studies, acknowledging two sides reduced perceived bias for novel topics. In two of the studies, two-sidedness no longer reduced perceived bias for topics viewed as univalent. This work clarifies that people conceptualize bias as a divergence from available data, not simply one-sidedness. It also clarifies when and how to leverage message-sidedness to reduce perceived bias.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Reducing the spread of infectious diseases through vaccination faces the challenge of vaccine hesitancy: referring to questions, concerns and doubts arising when making a vaccine-related decision. A motivational state often arising within people exposed to health messages supporting informed decision making is psychological reactance, functioning as a driver to behavior opposed to the one recommended through the health message. Hence, there is a pressing need for communication strategies effective in counteracting reactance to health messages. METHODS: This study tested two communication strategies that can potentially reduce psychological reactance and ameliorate evaluations of the message and subsequent behavioral vaccination intentions in the context of COVID-19. These were: (1) explicitly reminding individuals of their freedom of choice (to either accept or refuse the vaccine) and (2) providing a two-sided message, including, apart from evidence-based information on the necessity of vaccines, a set of concerns, and questions (about the vaccines) which are refuted immediately. A total of 234 participants who indicated having concerns about the COVID-19 vaccine participated in a 2 (freedom of choice: no choice vs. choice) × 2 (message sidedness: one-sided vs. two-sided) between-subjects online experiment where they received an informational brochure about COVID-19 vaccination. RESULTS: The results show that emphasizing freedom of choice significantly increased perceived credibility of the message, perceived information utility, and ultimately, vaccination intentions. A decrease in psychological reactance mediated these effects. Message sidedness did only show a significant direct effect on perceived information utility. No interaction effect was found. CONCLUSION: These findings indicate the importance of freedom of choice in reducing psychological reactance, which in its turn can lead to an increase of positive message evaluations and vaccination intentions among individuals who express concerns. The opportunities of message sidedness as an efficacious vaccination communication strategy should be further investigated.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Prior research showed that people holding attitudes on relatively moral topics became more open to two- rather than one-sided messages as the moral basis of their attitudes increased. Across three studies (N = 963), we extend this finding to relatively non-moral topics by demonstrating that two-sided messages can encourage people with strong attitudes indexed by various non-moral attitude strength measures to be more open to contrary positions. Study 1 demonstrated this for four indicators of attitude strength (e.g., certainty). As the strength of one's attitude increased, two-sided messages increased in relative effectiveness over one-sided communication. This was mediated by perceived appreciation for the speaker acknowledging one's view. Study 2 replicated this finding in a preregistered experiment. Study 3 conceptually replicated and extended it to people holding attitudes based on their political identity. Finally, evidence was obtained supporting perceived appreciation (rather than source evaluation) as the key driver of this interactive effect.

RESUMEN

This research demonstrates that two- versus one-sided counterattitudinal messages can encourage people with a strong moral basis for their attitudes to be more open to contrary positions. Studies 1A/B demonstrated that the interaction between moral basis and message sidedness was present not just for a controversial issue with balanced views in society but also for a topic with a majority opinion. In Study 2, the relative effectiveness of two- over one-sided messages for people with a moral attitude basis was shown to occur only when the two-sided message respectfully acknowledged the recipient's side. In Study 3, the effect was replicated in a preregistered experiment. Furthermore, moral bases provided unique predictive power beyond alternative attitude strength indicators. Across all studies, perceived appreciation of the speaker acknowledging the recipient's view mediated the impact of the independent variables on openness.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Most of the previous studies with respect to message sidedness mainly focus on the effect of message sidedness in advertising on behavior of consumers and it is unknown how consumers respond to different message sidedness when a one-sided or two-sided message in claims shown on the package of a healthy food product. This study explores the underlying mechanisms how consumers respond to different message sidedness in claims. The results indicate that two-sided messages in claims are more persuasive than one-sided messages because they pass the "sufficiency threshold." In addition, the results of this article show that mood state, product involvement, and self-rated health of individuals moderate the relationship between message sidedness in claims and product evaluation.