LAUSR

Purpose We investigated the effectiveness of narrative vs non-narrative messages in changing COVID-19-related perceptions and intentions. Design/Setting The study employed a between-subjects two-group (narratives vs non-narratives) experimental design and was administered online. Subjects/Intervention 1804 U.S. adults recruited via Amazon MTurk in September 2020 were randomly assigned to one of two experimental conditions and read either three narrative or three non-narrative messages about social distancing, vaccination, and unproven treatments. Measures Perceptions and intentions were assessed before and after message exposure (7-point scales). Analysis Using multivariable regression, we assessed main effects of the experimental condition (controlling for baseline measures) and interactions between the condition and pre-exposure perceptions/intentions in predicting post-exposure outcomes. Results Compared to non-narratives, narratives led to (1) less positive perceptions about the benefits of unproven treatments (M narrative = 3.60, M non-narrative = 3.77, P = .007); and (2) less willingness to receive an unproven drug (M narrative = 3.46, M non-narrative = 3.77, P < .001); this effect was stronger among individuals with higher baseline willingness to receive unproven drugs (baseline willingness = 2.09: b = −.06, P = .461; baseline willingness = 3.90: b = −.30, P < .001; baseline willingness = 5.71: b = −.55, P < .001). Narratives also led to more positive perceptions of vaccine safety/effectiveness, but only among individuals with lower baseline vaccine perceptions (baseline perceptions = 4.51: b = .10, P = .008; baseline perceptions = 5.89: b = .04, P = .167; baseline perceptions = 7: b = −.01, P = .688). Conclusion Narratives are a promising communication strategy, particularly for topics where views are not entrenched and among individuals who are more resistant to recommendations.