example of persuasive essay about covid 19 vaccine brainly

How to Order

Persuasive Essay Guide

Persuasive Essay About Covid19

How to Write a Persuasive Essay About Covid19 | Examples & Tips

14 min read

Steps to Write a Persuasive Essay About Covid-19

Here are the steps to help you write a persuasive essay on this topic, along with an example essay:

Step 1: Choose a Specific Thesis Statement

Your thesis statement should clearly state your position on a specific aspect of COVID-19. It should be debatable and clear. For example:

"COVID-19 vaccination mandates are necessary for public health and safety."

Step 2: Research and Gather Information

Collect reliable and up-to-date information from reputable sources to support your thesis statement. This may include statistics, expert opinions, and scientific studies. For instance:

COVID-19 vaccination effectiveness data
Information on vaccine mandates in different countries
Expert statements from health organizations like the WHO or CDC

Step 3: Outline Your Essay

Create a clear and organized outline to structure your essay. A persuasive essay typically follows this structure:

Introduction
Background Information
Body Paragraphs (with supporting evidence)
Counterarguments (addressing opposing views)

Step 4: Write the Introduction

In the introduction, grab your reader's attention and present your thesis statement. For example:

The COVID-19 pandemic has presented an unprecedented global challenge, and in the face of this crisis, many countries have debated the implementation of vaccination mandates. This essay argues that such mandates are essential for safeguarding public health and preventing further devastation caused by the virus.

Step 5: Provide Background Information

Offer context and background information to help your readers understand the issue better. For instance:

COVID-19, caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, emerged in late 2019 and quickly spread worldwide, leading to millions of infections and deaths. Vaccination has proven to be an effective tool in curbing the virus's spread and severity.

Step 6: Develop Body Paragraphs

Each body paragraph should present a single point or piece of evidence that supports your thesis statement. Use clear topic sentences , evidence, and analysis. Here's an example:

One compelling reason for implementing COVID-19 vaccination mandates is the overwhelming evidence of vaccine effectiveness. According to a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines demonstrated an efficacy of over 90% in preventing symptomatic COVID-19 cases. This level of protection not only reduces the risk of infection but also minimizes the virus's impact on healthcare systems.

Step 7: Address Counterarguments

Acknowledge opposing viewpoints and refute them with strong counterarguments. This demonstrates that you've considered different perspectives. For example:

Some argue that vaccination mandates infringe on personal freedoms and autonomy. While individual freedom is a crucial aspect of democratic societies, public health measures have long been implemented to protect the collective well-being. Seatbelt laws, for example, are in place to save lives, even though they restrict personal choice.

Step 8: Write the Conclusion

Summarize your main points and restate your thesis statement in the conclusion. End with a strong call to action or thought-provoking statement. For instance:

In conclusion, COVID-19 vaccination mandates are a crucial step toward controlling the pandemic, protecting public health, and preventing further loss of life. The evidence overwhelmingly supports their effectiveness, and while concerns about personal freedoms are valid, they must be weighed against the greater good of society. It is our responsibility to take collective action to combat this global crisis and move toward a safer, healthier future.

Step 9: Revise and Proofread

Edit your essay for clarity, coherence, grammar, and spelling errors. Ensure that your argument flows logically.

Step 10: Cite Your Sources

Include proper citations and a bibliography page to give credit to your sources.

Remember to adjust your approach and arguments based on your target audience and the specific angle you want to take in your persuasive essay about COVID-19.

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That's our Job!

Examples of Persuasive Essay About COVID-19

When writing a persuasive essay about the COVID-19 pandemic, it’s important to consider how you want to present your argument. To help you get started, here are some example essays for you to read:

Here is another example explaining How COVID-19 has changed our lives essay:

The COVID-19 pandemic, which began in late 2019, has drastically altered the way we live. From work and education to social interactions and healthcare, every aspect of our daily routines has been impacted. Reflecting on these changes helps us understand their long-term implications.

COVID-19, caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, is an infectious disease first identified in December 2019 in Wuhan, China. It spreads through respiratory droplets and can range from mild symptoms like fever and cough to severe cases causing pneumonia and death. The rapid spread and severe health impacts have led to significant public health measures worldwide.

The pandemic shifted many to remote work and online education. While some enjoy the flexibility, others face challenges like limited access to technology and blurred boundaries between work and home.

Social distancing and lockdowns have led to increased isolation and mental health issues. However, the pandemic has also fostered community resilience, with people finding new ways to connect and support each other virtually.

Healthcare systems have faced significant challenges, leading to innovations in telemedicine and a focus on public health infrastructure. Heightened awareness of hygiene practices, like handwashing and mask-wearing, has helped reduce the spread of infectious diseases.

COVID-19 has caused severe economic repercussions, including business closures and job losses. While governments have implemented relief measures, the long-term effects are still uncertain. The pandemic has also accelerated trends like e-commerce and contactless payments.

The reduction in travel and industrial activities during lockdowns led to a temporary decrease in pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. This has sparked discussions about sustainable practices and the potential for a green recovery.

COVID-19 has reshaped our lives in numerous ways, affecting work, education, social interactions, healthcare, the economy, and the environment. As we adapt to this new normal, it is crucial to learn from these experiences and work towards a more resilient and equitable future.

Let’s look at another sample essay:

The COVID-19 pandemic has been a transformative event, reshaping every aspect of our lives. In my opinion, while the pandemic has brought immense challenges, it has also offered valuable lessons and opportunities for growth.

One of the most striking impacts has been on our healthcare systems. The pandemic exposed weaknesses and gaps, prompting a much-needed emphasis on public health infrastructure and the importance of preparedness. Innovations in telemedicine and vaccine development have been accelerated, showing the incredible potential of scientific collaboration.

Socially, the pandemic has highlighted the importance of community and human connection. While lockdowns and social distancing measures increased feelings of isolation, they also fostered a sense of solidarity. People found creative ways to stay connected and support each other, from virtual gatherings to community aid initiatives.

The shift to remote work and online education has been another significant change. This transition, though challenging, demonstrated the flexibility and adaptability of both individuals and organizations. It also underscored the importance of digital literacy and access to technology.

Economically, the pandemic has caused widespread disruption. Many businesses closed, and millions lost their jobs. However, it also prompted a reevaluation of business models and work practices. The accelerated adoption of e-commerce and remote work could lead to more sustainable and efficient ways of operating in the future.

In conclusion, the COVID-19 pandemic has been a profound and complex event. While it brought about considerable hardship, it also revealed the strength and resilience of individuals and communities. Moving forward, it is crucial to build on the lessons learned to create a more resilient and equitable world.

Check out some more PDF examples below:

Persuasive Essay About Covid-19 Pandemic

Sample Of Persuasive Essay About Covid-19

Persuasive Essay About Covid-19 In The Philippines - Example

If you're in search of a compelling persuasive essay on business, don't miss out on our “ persuasive essay about business ” blog!

Examples of Persuasive Essay About COVID-19 Vaccine

Covid19 vaccines are one of the ways to prevent the spread of COVID-19, but they have been a source of controversy. Different sides argue about the benefits or dangers of the new vaccines. Whatever your point of view is, writing a persuasive essay about it is a good way of organizing your thoughts and persuading others.

A persuasive essay about the COVID-19 vaccine could consider the benefits of getting vaccinated as well as the potential side effects.

Below are some examples of persuasive essays on getting vaccinated for Covid-19.

Covid19 Vaccine Persuasive Essay

Persuasive Essay on Covid Vaccines

Interested in thought-provoking discussions on abortion? Read our persuasive essay about abortion blog to eplore arguments!

Examples of Persuasive Essay About COVID-19 Integration

Covid19 has drastically changed the way people interact in schools, markets, and workplaces. In short, it has affected all aspects of life. However, people have started to learn to live with Covid19.

Writing a persuasive essay about it shouldn't be stressful. Read the sample essay below to get an idea for your own essay about Covid19 integration.

Persuasive Essay About Working From Home During Covid19

Searching for the topic of Online Education? Our persuasive essay about online education is a must-read.

Examples of Argumentative Essay About Covid 19

Covid-19 has been an ever-evolving issue, with new developments and discoveries being made on a daily basis.

Writing an argumentative essay about such an issue is both interesting and challenging. It allows you to evaluate different aspects of the pandemic, as well as consider potential solutions.

Here are some examples of argumentative essays on Covid19.

Argumentative Essay About Covid19 Sample

Argumentative Essay About Covid19 With Introduction Body and Conclusion

Looking for a persuasive take on the topic of smoking? You'll find it all related arguments in out Persuasive Essay About Smoking blog!

Examples of Persuasive Speeches About Covid-19

Do you need to prepare a speech about Covid19 and need examples? We have them for you!

Persuasive speeches about Covid-19 can provide the audience with valuable insights on how to best handle the pandemic. They can be used to advocate for specific changes in policies or simply raise awareness about the virus.

Check out some examples of persuasive speeches on Covid-19:

Persuasive Speech About Covid-19 Example

Persuasive Speech About Vaccine For Covid-19

You can also read persuasive essay examples on other topics to master your persuasive techniques!

Tips to Write a Persuasive Essay About Covid-19

Writing a persuasive essay about COVID-19 requires a thoughtful approach to present your arguments effectively.

Here are some tips to help you craft a compelling persuasive essay on this topic:

Choose a Specific Angle: Narrow your focus to a specific aspect of COVID-19, like vaccination or public health measures.
Provide Credible Sources: Support your arguments with reliable sources like scientific studies and government reports.
Use Persuasive Language: Employ ethos, pathos, and logos , and use vivid examples to make your points relatable.
Organize Your Essay: Create a solid persuasive essay outline and ensure a logical flow, with each paragraph focusing on a single point.
Emphasize Benefits: Highlight how your suggestions can improve public health, safety, or well-being.
Use Visuals: Incorporate graphs, charts, and statistics to reinforce your arguments.
Call to Action: End your essay conclusion with a strong call to action, encouraging readers to take a specific step.
Revise and Edit: Proofread for grammar, spelling, and clarity, ensuring smooth writing flow.
Seek Feedback: Have someone else review your essay for valuable insights and improvements.

Tough Essay Due? Hire Tough Writers!

Common Topics for a Persuasive Essay on COVID-19

Here are some persuasive essay topics on COVID-19:

The Importance of Vaccination Mandates for COVID-19 Control
Balancing Public Health and Personal Freedom During a Pandemic
The Economic Impact of Lockdowns vs. Public Health Benefits
The Role of Misinformation in Fueling Vaccine Hesitancy
Remote Learning vs. In-Person Education: What's Best for Students?
The Ethics of Vaccine Distribution: Prioritizing Vulnerable Populations
The Mental Health Crisis Amidst the COVID-19 Pandemic
The Long-Term Effects of COVID-19 on Healthcare Systems
Global Cooperation vs. Vaccine Nationalism in Fighting the Pandemic
The Future of Telemedicine: Expanding Healthcare Access Post-COVID-19

In search of more inspiring topics for your next persuasive essay? Our persuasive essay topics blog has plenty of ideas!

To sum it up,

You’ve explored great sample essays and picked up some useful tips. You now have the tools you need to write a persuasive essay about Covid-19. So don’t let doubts hold you back—start writing!

If you’re feeling stuck or need a bit of extra help, don’t worry! MyPerfectWords.com offers a professional persuasive essay writing service that can assist you. Our experienced essay writers are ready to help you craft a well-structured, insightful paper on Covid-19.

Just place your “ do my essay for me ” request today, and let us take care of the rest!

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a good title for a covid-19 essay.

A good title for a COVID-19 essay should be clear, engaging, and reflective of the essay's content. Examples include:

"The Impact of COVID-19 on Global Health"
"How COVID-19 Has Transformed Our Daily Lives"
"COVID-19: Lessons Learned and Future Implications"

How do I write an informative essay about COVID-19?

To write an informative essay about COVID-19, follow these steps:

Choose a specific focus: Select a particular aspect of COVID-19, such as its transmission, symptoms, or vaccines.
Research thoroughly: Gather information from credible sources like scientific journals and official health organizations.
Organize your content: Structure your essay with an introduction, body paragraphs, and a conclusion.
Present facts clearly: Use clear, concise language to convey information accurately.
Include visuals: Use charts or graphs to illustrate data and make your essay more engaging.

How do I write an expository essay about COVID-19?

To write an expository essay about COVID-19, follow these steps:

Select a clear topic: Focus on a specific question or issue related to COVID-19.
Conduct thorough research: Use reliable sources to gather information.
Create an outline: Organize your essay with an introduction, body paragraphs, and a conclusion.
Explain the topic: Use facts and examples to explain the chosen aspect of COVID-19 in detail.
Maintain objectivity: Present information in a neutral and unbiased manner.
Edit and revise: Proofread your essay for clarity, coherence, and accuracy.

Write Essay Within 60 Seconds!

Caleb S. has been providing writing services for over five years and has a Masters degree from Oxford University. He is an expert in his craft and takes great pride in helping students achieve their academic goals. Caleb is a dedicated professional who always puts his clients first.

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That’s our Job!

Keep reading

How to convince someone to get the vaccine

Illustration shows an "I got my COVID-19 vaccine" sticker with conversation bubbles

Copy Link URL Copied!

These are frustrating times. In the span of about a month, American society seemingly went from “we must reserve our precious doses of the vaccine for only the most in need” to “everyone go get one right now.” Today, you can walk into pharmacies and vaccination sites around L.A. and get jabbed in a matter of minutes without an appointment.

There’s a shot available for everyone who wants one. But what about the people who don’t?

If your friend, neighbor, coworker or loved one hasn’t gotten their COVID vaccine yet, they probably have a reason. Identifying that reason is key to getting them to get their shot, experts say.

If you want them to change their mind, you cannot approach the conversation as a debate in which, if your case is presented with sufficient evidence, your opponent loses and is sentenced to mandatory vaccination. You are having a discussion and trying to meet the other person where they are, understand their position, and talk with them (not at them!) about their concerns.

It has to come from a place of love, not hostility.

FILE - In this April 10, 2021, file photo, registered nurse Ashleigh Velasco, left, administers the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine to Rosemene Lordeus, right, at a clinic held by Healthcare Network in Immokalee, Fla. Fewer Americans are reluctant to get a COVID-19 vaccine than just a few months ago, but questions about side effects and how the shots were tested still hold some back, according to a new poll that highlights the challenges at a pivotal moment in the U.S. vaccination campaign. (AP Photo/Lynne Sladky, File)

World & Nation

Most U.S. residents who remain unvaccinated will need convincing, poll finds

Fewer Americans are reluctant to get a COVID-19 vaccine than a few months ago, but questions about side effects and safety still hold some back.

May 11, 2021

“The first thing I would say is to listen first, not to tell them,” Dr. Chandra Ford, a professor of community health sciences at UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, told my colleague Thuc Nhi Nguyen . “We have to meet people where they are, so we have to actually hear where they are first.”

So Step One is listening. Ask: “Why aren’t you vaccinated?” Hear the person out. It’s fair to have concerns right now. The whole world changed in the last 15 months, then changed some more, then changed again. Saying “you’re being stupid, trust the science, just go get vaccinated already” is unlikely to be persuasive.

Laura Huang is a professor of business administration at Harvard Business School who studied how to change people’s minds while doing research for her book “Edge: Turning Adversity into Advantage.” She said her research showed that people who were most effective in persuading someone to come around to their point of view did so by recognizing the root of the disagreement and trying to overcome it before trying to change the person’s mind. Reservations are probably based in both logic (Is the vaccine really safe? How did they get made so quickly? How do we know what the long-term side effects are if it’s so new?) and emotion ( fear, anxiety , frustration, anger). You need to enter the conversation prepared to address concerns on both fronts.

“The psychology of changing someone’s mind require a high level of emotional intelligence and logical thinking,” Huang said in an email. “When you come out the gate telling people they are incorrect about something they believe, this can come off as insulting and condescending, which often results in the other person losing interest in engaging with you productively.”

You need to determine which sources of information they trust. The global communications firm Edelman does an annual “ trust barometer ” to gauge where people are getting their information and which sources they trust. The places where you get your information are not going to be the same as everyone else’s.

Trust in media sources, the government, and non-governmental organizations fell globally, the report found.

“People have come to know and trust the information that they believe, and they don’t believe the sources that are coming from sort of the ‘other side,’” said Courtney Gray Haupt, who runs the U.S. healthcare team at Edelman.

In other words, if your friend doesn’t trust what he reads in newspapers, sending him an article about how safe and effective vaccines are will not be compelling.

So whom do people trust? Gray Haupt said the research showed a lot of the most trusted voices were local ones. Scientists ranked at the top, then “people in my community,” then “my employer.”

“To address hesitancy,” she said, “people have to hear those local, personal and relatable stories about vaccinations, and how it benefits not just themselves, but how it’s benefiting others around them in their community.”

That’s where you come in.

LOS ANGELES, CA - MARCH 24, 2021: Magic Johnson gives a thumbs up after getting a vaccine from Los Angeles Fire Chief Ralph Terrazas on the rooftop of parking structure at USC as a part of a vaccination awareness event at USC on March 24, 2021 in Los Angeles, California. L.A. Mayor Eric Garcetti is in the background. (Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)

Science & Medicine

VIDEO: Southern Californians had vaccine questions. We got a virologist and an ob/gyn to answer

We traveled around the L.A. region to ask people whether or not they would take the vaccine, and if not, why. Then we posed their questions to two experts. Here’s what they said.

March 25, 2021

Meet them where they are – and make it easy for them

As a (presumably) vaccinated person yourself, you are a living, breathing example of the benefits of getting the COVID-19 shot. Focus on the big-picture positives:

The vaccine is safe and free.
Your chance of dying from or being hospitalized with COVID-19 drops to nearly zero with the vaccine.
You’re protecting yourself and the people around you.
As more people are vaccinated, schools and businesses can continue to safely reopen.
And fully vaccinated people can stop wearing masks as much , like President Biden:

The first maskless photo of President Biden and Vice President Harris. pic.twitter.com/y846ACA2ll — Christopher Hale (@chrisjollyhale) May 13, 2021

There are levels of concern and hesitancy right now. It’s possible that getting vaccinated just isn’t a priority for your aunt, and she hasn’t made time to do it yet. Or your cousin doesn’t know where to go or how she’ll get there. Your brother might be afraid of needles or of having a reaction and being unable to get home after.

Lower those barriers: Offer to find the nearest place to get an appointment and make it. Also offer to go along or give a ride. Some people just need a helping hand and a friendly face. Around the country, there are regional incentives such as free doughnuts and a $1-million lottery . You might not be able to offer that, but saying you’ll buy lunch after probably wouldn’t hurt.

In addition to finding out whom people trust, assess what they value. When I asked on Twitter how people had persuaded reluctant relatives to get vaccinated, a lot of people said they were able to focus on the potential upsides. Getting vaccinated can mean being able to hug your parents again , or hold a grandchild for the first time. For others, it means freedom to travel to other countries. If someone is worried about getting vaccinated because of the side effects, compare the potential outcomes of vaccination with the effects of getting COVID .

If you’re an employer, you have the potential to play an outsize role in motivating people to get the vaccine. Share your story of getting vaccinated with your employees, and offer time off to get vaccinated and deal with any potential side effects. Offer to talk one on one with employees who still aren’t sure.

President Joe Biden speaks about the economy, in the East Room of the White House, Monday, May 10, 2021, in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

Biden announces Uber, Lyft rides amid July 4 vaccine push

Biden last week set a goal of delivering at least one dose of vaccine to 70% of adult Americans and fully vaccinating at least 160 million by July 1.

If someone has deeper concerns, ask about them. Huang suggested open-ended questions, such as: “Can you help me understand where you stand on vaccines?” or “Help me understand why we disagree on this.” Point to trustworthy sources that answer a person’s questions. For instance, The Times asked a virologist and an ob-gyn for answers to some common vaccine-related questions : “What do we know about long-term effects?” and “Will vaccines affect fertility?”

On Twitter, journalist Amanda Del Cid Lugo sent me the link for a YouTube playlist she’d created of videos about things like side effects, safety, and how mRNA vaccines work from a variety of sources.

It’s fair to have questions right now, UCLA’s Ford said.

“A lot of information about the benefits of getting vaccinated are there, but some questions that might not be addressed in our general discussion about the vaccine and the way we hear people talk about it in the media when we’re really trying to promote vaccination is you don’t really address some of the concerns,” she said. When it comes to questions about safety, “I think these are legitimate questions that a consumer has a right to ask.”

Dr. Rita Burke, an assistant professor of clinical preventive medicine at USC Keck School of Medicine, said the chief concern she heard was about the vaccines’ safety .

“In that case, it’s really important to explain to the person that the technology that’s enabled us to develop a vaccine so quickly has been in place and was in development many, many years ago ,” she said in an interview with The Times. “So the safety of the vaccine was in no way compromised in order to deliver it so quickly.”

With this type of person — someone who would not describe themselves as broadly anti-vaccine but has valid questions about this one specifically — Huang recommends what she calls a “cognitive conversation”: Listen to their issues and reasons for hesitancy, then share information on things like vaccine safety , how mRNA technology works (here’s a cool YouTube video that demonstrates it), and how we were able to develop and test these vaccines in a comparatively short period of time. (I’ve added some links here to get you started, but again, you should be listening to the person you’re trying to persuade and finding sources they trust, not just sending links to the ones you like. This information is in lots of trustworthy places around the internet.) Then help them make an appointment.

This should go without saying, but: Don’t gloat.

Lakewood, CA - March 31: Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine given to seniors at coronavirus vaccination clinic established by L.A. County Department of Public Health at Whispering Fountains Senior Living Community on Wednesday, March 31, 2021 in Lakewood, CA.(Irfan Khan / Los Angeles Times)

Shorter lines and TikTok ads: California’s push to beat vaccine hesitancy

California is hiring 2,000 canvassers to phone-bank and knock on doors, and is running a flurry of ads and testimonials about COVID-19 vaccines.

May 10, 2021

Changing someone’s mind is really hard . Set your expectations accordingly.

There is no surefire formula for persuading someone to get vaccinated. It’s possible the outcome of your conversation will result in the other person not changing their mind one bit. That doesn’t mean that you failed. You’re serving as a data point in favor of the “get vaccinated” side. Maybe in a month, or six months, or when they’re trying to go on vacation or to a concert or sporting event somewhere that requires a vaccine passport, they’ll be more open to rethinking things.

Again, hesitancy has levels. If you’re talking to someone who is firmly in an alternate-information bubble, you might not be able to overcome beliefs based on conspiracy theories and unfounded rumors.

Lonnie G. Bunch III, the secretary of the Smithsonian, said in a Twitter thread addressing vaccine hesitancy to “keep your expectations modest. Set an achievable goal, such as opening the topic, not changing minds in one chat.”

If they hear from you, and then another person, and then another person, all of whom are enjoying the benefits of vaccination without any of the frightening potential downsides they might have heard about, that can help them realize it might be time to reassess where they’re getting their information from. Some people will just need more time.

Every person who shares a vaccination story, and the benefits of being vaccinated, serves as a positive example and a good steward of public health. That’s right: Posting your smiling vaccine selfie is downright virtuous.

More COVID shots are coming. Will a weary public be more interested this year?

Sept. 13, 2023

LOS ANGELES, CA - MAY 05: Allan Fernandez, 7, middle, reacts after Dr, David Bolour, left, gives him a vaccination as CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky looks on in Ted Watkins Memorial Park on Thursday, May 5, 2022 in Los Angeles, CA. CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky visted a health department vaccination site in the park. Afterwards she walked into the park and watches children and their parents being vaccinated in the park by an outreach team from the near by site. (Francine Orr / Los Angeles Times)

How to get more people vaccinated? ‘You stop talking and you listen,’ Walensky says

May 5, 2022

A resident receives a Covid-19 booster shot at a vaccine clinic inside Trinity Evangelic Lutheran Church in Lansdale, Pennsylvania, U.S, on Tuesday, Apr. 5, 2022. U.S. regulators cleared second booster doses of Covid-19 vaccine from Moderna Inc. and the partnership of Pfizer Inc. and BioNTech SE for adults 50 and older, making millions more people eligible for the shots as concern grows about a potential new wave of infections. Photographer: Hannah Beier/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Editorial: Confused about the second COVID booster? So are some of the experts

April 19, 2022

example of persuasive essay about covid 19 vaccine brainly

Jessica Roy is a former assistant editor on the West Coast Experiences team at the Los Angeles Times. Previously, Roy was an assistant editor on the Utility Journalism team and an editor on the audience engagement team.

More From the Los Angeles Times

Rancho Palos Verdes, CA - September 01: The Portuguese Bend Community on the Rancho Palos Verdes were an evacuation warning has been issued due to electricity being cut on Sunday, Sept. 1, 2024 in Rancho Palos Verdes, CA. (Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

Homebuyers beware: How to avoid properties with high landslide risk

Sept. 12, 2024

Newport Beach, CA - November 27: The Magventure TMS device, with the B65 coil, is used by the Brain Treatment Center, in Newport Beach, CA, to administer magnetic resonance therapy, or MeRT, photographed Monday, Nov. 27, 2023. The placement of the coil and depends on where in the brain the neurons are misfiring. The MeRT therapy is finding greater application in treating autism and patience come to the Brain Treatment Center to receive it. (Jay L. Clendenin / Los Angeles Times)

How parents and caregivers can evaluate the research on MERT and other potential treatments

Sept. 5, 2024

Fireworks flare into the night sky as the Trojan marching band plays the National Anthem at the LA Memorial Coliseum

Want to attend a Big Ten football game? Here’s a guide to all 18 stadiums

Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Deputies were led to two suspected mail thieves after a woman mailed herself an Apple AirTag, a personal tracking device that led authorities to her stolen mail. ( Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Dept.)

Apple AirTags are helping cops catch thieves. Here’s how you can protect yourself

Aug. 26, 2024

Essay on Coronavirus Vaccine

500+ words essay on coronavirus vaccine.

The Coronavirus has infected millions of people so far all over the world. In addition to that, millions of people have lost their lives to it. Ever since the outbreak, researchers all over the world have been working constantly to develop vaccines that will work effectively against the virus. We will take a look at the Coronavirus vaccine that is present today. Vaccines have the ability to save people’s lives. Developing the vaccine for Coronavirus was a huge step to end the pandemic.

Working of Coronavirus Vaccine

As Coronavirus caused a lot of confusion and fear amongst people, it is natural people were not aware of how the vaccine works. To begin with, a vaccine will work by mimicking an infectious agent.

The agent can be viruses, bacteria or any other microorganisms. They carry the potential of causing disease. When it mimics that, our immune system learns how to respond against it rapidly and efficiently.

As per the traditional methods, vaccines have managed to do this as they introduce a weakened form of an infectious agent. It enables our immune system to basically build its memory.

As a result, our immune system can then identify it quickly and fight against it before it gets the chance to harm us or make us ill. Similarly, some of the coronavirus vaccines have been made like that.

On the other hand, there are other coronavirus vaccines that researchers have developed by making use of new approaches. We refer to them as messenger RNA or mRNA vaccines.

Over here, they do not introduce antigens in our bodies. Instead, mRNA vaccines give the genetic code our body needs to enable our immune system for producing the antigen itself.

For several years, researchers have been studying mRNA vaccine technology. Thus, they do not contain any live virus and also do not interfere with the human DNA .

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Safety of Coronavirus Vaccine

While the vaccines are being developed at a fast pace, they also require rigorous testing. The tests are done in clinical trials to ensure that they meet the benchmarks for the safety and efficiency of international standards.

When they meet the standards, then only can they get the go-ahead from WHO and national regulatory agencies. UNICEF has said that it will attain and supply only those vaccines that meet the WHO guidelines and have met the regulatory approval.

As of now, the vaccine doses are limited in number. Thus, the healthcare workers, first responders, people over the age of 75 and residents of long-term care facilities will receive the first doses.

After that, everyone will be able to get it once more of them are available. To get the vaccine, a person may require to pay a fee. However, some government institutions are providing it free of cost.

In order to get the vaccine, one must check with their local and state health departments on a regular basis. When they get the chance, they must get the dose right away.

The Coronavirus outbreak has challenged the whole world. Constantly, the experts and authorities are working to develop the vaccines. Therefore, we can also do our bit and adopt preventive measures to limit the spread of this disease. The major goal is to get the vaccine to everyone so that we can go on and about with our normal lives.

FAQ on Essay on Coronavirus Vaccine

Question 1: What are some common side effects of the Coronavirus vaccine?

Answer 1: The most common side effect includes a sore arm, fever , headache, and fatigue. However, not to worry, side effects are good in this case. They indicate that your vaccine is starting to work as it triggers your immune system.

Question 2: When do Coronavirus vaccine side effects kick in?

Answer 2: Usually, most of the side effects start to kick in within the first 3 days after you get your vaccine. Moreover, they will last up to 1 to 2 days only.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

Travelling Essay
Picnic Essay
Our Country Essay
My Parents Essay
Essay on Favourite Personality
Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
Essay on Knowledge is Power
Essay on Gurpurab
Essay on My Favourite Season
Essay on Types of Sports

Download the App

Should COVID-19 vaccines be mandatory? Two experts discuss

Senior Research Fellow, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford

NIHR Academic Clinical Fellow in Public Health Medicine, UCL

Disclosure statement

Alberto Giubilini receives funding from the Arts and Humanities Research Council/UK Research and Innovation (AHRC/UKRI) and has previously received funding from the Wellcome Trust.

Vageesh Jain is affiliated with Public Health England under an honorary contract as a speciality registrar.

University College London provides funding as a founding partner of The Conversation UK.

University of Oxford provides funding as a member of The Conversation UK.

View all partners

To be properly protective, COVID-19 vaccines need to be given to most people worldwide. Only through widespread vaccination will we reach herd immunity – where enough people are immune to stop the disease from spreading freely. To achieve this, some have suggested vaccines should be made compulsory , though the UK government has ruled this out . But with high rates of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the UK and elsewhere , is this the right call? Here, two experts to make the case for and against mandatory COVID-19 vaccines.

Alberto Giubilini, Senior Research Fellow, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford

COVID-19 vaccination should be mandatory – at least for certain groups. This means there would be penalties for failure to vaccinate, such as fines or limitations on freedom of movement.

The less burdensome it is for an individual to do something that prevents harm to others, and the greater the harm prevented, the stronger the ethical reason for mandating it.

Being vaccinated dramatically reduces the risk of seriously harming or killing others. Vaccines such as the Pfizer , AstraZeneca or Moderna ones with 90-95% efficacy at preventing people from getting sick are also likely to be effective at stopping the virus from spreading, though possibly to a lower degree. Such benefits would come at a very minimal cost to individuals.

Lockdown is mandatory. Exactly like mandatory vaccination, it protects vulnerable people from COVID-19. But, as I have argued in detail elsewhere, unlike mandatory vaccination, lockdown entails very large individual and societal costs. It is inconsistent to accept mandatory lockdown but reject mandatory vaccination. The latter can achieve a much greater good at a much smaller cost.

Also, mandatory vaccination ensures that the risks and burdens of reaching herd immunity are distributed evenly across the population. Because herd immunity benefits society collectively, it’s only fair that the responsibility of reaching it is shared evenly among society’s individual members.

Of course, we might achieve herd immunity through less restrictive alternatives than making vaccination mandatory – such as information campaigns to encourage people to be vaccinated. But even if we reach herd immunity, the higher the uptake of vaccines, the lower the risk of falling below the herd immunity threshold at a later time. We should do everything we can to prevent that emergency from happening – especially when the cost of doing so is low.

Fostering trust and driving uptake by making people more informed is a nice narrative, but it’s risky. Merely giving people information on vaccines does not always result in increased willingness to vaccinate and might actually lower confidence in vaccines. On the other hand, we’ve seen mandatory vaccination policies in Italy recently successfully boost vaccine uptake for other diseases.

Mandatory seatbelt policies have proven very successful in reducing deaths from car accidents, and are now widely endorsed despite the (very small) risks that seatbelts entail. We should see vaccines as seatbelts against COVID-19. In fact, as very special seatbelts, which protect ourselves and protect others.

A protestor holding a sign that says: 'No to mandatory vaccines'

Vageesh Jain, NIHR Academic Clinical Fellow in Public Health Medicine, UCL

Mandatory vaccination does not automatically increase vaccine uptake. An EU-funded project on epidemics and pandemics, which took place several years before COVID-19, found no evidence to support this notion. Looking at Baltic and Scandinavian countries, the project’s report noted that countries “where a vaccination is mandatory do not usually reach better coverage than neighbour or similar countries where there is no legal obligation”.

According to the Nuffield Council of Bioethics, mandatory vaccination may be justified for highly contagious and serious diseases. But although contagious, Public Health England does not classify COVID-19 as a high-consequence infectious disease due to its relatively low case fatality rate.

COVID-19 severity is strongly linked with age, dividing individual perceptions of vulnerability within populations. The death rate is estimated at 7.8% in people aged over 80, but at just 0.0016% in children aged nine and under. In a liberal democracy, forcing the vaccination of millions of young and healthy citizens who perceive themselves to be at an acceptably low risk from COVID-19 will be ethically disputed and is politically risky.

Public apprehensions for a novel vaccine produced at breakneck speed are wholly legitimate. A UK survey of 70,000 people found 49% were “very likely” to get a COVID-19 vaccine once available. US surveys are similar . This is not because the majority are anti-vaxxers.

Despite promising headlines, the trials and pharmaceutical processes surrounding them have not yet been scrutinised. With the first trials only beginning in April , there is limited data on long-term safety and efficacy. We don’t know how long immunity lasts for. None of the trials were designed to tell us if the vaccine prevents serious disease or virus transmission.

To disregard these ubiquitous concerns would be counterproductive. As a tool for combating anti-vaxxers – estimated at around 58 million globally and making up a small minority of those not getting vaccinated – mandatory vaccines are also problematic. The forces driving scientific and political populism are the same . Anti-vaxxers do not trust experts, industry and especially not the government. A government mandate will not just be met with unshakeable defiance, but will also be weaponised to recruit others to the anti-vaxxer cause.

In the early 1990s, polio was endemic in India , with between 500 and 1,000 children getting paralysed daily. By 2011, the virus was eliminated. This was not achieved through legislation. It was down to a consolidated effort to involve communities, target high-need groups, understand concerns, inform, educate, remove barriers, invest in local delivery systems and link with political and religious leaders.

Mandatory vaccination is rarely justified. The successful roll-out of novel COVID-19 vaccines will require time, communication and trust. We have come too far, too fast, to lose our nerve now.

Mandatory vaccination
Coronavirus
Vaccine hesitancy
Coronavirus insights

Professor of Indigenous Cultural and Creative Industries (Identified)

Communications Director

Associate Director, Post-Award, RGCF

University Relations Manager

2024 Vice-Chancellor's Research Fellowships

Lessons learned: What makes vaccine messages persuasive

You’re reading Lessons Learned, which distills practical takeaways from standout campaigns and peer-reviewed research in health and science communication. Want more Lessons Learned? Subscribe to our Call to Action newsletter .

Vaccine hesitancy threatened public health’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Scientists at the University of Maryland recently reviewed 47 randomized controlled trials to determine how COVID-19 communications persuaded—or failed to persuade—people to take the vaccine. ( Health Communication , 2023 DOI: 10.1080/10410236.2023.2218145 ).

What they learned: Simply communicating about the vaccine’s safety or efficacy persuaded people to get vaccinated. Urging people to follow the lead of others, by highlighting how many millions were already vaccinated or even trying to induce embarrassment, was also persuasive.

Why it matters: Understanding which message strategies are likely to be persuasive is crucial.

➡️ Idea worth stealing: The authors found that a message’s source didn’t significantly influence its persuasiveness. But messages were more persuasive when source and receivers shared an identity, such as political affiliation.

What to watch: How other formats, such as interactive chatbots and videos, might influence persuasiveness. And whether message tailoring could persuade specific population subgroups.

News from the School

Air pollution exposure in infancy may limit economic mobility in adulthood

Reducing health inequities in the Mississippi Delta

Climate change and planetary health concentration launches

Orientation 2024: New students encouraged to engage across differences

Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
Biostatistics
Environmental Health and Engineering
Epidemiology
Health Policy and Management
Health, Behavior and Society
International Health
Mental Health
Molecular Microbiology and Immunology
Population, Family and Reproductive Health
Program Finder
Admissions Services
Course Directory
Academic Calendar
Hybrid Campus
Lecture Series
Convocation
Strategy and Development
Implementation and Impact
Integrity and Oversight
In the School
In the Field
In Baltimore
Resources for Practitioners
Articles & News Releases
In The News
Statements & Announcements
At a Glance
Student Life
Strategic Priorities
Inclusion, Diversity, Anti-Racism, and Equity (IDARE)
What is Public Health?

Facebook Live Q&A

This conversation is excerpted from a March 5 Facebook Live.

See More Like This

What to Know About the Updated COVID Vaccine for Fall, Winter 2024–25

Why We’re Still Waiting for a Pandemic Treaty

An illustration of a wave in the ocean covered in COVID molecules with a person swimming underneath it holding a vaccine

Why COVID Surges in the Summer

A nurse assists a patient on a hospital bed with a pulse oximeter

The Problem with Pulse Oximeters: A Long History of Racial Bias

Unwrapping a swab to take a home covid test

What to Know About COVID FLiRT Variants

Essay Service Examples Health Vaccination

Why You Should Get Vaccinated Persuasive Essay

100 words essay on vaccination, 250 words essay on vaccination, 400 words essay on vaccination, 500 words essay on vaccination.

Proper editing and formatting
Free revision, title page, and bibliography
Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Our writers will provide you with an essay sample written from scratch: any topic, any deadline, any instructions.

Cite this paper

Join our 150k of happy users

Get original paper written according to your instructions
Save time for what matters most

Fair Use Policy

EduBirdie considers academic integrity to be the essential part of the learning process and does not support any violation of the academic standards. Should you have any questions regarding our Fair Use Policy or become aware of any violations, please do not hesitate to contact us via [email protected].

We are here 24/7 to write your paper in as fast as 3 hours.

Provide your email, and we'll send you this sample!

By providing your email, you agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy .

Say goodbye to copy-pasting!

Get custom-crafted papers for you.

Enter your email, and we'll promptly send you the full essay. No need to copy piece by piece. It's in your inbox!

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

View all journals
Explore content
About the journal
Publish with us
Sign up for alerts
Open access
Published: 15 September 2024

Understanding personalized persuasion strategies in implicit attitudes towards the COVID-19 vaccine: the moderating effects of personality traits based on an ERP study

Xuejiao Chen 1 , 2 ,
Chen Chen 3 ,
Yanyun Wang 4 ,
Shijian Yan 1 ,
Lulu Mao 1 &
Guoming Yu 1

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume 11 , Article number: 1217 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

2 Altmetric

Metrics details

Cultural and media studies

Prior research has shown that attitudes possess an implicit dimension that is crucial for understanding behavioral decisions. Personality traits, such as high need for cognition (NFC) and high need for affect (NFA), contribute to the formation of explicit and implicit attitudes through distinct routes, influencing the consistency between implicit and explicit attitudes. We employ Event-Related Potentials (ERPs) to examine how personality differences affect implicit attitudes and the efficacy of personalized matching in the context of COVID-19 vaccination. Phase 1 of the study explores whether participants with high need for cognition or high need for affect display varying levels of consistency between their implicit and explicit attitudes. After controlling for pre-existing positive explicit attitudes towards the COVID-19 vaccine, we discovered that participants with high NFC exhibit a more consistent attitude system, while those with high NFA do not. Phase 2 of the study reveals that personalized matching does not ensure a corresponding enhancement in persuasion, as it can influence people’s attitudes via different psychological processes based on their level of elaboration. These findings offer new insights into the factors driving COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and the effectiveness of personalized persuasion strategies at the individual implicit cognitive level. Such understanding can assist in devising communication strategies for future vaccination promotion efforts.

Post-truth epistemic beliefs rooted in the Dark Factor of Personality are associated with higher COVID-19 vaccination refusal

Information processing style and institutional trust as factors of COVID vaccine hesitancy

Lack of affective priming indicates attitude-behaviour discrepancy for COVID-19 affiliated words

Introduction.

COVID-19 is a significant health threat with rapid transmission and widespread infection, causing more than 626 million infections and more than 6.88 million deaths as of March 21, 2023 (WHO 2023 ). Vaccines are widely recognized by health authorities as an effective method for preventing infectious diseases and achieving public health success (Doherty et al. 2016 ; Osterholm et al. 2012 ). Despite the severity of influenza, vaccine hesitancy—a behavior involving delayed or refused vaccination despite available services—remains a global challenge in reducing the burden of pandemic influenza. Vaccine hesitancy is complex and varies by time, place, and vaccine type (Osterholm et al. 2012 ). The success of any vaccine depends on the percentage of the population that is vaccinated. Yet, global public acceptance of vaccines is relatively low. For example, over 30% of respondents in the United Kingdom and Ireland reported a low intention to receive the COVID-19 vaccine (Murphy et al. 2012 ), and about 20% of Americans expressed similar sentiments (Thunstrom et al. 2020 ). Only 30.5% of French people agreed to receive the COVID-19 vaccine during the first half of 2021 (Guillon and Kergall 2021 ).

Therefore, more effective strategies are needed to encourage people to get vaccinated against COVID-19. Numerous studies have explored factors like gender, health status, and knowledge level that influence individuals’ intentions to receive the COVID-19 vaccine through self-report questionnaires (Ruiz and Bell 2021 ; Khubchandani et al. 2021 ; Zheng et al. 2021 ). Although these studies provide valuable insights, they offer limited understanding of the underlying implicit attitudes towards the COVID-19 vaccine (Sallam 2021 ; Akarsu et al. 2020 ; Chen et al. 2021 ). Implicit attitudes, which are crucial for understanding behavioral decisions, have been extensively studied in various contexts as explanations for biases or stereotypes (Greenwald et al. 1998 ; Chen et al. 2018 ). Implicit attitudes refer to unconscious thought processes that influence individuals’ responses to the COVID-19 vaccine, providing deeper insight into people’s unexpressed opinions about the vaccine.

In addition, individual differences have been identified as an important factor influencing intentions (Bandura 2001 ; Ryu et al. 2023 ). Researchers have conceptualized individual differences based on two dimensions: need for affect (NFA; Maio and Esses, 2001 ) and need for cognition (NFC; Cacioppo and Petty 1982 ). While extensive research has explored how individuals perceive and respond to COVID-19 vaccines and persuasive vaccination measures (Lin and Wang 2020 ; Wismans et al. 2021 ; Karlsson et al. 2021 ), few studies have assessed the influence of personal traits (NFA vs. NFC) on implicit attitudes towards the COVID-19 vaccine, especially through neural cross-validation.

The present research is divided into two phases, each utilizing the same cohort of participants. Before delving into these phases, it is crucial to outline the central research questions guiding this study. These questions are:

RQ1: How do personality traits (NFA vs. NFC) influence the consistency between implicit and explicit attitudes towards the COVID-19 vaccine?

RQ2: How do personalized persuasion strategies based on personality traits affect implicit attitudes towards the COVID-19 vaccine?

Phase 1 seeks to explore the differences in implicit attitudes towards the COVID-19 vaccine among individuals with different personalities. Phase 2 investigates the effects of personalized persuasion strategies on participants with different personalities.

Explicit attitude and implicit attitude

According to implicit social cognitive theory, individuals may have inconsistent implicit and explicit attitudes toward the same object. Implicit attitude is a key concept in cognitive psychology, characterized as attitudes or judgments influenced by automatically activated evaluations that occur without conscious effort or cognitive attention (Greenwald et al. 1998 ). In contrast, explicit attitudes are conceptualized as self-reported evaluations that can be consciously controlled by the individual (Rydell and McConnell 2006 ). Recently, there has been a significant increase in empirical research on implicit social cognition (Manca et al. 2020 ; Chen et al. 2018 ; Hofmann et al. 2010 ).

To date, substantial evidence has shown that implicit attitudes function as a spontaneous process that can directly guide behavior (Bargh et al. 1996 ; Bargh et al. 2001 ; Chen and Bargh, 1999 ; Dovidio et al. 1997 ; Fazio and Dunton, 1997 ). They have become a more reliable predictor of behavior, especially for individuals inclined towards effortful cognitive activities (Conner et al. 2007 ). Furthermore, Fazio and Olson ( 2003 ) demonstrated that the correlation between implicit and explicit evaluations decreases as cognitive elaboration increases. These findings emphasize that implicit and explicit attitudes operate as two distinct systems, and implicit attitudes can change independently of conscious awareness, supporting the notion of a weak correlation between these systems (Dasgupta and Greenwald, 2001 ; Olson and Fazio, 2004 ). This also suggests that even if people are implicitly opposed to something, they may still express support for it in their explicit attitudes.

Given the widespread interest in implicit cognition processes, it’s not surprising that there are various methods to measure these constructs, such as the Implicit Association Test (IAT) (Greenwald and Banaji, 1995 ), the Affective Priming Task (Fazio and Williams 1986 ), and the Semantic Priming Task (Wittenbrink et al. 1997 ). Among these methods, the IAT is considered one of the most prominent measures for accessing implicit attitudes, with a growing number of contributions in implicit cognition research relying on it (Chen et al. 2018 ; Lane et al. 2007 ; Greenwald et al. 1998 ).

Therefore, in this study, we examine individuals’ implicit attitudes toward the COVID-19 vaccine using the Implicit Association Test (IAT). The IAT uses target stimuli representing the COVID-19 vaccine associated with both positive and negative attributes. When participants associate the target stimuli (i.e., COVID-19 vaccine) with positive or negative attributes in different tasks, they are expected to respond more quickly and accurately to congruent combinations (i.e., COVID-19 vaccine with positive attributes) than to incongruent combinations (i.e., COVID-19 vaccine with negative attributes). In this way, the IAT serves as an indicator of implicit bias. Specifically, we hypothesize that individuals will attempt to inhibit their implicit attitudes between the COVID-19 vaccine and negative attributes, which will result in slower reaction times on congruent trials.

Personality traits based on cognitive and affective processing

Understanding the connection between vaccine hesitancy and personality traits is crucial for developing effective immunization strategies (Reagu et al. 2023 ). Extensive literature has demonstrated that individuals vary in their desirability of emotions and their tendency to engage in thinking (Cacioppo and Petty 1982 ; Huskinson and Haddock 2004 ). Accordingly, researchers have denoted each characteristic as the need for affect (NFA; Maio and Esses 2001 ) and the need for cognition (NFC; Cacioppo and Petty, 1982 ). More specifically, the NFA has been defined as the general motivation of people to approach or avoid situations and activities that are emotion-inducing for themselves and others (Maio and Esses, 2001 ). The NFC has been defined as the motivation for an individual to engage in and enjoy the effortful cognitive activity (Cacioppo and Petty 1982 ). NFA and NFC are two important psychological constructs that have been studied extensively to understand its influences on people’s decision making (e.g., Haddock et al. 2008 ). However, to our knowledge, there hasn’t been studies compared the effectiveness of individuals information processing tendencies (e.g., NFA vs NFC) in the context of vaccine acceptance. Understanding the message preferences of individuals with different information processing tendencies helps researchers and healthcare professionals to optimize strategies for different groups and maximize persuasion outcomes.

Guided by different motivations, individuals with high NFA and high NFC may take different approaches during information processing. As proposed in the Elaboration likelihood model (ELM), individuals with higher NFC are more motivated to elaborate arguments and process information using a central route (Cacioppo and Petty 1982 ; Olson et al. 1984 ). Therefore, they are more likely to be influenced by the quality of the message and strength of the argument (Haddock et al. 2008 ) and produce more individual thoughts (Petty et al. 2002 ). Once they form the initial attitude, their existing attitudes are also more resistant to persuasion (Haugtvedt and Petty 1992 ). On the other hand, prior research indicated that individuals with higher NFA are more easily influenced by peripheral and emotional cues, such as liking, perceived expertise, and credibility (Maio and Esses 2001 ). Therefore, their attitude formation may be more contextualized and easier to change, depending on the peripheral cues they receive every time (Haugtvedt and Petty 1992 ).

Most existing research accesses individuals’ existing attitudes using self-report questionnaires (Wu et al. 2022 ; Yang et al. 2022 ), which may only reflect individuals’ explicit attitudes with less information on their implicit attitudes. However, initial evidence from the neurocognitive paradigm suggests that individuals with high NFC engage in bottom-up involuntary cognitive processing of contextually relevant information and controlled top-down attention allocation towards target stimuli (Enge et al. 2008 ; Strobel et al. 2015 ). This result indicates that individuals with high NFC not only involuntarily reflect on external message arguments and pre-process messages, but also voluntarily regulate their internal thoughts and form their implicit attitudes accordingly. Therefore, we expect to see more consistency between explicit and implicit attitudes among individuals with high NFC. Conversely, as the attitude formation of those with high NFA is more contextualized, we anticipate that their explicit attitudes will change based on peripheral cues they receive at a given time, resulting in larger discrepancies between their internal and external attitudes.

Implicit conflict and response monitoring using ERPs

The accuracy of measuring implicit attitudes as automatic cognition has been a controversial topic (Kurdi et al. 2021 ). Although many studies have shown that cognitive processes occur unconsciously and have a significant impact on people’s behavior (Dijksterhuis 2004 ; Zajonc 1980 ; Zaltman 2015 ), it is challenging to assess this unconscious information at the behavioral level. Therefore, investigating implicit attitudes from a neuroscience perspective is of great importance.

Event-related potentials (ERPs) refer to electrocortical activity that is time-locked to each stimulus and averaged across trials in the same experimental condition, which is measured using electroencephalography (EEG). ERPs are used to access ongoing electrophysiological changes resulting from the synchronous activation of several neural subpopulations in response to sensory, motor, or cognitive events (Bouaffre and Faïta-Ainseba 2007 ). They are considered to be highly reliable indicators that accurately represent how people process information at different points in time (Gaspar et al. 2011 ; Bouaffre and Faïta-Ainseba 2007 ). Unlike self-reported measures, ERPs are regarded as a “window” for examining psychological activity and have the potential to accurately reflect individuals’ cognitive processes (Shang et al. 2018 ). Existing research has shown that implicit attitudes can be monitored by evaluating changes in ERPs (van Nunspeet et al. 2014 ).

Based on the evidence presented above, in this study, we use Event-Related Potentials (ERPs) to assess individuals’ implicit attitude processes and conflict monitoring. Specifically, we will focus on N1, P2, and N400, which are related to attention and cognitive conflict. These components indicate the extent to which individuals’ attention and cognitive conflict are directed toward the target stimulus (Ito and Urland 2003 ; Wu and Zhang 2019 ).

The N1 component, the first negative-going response occurring roughly 80–150 milliseconds post-stimulus onset, is a critical indicator of the discrimination process. It is primarily associated with the processing of sensory information and the early stages of attention (Vogel and Luck 2000 ). The N1 is sensitive to the physical and perceptual features of stimuli and is modulated by attention. It often shows larger amplitudes when participants are focused on specific aspects of a stimulus or when a stimulus is novel or salient (Mangun and Hillyard 1991 ; Eichenlaub et al. 2012 ). Studies have also observed congruency effects on the N1 component across various modalities; congruent conditions typically result in reduced N1 amplitudes compared to incongruent conditions. This reflects a lower cognitive workload or decreased attentional demand when processing stimuli that align with expectations. For instance, in visual tasks where subjects anticipate and receive a matching stimulus, the facilitated sensory processing leads to a less pronounced N1, signaling efficient perceptual encoding and attention modulation (Hillyard et al. 1973 ; Luck and Hillyard 1994 ).

P2 is a positive peak occurring around 150–220 ms, associated with attention allocation (Yang et al. 2012 ; Key et al. 2005 ) and indicating the level of information complexity (Pernet et al. 2003 ). Its amplitude increases with the presence of extrinsic stimuli. Research also indicates that the P2 amplitude can be modulated by stimuli in congruent conditions, reflecting enhanced cognitive processing in response to expected or normative sensory inputs. For instance, studies have shown that congruent auditory and visual stimuli can lead to increased P2 amplitudes, suggesting that the brain allocates more attentional resources to stimuli that align with contextual expectations (Barry et al. 2007 ).

N400—a negative-going deflection that peaks around 400 ms (Kutas and Hillyard 1980 )—is primarily considered an indicator of semantic processing difficulty, although its functional significance remains a subject of debate (Luck 2005). Studies have shown that the N400 amplitude is greater for stimuli presented as incongruent compared to congruent under conditions like the Implicit Association Test. This suggests that the greater the predictability of the stimulus, the smaller the N400 amplitude elicited (Ito and Urland 2003 ; Kubota and Ito 2007 ; Yang et al. 2023 ; Steinhauer et al. 2017 ). This finding aligns with observations that incongruent conditions generally trigger stronger cognitive conflict than congruent conditions, reflecting the N400’s role in both conflict detection and integration during semantic information processing, where its amplitude positively correlates with task difficulty (Hilgard et al. 2014 ).

Phase 1: implicit attitudes based on personality traits

Phase 1 of the study aims to investigate the consistency of explicit and implicit attitudes towards the COVID-19 vaccine among people with different personality traits (NFA vs. NFC) and to determine whether personality traits influence how individuals frame their implicit attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccination. By controlling participants’ pre-existing attitudes towards the COVID-19 vaccine, we measured their implicit attitudes using the Implicit Association Test (IAT) and recorded their event-related potentials (ERPs). Phase 1 aimed to explore whether personality-based implicit cognitive processes presented inconsistencies in attitudes toward the COVID-19 vaccine. This process is dependent on the interaction between personality groups (NFA vs. NFC) and congruency conditions (target stimuli, e.g., COVID-19 vaccine) vs. positive/negative attributes. Congruency condition was performed in IAT and varied by including congruent and incongruent pairs. The human brain was expected to process these pairs differently, which may be detected by the ERPs approach, and we hypothesized that there would be differences in the IAT effect and the amplitudes of N1, P2, and N400.

More specifically, we propose that:

H1: The NFC group will show more consistent implicit and explicit attitudes towards the COVID-19 vaccine than the NFA group, reacting more quickly under congruent conditions and more slowly under incongruent conditions.

H2: Incongruent conditions will induce larger N1 and N400 ERP components, while congruent conditions will elicit a larger P2 component, with differences between NFA and NFC groups.

Participants

In accordance with previous research (Kissler and Koessler 2011 ; Zabielskamendyk 2013 ; Han et al. 2020 ), we employed simple random sampling to publicly recruited 82 healthy college students (41 males and 41 females) in China via social media, aged 18 to 33 (M = 22.82, SD = 2.49). The participants were eligible for the experiment if they were vaccinated and had a positive attitude toward vaccination. All participants were right-handed with normal or corrected-to-normal vision and were compensated with money after the experiment.

Measurement

Personality trait measure, need for affect.

This scale, which consists of 26 items, was adopted from Maio and Esses ( 2001 ) and demonstrated excellent test-retest reliability (α = .85). In this scale, 13 items assess individuals’ tendency to approach emotional situations, such as “strong emotions are generally beneficial”; 13 items assess individuals’ tendency to avoid emotional situations, such as “I wish to feel less emotions”, which is reverse scored. Participants were asked to evaluate the extent to which they agree with items from 1, ‘strongly disagree’, to 7, ‘strongly agree’.

Need for cognition

This scale was adopted from Cacioppo et al. ( 1984 ), which consists of 18 items and yielded excellent test–rest reliability (α = .81). In this scale, 9 items measure individuals’ motivation to engage in and enjoy thinking, such as “I would prefer complex to simple problems”; 9 items measure individuals’ motivation to avoid cognitive tasks, such as “I feel relief rather than satisfaction after completing a task that required a lot of mental effort”, which is reverse scored. Participants were asked to evaluate the extent to which they agree with items from 1, ‘strongly disagree’, to 7, ‘strongly agree’.

We use Z-score as the indicator to evaluate individuals’ personality preferences, which means that individuals who have a higher score in NFA and a lower score in NFC were conceptualized as having a preference for affect, whereas those high in NFC and low in affect were conceptualized as having a preference for cognition. In the formal experiment, 41 participants are in the NFA group (17 males, M Z-score=0.64, s.d.=0.92; M age = 22.82 years, s.d = 2.49) and 41 are in the NFC group (22 males, M Z-score=0.35, s.d. = 0.87; M age = 22.78 years, s.d = 2.21).

Explicit attitude measure

Participants were asked to fill out a scale of vaccine explicit attitudes before enrolling in the experiment. The 7-point scale, adapted from Chien ( 2011 ) and Nan and Madden (2012), demonstrated good reliability (α = 0.86) and consists of four questions. For example, “Encouraging my friends and family to get vaccinated is a very bad/very good decision”.

Implicit attitude measure

In this experiment, we set three types of stimuli. We invited 26 graduate and undergraduate students to assess the relevance of these stimuli to the target words or attributes before the formal experiment. Stimuli representing the target concepts consisted of 10 COVID-19 vaccine-related terms (M = 4.45, s.d = 0.56). These target terms were measured using participant agreement with a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “1 = strongly irrelevant” to “5 = strongly relevant”; Stimuli that represented positive attributes (M = 4.44, s.d = 0.59) and negative attributes (M = 2.05, s.d = 0.78) consisted of 10 positive words and 10 negative words, these attributes were measured using participant agreement with a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “1 = strongly negative” to “5 = strongly positive”.

The procedure of the Implicit Attitude Test is shown in Table 1 and Fig. 1 . In the block of congruent trials, positive attributes shared the same key with target words; In the block of incongruent trials, the negative attributes shared the same key with target words. Practice blocks (IAT steps 1, 2, and 4) consisted of 160 trials, and test blocks (steps 3 and 5) consisted of 180 trials each. At the beginning of each trial, a red fixation point “×” was presented by E- Prime 3.0 in the center of the screen (lasting between 500 and 1000 ms), followed by a random presentation of the stimulus (1000 ms). During the behavior experiment task, the ERP data of the participants were recorded simultaneously.

The red fixation point “x” that presented lasting between 500 and 1000 ms.

The study measured explicit attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccines one week prior to the experiment, and only participants with a positive attitude were enrolled. In the formal experiment, participants came to the lab and completed measures of Need for Affect and Need for Cognition, categorizing them into two groups based on their personality preferences. Subsequently, participants completed five blocks of the Implicit Association Test (IAT), designed to assess individuals’ implicit attitudes by accessing their underlying automatic responses (Greenwald et al. 1998 ). While completing the IAT, participants’ ERP data were also recorded. The entire experiment lasted approximately 25 min.

ERP data acquisition and processing

ERP data were recorded by SynAmps2 64 channel EEG recording system produced by NeuroScan Company. During recording, the reference electrode was the left mastoid and converted to the average reference of bilateral mastoids during offline analysis. The vertical electrooculogram (VEOG) and horizontal electrooculogram (HEOG) were recorded by bipolar recording. The VEOG electrodes were placed above and below the middle of the left orbit, and the HEOG were placed outboard of the left and right lateral canthus. All electrode impedances stayed below 10 kΩ. The filter bandpass was 0.05 Hz–200 Hz. The sampling frequency was 1000 Hz.

The data pre-processing and analysis were performed using EEGLAB 14.1.1 in the toolbox of MATLAB2016a. Data were bandpass filtered between 0.5–30 Hz. Artifacts, including blinking and EMG, were corrected offline using Independent Component Analysis (ICA). Epochs were segmented for a duration (−100 ms to 500 ms relative to stimulus onset), and baseline correction was applied within the 100 ms pre-stimulus window. Epochs with amplitude values exceeding ±100 μV were manually rejected as artifacts, while the number of valid trials in each experimental condition was more than 30. Averages were calculated for both the congruent conditions and incongruent conditions. According to previous studies (Chen et al. 2018 ; van Nunspeet et al. 2014 ; Paller and Kutas 1992 ), Fz, Cz, and Pz were selected as electrodes of interest, and their averages were treated as the dependent variables in the statistical process.

Visual inspection of the data suggested that the N1, P2, and N400 components were most evident at the midline electrode sites Fz, Cz, and Pz (van Nunspeet et al. 2014 ). These three ERP components were quantified as the maximum peak amplitude within a time window: N1 = 70–140 ms; P2 = 140–240 ms; N400 = 240–450 ms. Statistical analysis was performed by IBM SPSS Statistics 22.0. The Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied to the p values, and the post hoc tests were conducted using pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni correction.

Behavioral results

Hypothesis 1 proposed that NFC participants will show a more consistent implicit and explicit attitude, such that they would react faster to congruent stimuli or slower to incongruent stimuli in the IAT task. The IAT effect, represented by the D-score, was calculated as the difference in the reaction times on congruent and incongruent trials divided by a pooled s.d. of all correct trials (Greenwald et al. 2003 ). We included all trials, compensated 400 ms for error latencies with ACC = 0 and RT > 350 ms, and excluded data with response times less than 350 ms or more than 1000 ms. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) with correct response times as the dependent variable, congruency (congruent/incongruent trials) as the within-subject factor, and group (personality: NFA vs. NFC) as the between-subject factor. Results revealed that the main effect of congruency is significant [F(1,80) = 136.951, p < 0.001, η² p = 0.631]. More specifically, participants in the incongruent group reacted more slowly than those in the congruent group. The main effect of group is nonsignificant [F (1,80) = 0.618, p < 0.434, η 2 P = 0.008], nor interaction effect of group × congruency [F(1,80) = 0.781, p < 0.378, η 2 P = 0.010]. H1 was not supported.

In addition, all participants demonstrated the standard IAT effect, with a D-score significantly higher than zero (t (81) = 10.141, p < 0.001). Moreover, this bias was significant in both groups [NFA: t (40) = 7.108, p < 0.001; NFC: t (40) = 7.150, p < 0.001], suggesting that both groups have implicit bias and inconsistent implicit and explicit attitudes.

Table 2 shows the correct rate and response time of the NFA and NFC groups under the two conditions.

ERP results

We submitted the average-amplitude values to a 2(group: NFA vs.NFC) ×2(congruency: congruent vs. incongruent trials) ×3(electrode: Fz vs. Cz vs. Pz) mixed-model ANOVA. The congruency and electrode were the within-subject factors, and the group was the between-subject factor (Mean ERP waveforms at Fz, Cz, and Pz between two groups: Fig. 2 ).

NFA group: need for affect group, NFC group: need for cognition group.

N1(70–140 ms). The main effect of the group is significant: the N1 was larger for the NFA group than for the NFC group [F(1,78) = 4.864, p < 0.03, η 2 P = 0.059]. The main effect of congruency is significant: the N1 was larger for incongruent trials than for congruent trials [F(1,78) = 0.131, p < 0.004, η 2 P = 0.104]. The interaction of group × congruency is nonsignificant[F(1,78) = 0.328, p < 0.718, η 2 P = 0.002].

P2(140–240 ms). The main effect of the group is significant: the P2 was larger for the NFC than for the NFA [F(1,78) = 8.990, p < 0.004, η 2 P = 0.103]. The main effect of congruency is significant[F(1,78) = 5.559, p < 0.021, η 2 P = 0.067]: the P2 was larger for congruent trials than for incongruent trials. The interaction of group × congruency is nonsignificant [F(1,78) = 2.347, p < 0.130, η 2 P = 0.029].

N400(240–450 ms). The main effect of the group is significant: the N400 was larger for NFA than for the NFC [F(1,78) = 4.551, p < 0.036, η 2 P = 0.055]. The main effect of congruency is not significant [F(1,78 = 2.070), p < 0.154, η 2 P = 0.026]. The interaction of group × congruent is not significant [F(1,78) = 1.318, p < 0.254, η 2 P = 0.017].

Phase 1 found that the NFC and the NFA exhibited different levels of inconsistency in their implicit and explicit attitudes. Controlling their pre-existing positive explicit attitudes toward the COVID-19 vaccine, we measured their implicit attitudes using an Implicit Association Test (IAT) and recording their Event-related potentials (ERPs). Results show that, regarding the positive attributes of the COVID-19 vaccine, the NFA group exhibits larger N1 and N400 components. This might suggest that they are not only more engaged and responsive at the sensory and attentional levels but also more reactive to the semantic content of stimuli and experience increased cognitive conflict. These findings support our hypothesis that implicit attitudes are associated with personality traits and highlight differences in implicit cognitive patterns between NFA and NFC. Specifically, NFC individuals have a more consistent attitude system, while NFA individuals do not.

The behavioral results revealed that both the NFA and NFC groups exhibited implicit biases and inconsistencies between their implicit and explicit attitudes. However, there was no significant evidence to indicate which group was more biased. It might because that the tools and tasks used to measure implicit attitudes may not have been sensitive enough to detect subtle differences in reaction times influenced by personality traits. Consequently, we further analyzed the ERP results. The ERP findings showed differences in the ERPs components (N1, P2, and N400) elicited by participants during congruent and incongruent conditions in both NFA and NFC groups, supporting Hypothesis 2.

First, the amplitudes of N1 elicited by the NFA group were larger than the NFC group. The visual N1 component is assumed to reflect the orientation of attention toward target stimuli and represent the operation of discriminative processes within the focus of attention (Vogel and Luck 2000 ; Luck et al. 1990 ). Therefore, the greater N1 wave in the congruent condition of the NFA group reflects that the NFA group primed more early attentional resources than the NFC group to process COVID-19 vaccine-related words that appeared together with positive adjectives, indicating that the NFA group is more cognitively engaged in processing the positive attributes of the COVID-19 vaccine.

Second, the markedly more negative P2 amplitude was observed under congruent conditions and the NFC group. P2 is an indicator of attention and motivated perception (Amodio, 2010 ), which reflects the level of complexity of task-related information processing and the valence of the target stimuli (Pernet et al. 2003 ; Yang et al. 2012 ; Olofsson and Polich, 2007 ). Our findings reveal that the NFC group applied more attentional resources than the NFA group. This result indirectly validates the information processing model of NFC, which means that they invest more controlled top-down attention allocation and cognitive resources to the target stimuli (Enge et al. 2008 ).

Another finding that is of great importance is that personality traits can influence the way people process their implicit attitudes. This is revealed by the result that the amplitude of N400 in the NFA group is significantly greater than the NFC group under the congruent condition. N400 is an event-related brain potential component that is associated with meaning processing (Kutas and Federmeier 2011 ). The greater N400 is, the more cognitive resources are required for semantic integration (Ruz et al. 2003 ). In the IAT task, generally, the target stimuli represented by the COVID-19 vaccine with positive attributes carried less conflict content than those with negative attributes, but the NFA group spent more cognitive resources to process the information under the congruent condition, which also implies that the NFA group has conflicting perceptions of the positive attributes of COVID-19 vaccine. This supports our hypothesis that the NFA have more negative implicit attitudes toward the COVID-19 vaccine.

Phase 2: personalized matching persuasion

Results from Phase 1 reveal that personal traits significantly influence implicit attitudes, highlighting differences in implicit cognitive patterns between participants with high NFA and those with high NFC. Specifically, individuals with NFC demonstrated more consistent attitude systems compared to their NFA counterparts. Since people’s implicit and explicit attitudes do not always coincide, this means that sometimes people may say they are in favor of something while internally opposing it. Therefore, it is necessary to explore which types of persuasion can change their implicit attitudes. Previous studies have proved that implementing diverse vaccine promotion strategies could enhance COVID-19 vaccine uptake and refine health decision-making, consequently diminishing the pandemic’s impact (Fenta et al. 2023 ).

Building on these findings, Phase 2 explores potential persuasion strategies that may influence individual attitudes. More specifically, Phase 2 examined the role of message appeal, which refers to the emotional message (affect-based message) and rational message (cognition-based message), and tested whether the effect of personalized matching would be enhanced or diminished if matched or mismatched messages were applied to different personality traits of NFA or NFC. The investigation into these tailored persuasion strategies sets a foundation for determining how individual differences in trait-driven information processing can influence responsiveness to different persuasive techniques.

Previous studies have demonstrated that one of the most effective ways to strengthen a persuasive strategy is to match the message appeal to individuals’ personality traits and their processing style. (Teeny et al. 2021 ). This personalized matching model suggests that the NFA are more persuaded by an affect-based appeal (appeals that feature emotional-evoking information), while the NFC were more persuaded by a cognitive appeal (appeals that feature logical reasoning information) (Haddock and Maio 2019 ; Huskinson and Haddock, 2004 ; Fabrigar and Petty 1999 ; Haddock et al. 2008 ). Recent findings in neuroscience also indicate that messages that are well-matched to an individual’s preferences can activate their ventromedial prefrontal cortex, which could potentially lead to greater receptiveness to the matched appeals (Aquino et al. 2020 ).

However, there is evidence from some studies that suggest a potential for mismatching effects. According to Millar and Millar’s ( 1990 ) perspective, the utilization of a matching strategy would be ineffective due to the increased probability of message recipients generating counterarguments against it; they found that individuals who are high in NFC are more sensitive to emotional arguments. Some other studies also indicate that although matching can evoke positive meanings and increase elaboration, it does not guarantee a corresponding enhancement of persuasion (Wan and Rucker 2013 ; Updegraff et al. 2007 ).

This persuasion mismatching effect could stem from differences in individuals’ motivation and cognitive capacity to process the message (Petty et al. 1999 ). Based on the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM), when an individual lacks the capacity for detailed thinking (e.g., NFA), personalized matching acts as a simple cue or heuristic. To elaborate, if a match generates a positive meaning, it can enhance persuasion, regardless of the quality of the arguments. On the other hand, when an individual has a chronic inclination to process information under high elaboration conditions (e.g., NFC), they are prone to detecting and correcting any undesired influence that may be affecting their judgments, viewing such influence as inappropriate (McCaslin et al. 2010 ; Wilson and Brekke 1994 ). Thus, individual differences moderate the impact of personalized matching on their judgments.

Moreover, the abundance of COVID-19 reports can induce messaging fatigue, leading to feelings of exhaustion and disinterest resulting from repeated exposure to similar information among the target audience (Islam et al. 2020 ; Koh, et al. 2020 ). Consequently, we propose that message fatigue can also impose limitations on personalized matching. If an individual is continually presented with similar personalized messages, they might experience boredom or disinterest, which could lead to diminished engagement or even active avoidance.

To gain a comprehensive understanding of how personalized matching can influence persuasiveness, it is essential to understand the mechanisms underlying personalized matching, which is based on individual differences. Therefore, we employed a content-matching paradigm to investigate whether individuals with predominantly affective or cognitive attitudes would exhibit greater or lesser persuasiveness in response to an appeal that aligns with their attitude. More specifically, we propose the following hypotheses:

H3: The NFA will be more persuaded by matched messages (emotional) than mismatched ones (rational), reacting faster in congruent conditions.

H4: The NFC will show greater resistance to both matched (rational) and mismatched (emotional) messages, reacting slower in congruent conditions.

H5: ERP components (N1, P2, N400) will differ between NFA and NFC groups under matched and mismatched conditions.

Participants in Phase 2 were the same as in Phase 1. After completing the Need for Affect and Need for Cognition scales in Phase 1, Phase 2 asked them to view the experimental material and complete the post-IAT test. The participants were randomly divided into four groups: (1) NFA with the rational appeal (male=8, female=12, M age ± SD = 22.95 ± 3.24); (2) NFA with the emotional appeal (male=9, female=12, M age ± SD = 22.81 ± 2.32); (3) NFC with the rational appeal (male=12, female=9, M age ± SD = 23.09 ± 2.45); (4) NFC with the emotional appeal (male=10, female=10, M age ± SD = 22.40 ± 2.01).

The persuasive strategy was manipulated by presenting either a rational (cognitive-based) or emotional (affective-based) appeal, both of which were selected and edited from articles in the People’s Daily and Xinhua News Agency . The same number and quality of arguments were used in both appeals. The content was an introduction to the COVID-19 vaccination. The experimental material we allocated to the rational appeal group was an article titled “COVID-19 Vaccination: A Crucial Tool for Social Epidemic Prevention and Control”, which is a full text containing 1379 Chinese characters and took approximately 3–5 min to read thoroughly; The experimental material assigned to the affective-based group was edited so that the general idea remained consistent, but the objective and neutral narrative was modified into emotional expression, with the title of “Embracing the Warmth of COVID-19 Vaccination: Why You Shouldn’t Hesitate to Get Your Shot”. The full text contained 1435 Chinese characters and took approximately 3–5 min to read. All the news material read by the participants was presented on the computer screen.

This study operationalized personalized matching persuasion as the utilization of message appeal that corresponds with the personality traits of individuals (e.g., presenting a rational appeal to those with high NFC). Conversely, mismatching persuasion was defined as the application of message appeal that deviates from individuals’ personality traits (presenting an emotional appeal for people with high NFC).

The experiment was conducted in two stages: a learning stage and an IAT stage. Before beginning the learning stage, participants in all four groups rested for 10 min and were then asked to read the assigned text carefully. In the learning stage, participants were exposed to either a rational (cognitive-based) or emotional (affective-based) appeal material, which took approximately 3–5 min to read.

After the learning stage, participants performed five blocks of the IAT and recorded their ERPs. To enhance the internal validity of the experiment by minimizing the potential for measurement error and ensuring consistency in the results, we utilize the same IAT test employed in Phase 1, but with randomized presentation order. Using this measure also enables a direct comparison of the results from both studies, facilitating the evaluation of the impact of message appeal on implicit attitudes, while accounting for individual differences (Whitford and Emerson, 2019 ). The entire experiment lasted approximately 30 min.

The paired t test for D scores revealed a marginally significant condition difference [t (81) = 1.893, p < 0.062], with a higher D-score for pre-test trials (D-score=0.54, s.d.=0.479) than for post-test trials (D-score=0.455, s.d.=0.484). These results showed that after the persuasion stimuli, people had a more positive implicit attitude toward the COVID-19 vaccination. Furthermore, we performed an ANOVA with the personality group condition (NFA vs. NFC) and persuasive strategy (emotional vs. rational) as between-subject factors and (reaction time: pre-test/post-test) as a within-subject factor. Separate statistics were calculated for both congruent and incongruent conditions. There is no significant difference in the interaction effect in congruent condition [F(1,78) = 2.920, p < 0.091, η 2 P = 0.036], and no significant difference in the interaction effect in incongruent condition [F(1,77) = 0.319, p < 0.574, η 2 P = 0.004]. Table 3 shows the correct rate and response time of the NFA and NFC groups under the two conditions.

We submitted the average-amplitude values to a 2 (group: NFA vs. NFC) × 2 (message appeal: rational vs. emotional) × 3 (electrode: Fz vs. Cz vs. Pz) mixed-model ANOVA. Separate statistics were calculated for both congruent and incongruent conditions. The electrode was the within-subject factor, and the group and message appeal were the between-subject factor (Mean ERP waveforms at Fz, Cz, and Pz between four groups: see Fig. 3 ).

N1(70–140 ms). In the congruent condition, the main effect of the personality trait group is nonsignificant [F(1,72) = 2.060, p < 0.155, η 2 P < 0.028]. The main effect of message appeal is nonsignificant [F(1,72) = 0.760, p < 0.386, η 2 P < 0.010]. The interaction of group × message appeal is nonsignificant [F(1,72) = 0.658, p < 0.420, η 2 P = 0.009]. Furthermore, in the incongruent condition, nonsignificant results were observed for the main effect of the personality trait group [F(1,72) = 0.001, p < 0.976, η 2 P < 0.000] and message appeal [F(1,72) = 0.039, p < 0.843, η 2 P < 0.001], as well as for the interaction effect between the two groups [F(1,72) = 2.546, p < 0.115, η 2 P < 0.034].

P2(140–240 ms). In the congruent condition, the interaction of group × message appeal is significant [F(1,72) = 5.394, p < 0.023, η 2 P = 0.070]. Specifically, in the rational appeal condition, the difference in P2 amplitude between the NFC and NFA groups was significant, with the NFA group showing larger P2 amplitudes than the NFC group [F(1,72) = 9.433, p < 0.003, η 2 P = 0.116]. However, in the emotional appeal condition, this difference was not significant [F(1,72) = 0.019, p < 0.892, η 2 P < 0.001]. The main effect of the personality trait group is significant: the P2 was larger for the NFA group than for the NFC group [F(1,72) = 4.556, p < 0.036, η 2 P = 0.060]. The main effect of message appeal is nonsignificant [F(1,72) = 0.010, p < 0.920, η 2 P < 0.01]. Furthermore, in the incongruent condition, there was no significant main effect of the personality trait group [F(1,72) = 0.153, p < 0.697, η 2 P = 0.002], nor interaction effect of group × message appeal [F(1,72) = 0.011, p < 0.917, η 2 P = 0.000], and the main effect of message appeal was also nonsignificant [F(1,72) = 1.687, p < 0.198, η 2 P = 0.023].

N400 (240–450). In the congruent condition, the interaction of group × message appeal is significant [F(1,72) = 5.784, p < 0.019, η 2 P = 0.074]. Specifically, the difference in N400 amplitude between the NFA and NFC groups was significant in the rational appeal condition, with the NFC group showing a larger N400 than the NFA group [F(1,72) = 6.024, p < 0.017, η 2 P = 0.077]. However, this difference was not significant in the emotional appeal condition [F(1,72) = 0.823, p < 0.367, η 2 P = 0.011]. The main effect of the group is nonsignificant [F(1,72) = 1.338, p < 0.251, η 2 P = 0.018]. The main effect of message appeal is nonsignificant [F(1,72) = 0.298, p < 0.587, η 2 P = 0.004]. Furthermore, in the incongruent condition, there was no significant main effect of the personality trait group [F(1,72) = 0.043, p < 0.837, η 2 P = 0.001], nor interaction effect of group × message appeal [F(1,72) = 0.193, p < 0.662, η 2 P = 0.003], and the main effect of message appeal was also nonsignificant [F(1,72) = 0.168, p < 0.683, η 2 P = 0.002].

Phase 2 aimed primarily to evaluate how participants with either high NFC or high NFA personality traits receive rational and emotional message appeals differently when the message appeals either matched or mismatched their personality trait and processing style. We found that our experiment did not yield a personality-matching effect. Additionally, we observed that individuals with high NFC demonstrated greater resistance to matched persuasion, while those with high NFA were more receptive to rational appeals, partially supporting H3 and H4.

More specifically, the behavioral results showed higher D-score for pre-test trials and a lower D-score for post-test trials. As previously established, higher D-score indicates a stronger implicit bias (Greenwald et al. 1998 ). This suggests that exposure to persuasive stimuli led to a more favorable implicit attitude towards COVID-19 vaccination. However, the absence of a significant interaction effect precludes us from determining whether there was a matched or mismatched persuasion effect on behavioral outcomes. This may be because the IAT task, while effective in measuring implicit biases, may not capture nuanced changes in attitude resulting from specific persuasion strategies employed. Therefore, to verify our hypothesis, we conducted an analysis of the ERPs and found that there are differences in ERP components (N400 and P2) elicited by participants in the NFA and NFC groups, which supports H5.

First, the N400 results revealed that rational persuasion strategies resulted in lower cognitive conflict among NFA individuals, suggesting that they are more receptive to rational message appeals. This finding aligns with previous research indicating that individuals with weakly held attitudes are more susceptible to attitude change in response to persuasive messages, unlike those with strongly held attitudes (Clarkson et al. 2011 ). Therefore, rational persuasion strategies may be more effective in influencing the attitudes of NFA individuals who are less certain in their beliefs, as they are more open to being persuaded by messages that challenge their existing attitudes. In contrast, NFC had a greater cognitive conflict, indicating that they have higher attitude certainty and are less likely to be swayed in their attitudes. Therefore, when people are in higher elaboration states, the belief that their attitudes were biased by the personalized match can lead them to mentally correct for the bias and hold their original attitude (Wilson and Brekke, 1994 ).

The result showed that NFA had a higher P2 activation, suggesting that they allocate more attention to rational messages. It happens maybe because they typically adopt a peripheral route and only process the message shallowly in their prior experience. Encountering a more complex and rational message, therefore, requires more attention to process and comprehend. The finding that NFC participants had lower P2 activation and less attention allocation to rational appeal suggests that they usually adopt a central route and process messages carefully, so seeing new messages is not surprising. It also aligns with findings in prior research that individuals with high NFC tend to prefer complex tasks, carefully considering all available information before arriving at a decision, resulting in more in-depth processing (Cacioppo and Petty, 1982 ; Haugtvedt et al. 1992 ).

Generally discussion

We discovered that customizing message appeals (rational vs. emotional) to align with an individual’s personality traits (NFA vs. NFC) does not necessarily result in a persuasive advantage, challenging the effectiveness of the personality-content matching approach (Teeny et al. 2021 ; Haddock et al. 2008 ). Across two experiments, we observed that individuals with high NFC exhibited greater consistency between their implicit and explicit attitudes and displayed higher resistance to persuasion attempts. Conversely, those with high NFA showed greater susceptibility to external influences, resulting in larger discrepancies between their internal and expressed attitudes. Furthermore, individuals with high NFA were more receptive to rational persuasion that did not match their affective-based attitudes.

Since implicit attitudes are unconscious, uncontrolled cognitive states, it is possible for individuals to have an opposing implicit attitude even if they outwardly support an attitude object and act accordingly. Previous studies have shown that individuals’ implicit and explicit attitudes toward the COVID-19 vaccine exhibited inconsistencies (Simione et al. 2022 ) and primarily considered individual differences in gender and age (Colledani et al. 2021 ). Phase 1 extends prior research by showing that personality traits—the NFC and the NFA—could moderate individuals’ implicit attitudes, including inhibiting their negative bias. Our findings demonstrate that although participants self-reported explicit attitudes in support of the COVID-19 vaccine, their implicit attitudes showed the opposite, which is related to the personality trait where people with high NFC exhibit more consistent implicit and explicit attitudes than those with high NFA. This complements prior observations that implicit bias is personality-based (Aguinis et al. 2009 ).

This could be due to the fact that people with high NFC not only reflect on external message arguments but also reflect on their own thoughts guided by top-down goal-oriented control (Enge et al. 2008 ). Therefore, they engage in more pre-processing of messages and form their implicit attitudes accordingly, with their explicit attitude being more likely to be a genuine reflection of their implicit attitude. Our results provide initial evidence that individuals with high NFC tend to show internal consistency in their implicit and explicit attitudes. According to Conner et al. ( 2007 ), more habitual attitudes could be predicted more by implicit attitudes, while explicit attitudes become more influential in determining behavior for individuals who have a tendency to engage in thinking (high NFC). Our findings echo this argument, indicating that high NFC individuals are more likely to show consistency among their behaviors, implicit attitudes, and explicit attitudes.

Correspondingly, people with high NFA were more likely to show inconsistent implicit versus explicit attitudes. The high NFA also indicates that they give more weight to bottom-up attention before decision-making (i.e., taking the vaccine), so their explicit attitudes are less dependent on their prior processing of information and more influenced by the stimuli available to them in the current moment. This is more likely to change their explicit attitudes and show contradictions with their implicit attitudes.As implicit attitudes are formed through automatic subconscious pairings between an attitude object and related evaluations (Rydell and McConnell 2006 ), they are not influenced by one’s goals and ulterior motives. Therefore, implicit attitudes are more likely to reveal personal and socially undesirable biases than explicit attitudes (Fazio and Olson 2003 ). Consequently, even if a person’s explicit attitude changes, the implicit attitude can remain the same. Because individuals who are high in NFA are more likely to view emotions, rather than information, as useful when making judgments, it is very possible that these people could shift their explicit attitudes due to external emotional stimuli. In the context of our study, as getting vaccines is strongly recommended by the Chinese government and people were afraid of being infected by the virus, people with high NFA were very likely to change their explicit attitudes toward the vaccine from negative to positive, influenced by external factors. However, their implicit attitudes might remain negative. This could potentially explain why our results demonstrated that high NFA people showed more incongruent attitudes than high NFC people.

Additionally, Phase 2 builds upon the findings of Phase 1 by investigating how the influence of content-based matching may vary based on individuals’ personality traits, through the use of either a rational or emotional appeal. Specifically, the study aims to determine if different messages would amplify or reduce the effect of message appeal-based matching on individuals with high or low levels of certain personality traits. In essence, Phase 2 seeks to explore whether personalized matching is a more effective persuasion technique for some individuals than others. Research has demonstrated that message appeals are more effective when personalized to an individual’s personality traits, with rational message appeals eliciting more positive attitudes among NFC, while emotional message appeals produce more positive attitudes among NFA (Adler et al. 2016 ; Clarkson et al. 2011 ). However, Phase 2 suggests that NFC individuals are more resistant to matched persuasion, whereas NFA individuals are more receptive to rational appeals, contrary to their affective-based attitude orientation.

This finding can be explained by the fact that personalized matching can influence attitudes through different mechanisms depending on the recipient’s level of elaboration (DeBono 1987 ; Wilson and Brekke 1994 ). Attitude certainty significantly impacts the effectiveness of persuasion, which can either increase or decrease susceptibility to change, depending on an individual’s underlying cognitive structure. According to Clarkson et al. ( 2008 ), ambivalent attitudes are more prone to change than univalent attitudes, and attitude certainty amplifies this effect. Our results support this argument, as NFA individuals with low attitude certainty appear to benefit more from the persuasive advantage of mismatched (compared to matched) messages.

Despite the persuasive advantage of matched messages, high attitude certainty did not seem to enhance the effect for NFC individuals in Phase 2. This finding can be explained by the self-validation hypothesis, which suggests that individuals are more likely to be influenced by their own validated cognitions than by external persuasion (Petty et al. 2002 ). In Phase 2, NFC individuals may have had a strong attitude towards the COVID-19 vaccination topic, making it more resistant to external challenges, even personalized persuasion. Additionally, with COVID-19 being a global pandemic, people may have experienced message fatigue due to the constant bombardment of repetitive messages (Koh et al. 2020 ). This could have led to desensitization to COVID-19 vaccination information after an initial period of anxiety, increasing the likelihood of resistance.

In addition to these theoretical issues, our findings also have practical implications. Firstly, this study sheds new light on the underlying determinants of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and the effectiveness of persuasion strategies at the individual implicit cognitive level. This understanding can aid in the development of communication strategies for vaccination promotion initiatives. Prior research has shown that implicit cognitive processes are critical in shaping attitudes and subsequent decision-making processes (Bargh et al. 1996 ; Chen and Bargh 1999 ; Dovidio et al. 1997 ). Moreover, automatic associative processes have been shown to be the primary driver of individuals’ attitudes toward objects, and these processes can lead to discriminatory behavior (Fazio 2001 ; Nosek and Banaji 2001 ). It has also been found that the IAT effect is heightened under stereotype threat (Frantz et al. 2004 ), but can be reduced when participants employ a strategy to mitigate their biases (Fiedler and Bluemke 2005 ). Therefore, Phase 2 provides valuable insights into the conditions under which personalized persuasion strategies will be more effective based on personality traits such as NFA and NFC, which can moderate the acceptance of matched messages.

There are also some limitations in this study. Our study investigates the impact of persuasive messages on vaccine hesitancy and negative implicit attitudes toward vaccines. However, the constant barrage of information on COVID-19 vaccines may have led to information overload, potentially resulting in message fatigue and reduced effectiveness of persuasive strategies. In the future, studies should investigate the persuasive effects of social events with diverse themes to expand our understanding of how these events influence attitudes and behavior.

Secondly, given the observed group differences in response to rational but not emotional message appeals, future research should delve deeper into understanding why emotional appeals did not produce the same differential effects. It is possible that emotional appeals might universally affect both NFC and NFA individuals similarly, or there might be other underlying factors that were not captured in the current study.

Thirdly, the current study focuses only on personality differences based on the NFC and the NFA. Future explorations can be made on the impact of more types of individual differences, such as the big five personality traits or individual motivation.

Moreover, ERP is a tool with high time accuracy but poor spatial accuracy. Hence, methods like fMRI can also be employed in the future to explore the precise spatial information of brain activity during information processing.

To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to utilize an ERP approach to investigate how personality differences impact implicit attitudes and the effectiveness of personalized matching toward the COVID-19 vaccine. In Phase 1, we found that there are differences in implicit cognitive patterns between people who are high in NFA and those high in NFC. Phase 2 demonstrates that personalized matching doesn’t guarantee a corresponding enhancement of persuasion, as it can influence people’s attitudes through different psychological processes depending on their level of elaboration. Both IAT and ERP results demonstrate that individuals with high NFC show more consistent implicit and explicit attitudes as they take more controlled top-down cognitive resources toward the target stimuli. This means that individuals with high NFC will automatically pre-process and reflect on external information in the central path and regulate their internal thoughts accordingly, resulting in a more consistent attitude system. In contrast, individuals with high NFA usually adopt a bottom-up processing pattern, with less careful processing of information evidence via the peripheral route, which elicits less lasting attitude changes and thus results in an inconsistent attitude system. The results support the claim that personality traits are a critical characteristic factor in attitude formation and attention allocation that can modify the extent of information processing.

These findings also provide helpful guidance in practice by offering a new understanding of the factors that influence COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Implicit attitudes play a vital role in guiding individual behaviors and preferences, and they are also associated with personality traits, thus becoming one of the main leverages to reduce vaccine hesitancy. Pandemic recovery programs should prioritize the development of interventions to change people’s implicit attitudes by applying different persuasive strategies to different personalities in order to promote overall vaccination rates.

Data availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article. The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Adler RF, Iacobelli F, Gutstein Y (2016) Are you convinced? A Wizard of Oz study to test emotional vs. rational persuasion strategies in dialogues. Comput Hum Behav 57:75–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.12.011

Article Google Scholar

Aguinis H, Mazurkiewicz MD, Heggestad ED (2009) Using web‐based frame‐of‐reference training to decrease biases in personality‐based job analysis: An experimental field study. Pers Psychol 62(2):405–438. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2009.01144.x

Akarsu B, Canbay ÖZdemir D, Ayhan Baser D, Aksoy H, Fidancı Z, Cankurtaran M (2020) While studies on COVID‐19 vaccine is ongoing, the public’s thoughts and attitudes to the future COVID‐19 vaccine. Int J Clin Pract 75(4). https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcp.13891

Amodio DM (2010) Coordinated roles of motivation and perception in the regulation of intergroup responses: Frontal cortical asymmetry effects on the P2 event-related potential and behavior. J Cogn Neurosci 22(11):2609–2617. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2009.21395

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Aquino A, Alparone FR, Pagliaro S, Haddock G, Maio GR, Perrucci MG, Ebisch SJH (2020) Sense or sensibility? The neuro-functional basis of the structural matching effect in persuasion. Cogn, Affect, Behav Neurosci 20(3):536–550. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-020-00784-7

Bandura A (2001) Social cognitive theory of mass communication. Media Psychol 3(3):265–299. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532785xmep0303_03

Bargh JA, Chen M, Burrows L (1996) Automaticity of social behavior: Direct effects of trait construct and stereotype priming on action. J Personal Soc Psychol 71:230–244. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.230

Article CAS Google Scholar

Bargh JA, Gollwitzer PM, Lee-Chai AY, Barndollar K, Trötschel R (2001) The automated will: Nonconscious activation and pursuit of behavioral goals. J Personal Soc Psychol 81:1014–1027. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.1014

Barry RJ, Clarke AR, Johnstone SJ, Magee CA, Rushby JA (2007) EEG differences between eyes-closed and eyes-open resting conditions. Clin Neurophysiol 118(12):2765–2773. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2007.07.028

Bouaffre S, Faïta-Ainseba F (2007) Hemispheric differences in the time-course of semantic priming processes: Evidence from event-related potentials (ERPs). Brain Cognition 63(2):123–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2006.10.006

Cacioppo JT, Petty RE (1982) The need for cognition. J Personal Soc Psychol 42(1):116–131. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.116

Cacioppo JT, Petty RE, Kao CF (1984) The efficient assessment of need for cognition. J Personal Assess 48(3):306–307. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4803_13

Chen L, Zhou H, Gu Y, Wang S, Wang J, Tian L, Zhu H, Zhou Z (2018) The neural correlates of implicit cognitive bias toward internet-related cues in Internet addiction: An ERP study. Front Psychiatry 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00421

Chen M, Bargh JA (1999) Nonconscious approach and avoidance behavioral consequences of the automatic evaluation effect. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 25:215–224. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167299025002007

Chen M, Li Y, Chen J, Wen Z, Feng F, Zou H, Fu C, Chen L, Shu Y, Sun C (2021) An online survey of the attitude and willingness of Chinese adults to receive COVID-19 vaccination. Hum Vaccines Immunotherapeutics 17(7):2279–2288. https://doi.org/10.1080/21645515.2020.1853449

Chien Y-H (2011) Use of Message Framing and Color in Vaccine Information to Increase Willingness to Be Vaccinated. Soc Behav Personality: Int J 39(8):1063–1071. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2011.39.8.1063

Clarkson JJ, Tormala ZL, Rucker DD (2008) A new look at the consequences of attitude certainty: The amplification hypothesis. J Personal Soc Psychol 95(4):810–825. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013192

Clarkson JJ, Tormala ZL, Rucker DD (2011) Cognitive and affective matching effects in persuasion: An amplification perspective. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 37(11):1415–1427. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211413394

Colledani D, Anselmi P, Robusto E (2021) COVID-19 emergency: The influence of implicit attitudes, information sources, and individual characteristics on psychological distress, intentions to get vaccinated, and compliance with restrictive rules. Health Psychol Rep. 10(1):1–12. https://doi.org/10.5114/hpr.2021.111292

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Conner M, Perugini M, O’Gorman R, Ayres KL, Prestwich A (2007) Relations Between Implicit and Explicit Measures of Attitudes and Measures of Behavior: Evidence of Moderation by Individual Difference Variables. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 33(12):1727–1740. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167207309194

Dasgupta N, Greenwald AG (2001) On the malleability of automatic attitudes: Combating automatic prejudice with images of admired and disliked individuals. J Personal Soc Psychol 81:800–814. https://doi.org/10.1037/00223514.81.5.800

DeBono KG (1987) Investigating the social-adjustive and value-expressive functions of attitudes: Implications for persuasion processes. J Personal Soc Psychol 52(2):279–287. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.2.279

Dijksterhuis A (2004) Think different: The merits of unconscious thought in preference development and decision making. J Personal Soc Psychol 87(5):586–598. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.5.586

Doherty M, Buchy P, Standaert B, Giaquinto C, Prado- Cohrs D (2016) Vaccine impact: Benefits for human health. Vaccine 34(52):6707–6714. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.10.025

Dovidio JF, Kawakami K, Johnson C, Johnson B, Howard A (1997) On the nature of prejudice: Automatic and controlled processes. J Exp Soc Psychol: Spec Issue Unconscious Process Stereotyping Prejudice 33:510–540. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1997.1331

Eichenlaub J, Ruby P, Morlet D (2012) What is the specificity of the response to the own first-name when presented as a novel in a passive oddball paradigm? An ERP study. Brain Res 1447:65–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2012.01.072

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Enge S, Fleischhauer M, Brocke B, Strobel A (2008) Neurophysiological measures of involuntary and voluntary attention allocation and dispositional differences in need for cognition. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 34(6):862–874. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208315556

Fabrigar LR, Petty RE (1999) The role of the affective and cognitive bases of attitudes in susceptibility to affectively and cognitively based persuasion. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 25(3):363–381. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167299025003008

Fazio RH (2001) On the automatic activation of associated evaluations: An overview. Cognit Emot 15(2):115–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/0269993004200024

Fazio RH, Dunton BC (1997) Categorization by race: The impact of automatic and controlled components of racial prejudice. J Exp Soc Psychol 33:451–470. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1997.1330

Fazio RH, Olson MA (2003) Implicit measures in social cognition research: Their meaning and use. Annu Rev Psychol 54(1):297–327. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145225

Fazio RH, Williams CJ (1986) Attitude accessibility as a moderator of the attitude-perception and attitude-behavior relations: An investigation of the 1984 presidential election. J Personal Soc Psychol 51:505–514. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.3.505

Fenta ET, Tiruneh MG, Delie AM, Kidie AA, Ayal BG, Limenh LW, Astatkie BG, Kassie N, Yigzaw ZA, Bogale EK, Anagaw TF (2023) Health literacy and COVID-19 vaccine acceptance worldwide: A systematic review. SAGE Open Med 11. https://doi.org/10.1177/20503121231197869

Fiedler K, Bluemke M (2005) Faking the IAT: Aided and unaided response control on the implicit association tests. Basic Appl Soc Psychol 27(4):307–316. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp2704_3

Frantz CM, Cuddy AJC, Burnett MM, Ray H, Hart AJ (2004) A threat in the computer: The race implicit association test as a stereotype threat experience. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 30(12):1611–1624. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204266650

Gaspar CM, Rousselet GA et al. (2011) Reliability of ERP and single-trial analyses. NeuroImage 58(2):620–629. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.06.052

Greenwald AG, Banaji MR (1995) Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, selfesteem, and stereotypes. Psychol Rev 102:4–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033295X.102.1.4

Greenwald AG, McGhee DE, Schwartz JLK (1998) Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. J Personal Soc Psychol 74(6):1464–1480. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1464

Greenwald AG, Nosek BA, Banaji MR (2003) Understanding and using the implicit association test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. J Personal Soc Psychol 85:197–216. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.197

Guillon M, Kergall P (2021) Factors associated with COVID-19 vaccination intentions and attitudes in France. Public Health 198:200–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2021.07.035

Haddock G, Maio GR (2019) Chapter Two - Inter-individual differences in attitude content: Cognition, affect, and attitudes. In J. M. Olson (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 59, pp. 53–102). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2018.10.002

Haddock G, Maio GR, Arnold K, Huskinson T (2008) Should persuasion be affective or cognitive? the moderating effects of need for affect and need for cognition. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 34(6):769–778. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208314871

Han T, Xiu L, Yu G (2020) The impact of media situation on people’s memory effect—An ERP study. Comput Hum Behav 104:106180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.106180

Haugtvedt CP, Petty RE (1992) Personality and persuasion: Need for cognition moderates the persistence and resistance of attitude changes. J Personal Soc Psychol 63:308–319. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.2.308

Haugtvedt CP, Petty RE, Cacioppo JT (1992) Need for cognition and advertising: Understanding the role of personality variables in consumer behavior. J Consum Psychol 1(3):239–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1057-7408(08)80038-1

Hilgard J, Bartholow BD, Dickter CL, Blanton H (2014) Characterizing switching and congruency effects in the Implicit Association Test as reactive and proactive cognitive control. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci 10(3):381–388. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsu060

Hillyard SA, Hink RF, Schwent VL, Picton TW (1973) Electrical signs of selective attention in the human brain. Science 182(4108):177–180. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.182.4108.177

Article ADS CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Hofmann W, De Houwer J, Perugini M, Baeyens F, Crombez G (2010) Evaluative conditioning in humans: A meta-analysis. Psychol Bull 136:390–421. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018916

Huskinson TLH, Haddock G (2004) Individual differences in attitude structure: Variance in the chronic reliance on affective and cognitive information. J Exp Soc Psychol 40(1):82–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00060-X

Islam AKMN, Laato S, Talukder MS, Sutinen E (2020) Misinformation sharing and social media fatigue during COVID-19: An affordance and cognitive load perspective. Technol Forecast Soc Change 159:120201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120201

Ito TA, Urland GR (2003) Race and gender on the brain: Electrocortical measures of attention to the race and gender of multiply categorizable individuals. J Personal Soc Psychol 85(4):616–626. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.4.616

Karlsson LC, Soveri A, Lewandowsky S, Karlsson L, Karlsson H, Nolvi S, Karukivi M, Lindfelt M, Antfolk J (2021) Fearing the disease or the vaccine: The case of COVID-19. Personal Individ Differences 172:110590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110590

Key APF, Dove GO, Maguire MJ (2005) Linking Brainwaves to the Brain: an ERP Primer. Developmental Neuropsychol 27(2):183–215. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326942dn2702_1

Khubchandani J, Sharma S, Price JH, Wiblishauser MJ, Sharma M, Webb FJ (2021) COVID-19 Vaccination Hesitancy in the United States: A Rapid National Assessment. J Community Health 46(2):270–277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-020-00958-x

Kissler J, Koessler S (2011) Emotionally positive stimuli facilitate lexical decisions—an ERP study. Biol Psychol 86(3):254–264

Koh P, Chan LL, Jankovic J (2020) Messaging Fatigue and Desensitisation to Information During Pandemic. Arch Med Res 51(7):716–717. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arcmed.2020.06.014

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Kubota JT, Ito TA (2007) Multiple cues in social perception: the time course of processing race and facial expression. J Exp Soc Psychol 43:738–752

Kurdi B, Ratliff KA, Cunningham WA (2021) Can the implicit association test serve as a valid measure of automatic cognition? a response to Schimmack. Perspect Psychol Sci 16(2):422–434. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620904080

Kutas M, Federmeier KD (2011) Thirty years and counting: Finding meaning in the N400 component of the event related brain potential (ERP). Annu Rev Psychol 62:621. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.131123

Kutas M, Hillyard SA (1980) Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science 207(4427):203–205. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7350657

Lane KA, Banaji MR, Nosek BA, Greenwald AG (2007) Understanding and using the implicit association test: What we know (so far) about the method. In B Wittenbrink & N Schwarz (Eds.), Implicit measures of attitudes (pp. 59-102). New York, NY: The Guilford Press

Lin FY, Wang CH (2020) Personality and individual attitudes toward vaccination: a nationally representative survey in the United States. BMC Public Health, 20(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-09840-w

Luck SJ, Heinze HJ, Mangun GR, Hillyard SA (1990) Visual event-related potentials index focused attention within bilateral stimulus arrays. II. Functional dissociation of P1 and N1 components. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 75(6):528–542. https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-4694(90)90139-b

Luck SJ, Hillyard SA (1994) Spatial filtering during visual search: Evidence from human electrophysiology. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 20(5):1000–1014. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.20.5.1000

Maio GR, Esses VM (2001) The need for affect: Individual differences in the motivation to approach or avoid emotions. J Personal 69(4):583–614. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.694156

Manca S, Altoè G, Schultz PW, Fornara F (2020) The persuasive route to sustainable mobility: Elaboration likelihood model and emotions predict implicit attitudes. Environ Behav 52(8):830–860. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916518820898

Mangun GR, Hillyard SA (1991) Modulations of sensory-evoked brain potentials indicate changes in perceptual processing during visual-spatial priming. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 17(4):1057–1074. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.17.4.1057

McCaslin MJ, Petty RE, Wegener DT (2010) Self-enhancement and theory-based correction processes. J Exp Soc Psychol 46(5):830–835. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.05.002

Millar MG, Millar KU (1990) Attitude change as a function of attitude type and argument type. J Personal Soc Psychol 59(2):217. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.2.217

Murphy, J, Vallières, F, Bentall, RP, Shevlin, M, McBride, O, Hartman, TK, McKay, R, Bennett, K, Mason, L, Gibson-Miller, J, Levita, L, Martinez, AP, Stocks, TVA, Nan, X, & Madden, K (2012). HPV Vaccine Information in the Blogosphere: How Positive and Negative Blogs Influence Vaccine-Related Risk Perceptions, Attitudes, and Behavioral Intentions. Health Communication, 27(8), 829–836. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2012.661348

Nosek BA, Banaji MR (2001) The Go/No-Go association task. Soc Cognit 19(6):625–666. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.19.6.625.20886

Olofsson JK, Polich J (2007) Affective visual eventrelated potentials: Arousal, repetition, and time-ontask. Biol Psychol 75(1):101–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2006.12.006

Olson K, Camp C, Fuller D (1984) Curiosity and need for cognition. Psychol Rep. 54(1):71–74. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1984.54.1.71

Olson MA, Fazio RH (2004) Reducing the influence of extrapersonal associations on the Implicit Association Test: Personalizing the IAT. J Personal Soc Psychol 86:653–667. https://doi.org/10.1037/00223514.86.5.653

Osterholm MT, Kelley NS, Sommer A, Belongia EA (2012) Efficacy and effectiveness of influenza vaccines: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis 12(1):36–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1473-3099(11)70295-x

Paller KA, Kutas M (1992) Brain potentials during memory retrieval provide neurophysiological support for the distinction between conscious recollection and priming. J Cogn Neurosci 4(4):375–392. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.1992.4.4.375

Pernet C, Basan S, Doyon B, Cardebat D, Démonet JF, Celsis P (2003) Neural timing of visual implicit categorization. Cogn Brain Res 17(2):327338. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0926-6410(03)00134-4

Petty RE, Briñol P, Tormala ZL (2002) Thought confidence as a determinant of persuasion: The self-validation hypothesis. J Personal Soc Psychol 82:722–741. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.5.722

Petty RE, Wheeler SC, Bizer GY (1999) Attitude functions and persuasion: An elaboration likelihood approach to matched versus mismatched messages. Psychol Press EBooks, 145–174. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410602138-9

Reagu S, Jones RM, Alabdulla M (2023) COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and personality traits; results from a large national cross-sectional survey in Qatar. Vaccines 11(1):189. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines11010189

Ruiz JB, Bell RA (2021) Predictors of intention to vaccinate against COVID-19: Results of a nationwide survey. Vaccine 39(7):1080–1086. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.01.010

Ruz M, Madrid E, Lupianez J, Tudela P (2003) High density ERP indices of conscious and unconscious semantic priming. Cogn Brain Res 17(3):719731. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0926-6410(03)00197-6

Rydell RJ, McConnell AR (2006) Understanding implicit and explicit attitude change: A systems of reasoning analysis. J Personal Soc Psychol 91(6):995–1008. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.6.995

Ryu S, Kim J, Lee J, Kang Y, Shin HY, Jung S, Kim J, Kim S (2023) Psychological and personality characteristics associated with COVID-19 vaccination behavior in Korean general population. J Korean Med Sci 38(30). https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2023.38.e234

Sallam M (2021) COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy worldwide: A concise systematic review of vaccine acceptance rates. Vaccines 9(2):160. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines9020160

Shang W, Deng W, Liu J (2018) Decision-making neural mechanism of online purchase intention through two clues—price and seller’s reputation based on brain evoked potential analysis. NeuroQuantology, 16(5). https://doi.org/10.14704/nq.2018.16.5.1417

Simione L, Vagni M, Maiorano T, Giostra V, Pajardi D (2022) How implicit attitudes toward vaccination affect vaccine hesitancy and behaviour: developing and validating the V-IRAP. Int J Environ Res Public Health 19(7):7. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19074205 . Article

Steinhauer K, Royle P, Drury JE, Fromont LA (2017) The priming of priming: Evidence that the N400 reflects context-dependent post-retrieval word integration in working memory. Neurosci Lett 651:192–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2017.05.007

Strobel A, Fleischhauer M, Enge S, Strobel A (2015) Explicit and implicit need for cognition and bottom-up/top-down attention allocation. J Res Personal 55:10–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2014.11.002

Teeny JD, Siev JJ, Briñol P, Petty RE (2021) A review and conceptual framework for understanding personalized matching effects in persuasion. J Consum Psychol 31(2):382–414. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1198

Thunstrom L, Ashworth M, Finnoff D, Newbold S (2020) Hesitancy Towards a COVID-19 Vaccine and Prospects for Herd Immunity. SSRN Electr J. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3593098

Updegraff JA, Sherman DH, Luyster FS, Vickers ZM (2007) The effects of message quality and congruency on perceptions of tailored health communications. J Exp Soc Psychol 43(2):249–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2006.01.007

van Nunspeet F, Ellemers N, Derks B, Nieuwenhuis S (2014) Moral concerns increase attention and response monitoring during IAT performance: ERP evidence. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci 9(2):141–149. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nss118

Vogel EK, Luck SJ (2000) The visual N1 component as an index of a discrimination process. Psychophysiology 37(2):190–203. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0048577200981265

Wan EW, Rucker DD (2013) Confidence and construal framing: When confidence increases versus decreases information processing. J Consum Res 39(5):977–992. https://doi.org/10.1086/666467

Whitford DK, Emerson AM (2019) Empathy intervention to reduce implicit bias in pre-service teachers. Psychol Rep. 122(2):670–688. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294118767435

WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard. (2023, March 21). With Vaccination Data. Retrieved March 21, 2023, from covid19.who.int/

Wilson TD, Brekke N (1994) Mental contamination and mental correction: unwanted influences on judgments and evaluations. Psychol Bull 116(1):117. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.116.1.117

Wismans A, Thurik R, Baptista R, Dejardin M, Janssen F, Franken I (2021) Psychological characteristics and the mediating role of the 5C Model in explaining students’ COVID-19 vaccination intention. PLOS ONE 16(8):e0255382. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0255382

Wittenbrink B, Judd CM, Park B (1997) Evidence for racial prejudice at the implicit level and its relationship with questionnaire measures. J Personal Soc Psychol 72:262–274. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.2.262

Wu C, Zhang J (2019) Conflict processing is modulated by positive emotion word type in second language: An ERP study. J Psycholinguist Res 48:1203–1216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-019-09653-y

Wu Y, Kuru O, Campbell SW, Baruh L (2022) Explaining health misinformation belief through news, social, and alternative health media use: The moderating roles of need for cognition and faith in intuition. Health Commun 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2021.2010891

Yang J, Guan L, Dedovic K, Qi M, Zhang Q (2012) “The neural correlates of implicit self-relevant processing in low self-esteem: An ERP study. Brain Res 1471:75–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2012.06.033

Yang Y, Farrell C, Lin X (2022) Antecedents of consumer economic nationalism: The role of need for cognition and cosmopolitanism. J Glob Mark 35(2):148–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/08911762.2021.1953663

Yang Y, Xiu L, Chen X, Yu G (2023) Do emotions conquer facts? A CCME model for the impact of emotional information on implicit attitudes in the post-truth era. Human Soc Sci Commun 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01861-1

Zabielskamendyk E (2013) Does the brain differentiate between related and unrelated cuts when processing audiovisual messages? An ERP study. Media Psychol 16(4):461–475. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2013.831394

Zajonc RB (1980) Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. Am Psychol 35(2):151–175. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.35.2.151

Zaltman G (2015) Consumer researchers: Take a hike! J Consum Res 26(4):423–428. https://doi.org/10.1086/209573

Zheng H, Jiang S, Wu Q (2021) Factors influencing COVID-19 vaccination intention: The roles of vaccine knowledge, vaccine risk perception, and doctor-patient communication. Patient Educ Counsel. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2021.09.023

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research is funded by the Frontier Innovation Project of Cognitive Neuroscience of Beijing Normal University (No:GP2Y009; GP2Y010) and the National Social Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 22CXW005).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Lab of Cognitive Neuroscience and Communication, School of Journalism and Communication, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, 100875, China

Xuejiao Chen, Shijian Yan, Lulu Mao & Guoming Yu

Computational Communication Research Center, Beijing Normal University at Zhuhai, Zhuhai, 519087, China

Xuejiao Chen

Department of Strategic Communication, School of Communication, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL, 33146, USA

College of Media, Communication and Information, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, 80309, USA

Yanyun Wang

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Xuejiao: Chen conceptualization, methodology, study design, data collection, data curation, data analysis, writing-original draft, editing, supervision, and funding acquisition. Chen Chen: conceptualization, writing-original draft, writing-review, and editing. Yanyun Wang: writing-original draft, and writing-review. Shijian Yan: data collection, and data curation. Lulu Ma: data collection, data curation, and data analysis. Guoming Yu: conceptualization, methodology, editing, and funding acquisition.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Xuejiao Chen or Guoming Yu .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

The study’s experimental procedures, including participant compensation, were approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the National Key Laboratory of Cognitive Neuroscience and Learning at Beijing Normal University (CNL_B_0012_001). The authors confirm that all research procedures followed relevant regulations for human participant involvement.

Informed consent

All participants, aged over 18, carefully read and signed a printed informed consent form prior to participating in the study. They were fully informed about the study’s objectives, procedures, and any potential risks before the experiments. Each participant received a compensation of 100 RMB for their time and involvement.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Appendix_scales_for_measurement, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Chen, X., Chen, C., Wang, Y. et al. Understanding personalized persuasion strategies in implicit attitudes towards the COVID-19 vaccine: the moderating effects of personality traits based on an ERP study. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 11 , 1217 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03720-z

Download citation

Received : 04 August 2023

Accepted : 05 September 2024

Published : 15 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03720-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

Explore articles by subject
Guide to authors
Editorial policies

Fact sheets
Facts in pictures
Publications
Questions and answers
Tools and toolkits
Endometriosis
Excessive heat
Mental disorders
Polycystic ovary syndrome
All countries
Eastern Mediterranean
South-East Asia
Western Pacific
Data by country
Country presence
Country strengthening
Country cooperation strategies
News releases
Feature stories
Press conferences
Commentaries
Photo library
Afghanistan
Cholera
Coronavirus disease (COVID-19)
Greater Horn of Africa
Israel and occupied Palestinian territory
Disease Outbreak News
Situation reports
Weekly Epidemiological Record
Surveillance
Health emergency appeal
International Health Regulations
Independent Oversight and Advisory Committee
Classifications
Data collections
Global Health Observatory
Global Health Estimates
Mortality Database
Sustainable Development Goals
Health Inequality Monitor
Global Progress
World Health Statistics
Partnerships
Committees and advisory groups
Collaborating centres
Technical teams
Organizational structure
Initiatives
General Programme of Work
WHO Academy
Investment in WHO
WHO Foundation
External audit
Financial statements
Internal audit and investigations
Programme Budget
Results reports
Governing bodies
World Health Assembly
Executive Board
Member States Portal
Feature stories /

Getting the COVID-19 Vaccine

This article is part of a series of explainers on vaccine development and distribution. Learn more about vaccines – from how they work and how they’re made to ensuring safety and equitable access – in WHO’s Vaccines Explained series.

Vaccines are a critical tool in the battle against COVID-19, and getting vaccinated is one of the best ways to protect yourself and others from COVID-19.

Getting vaccinated is safer than getting infected

Vaccines train our immune system to recognize the targeted virus and create antibodies to fight off the disease without getting the disease itself. After vaccination, the body is ready to fight the virus if it is later exposed to it, thereby preventing illness.

Most people who are infected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, develop an immune response within the first few weeks, but we are still learning how strong and lasting that immune response is, and how it varies between different people.

People who have already been infected with SARS-CoV-2 should still get vaccinated unless told otherwise by their health care provider. Even if you’ve had a previous infection, the vaccine acts as a booster that strengthens the immune response. There have also been some instances of people infected with SARS-CoV-2 a second time, which makes getting vaccinated even more important.

What to expect during vaccination

Medical professionals can best advise individuals on whether or not, and when, they should receive a vaccine. A health worker will administer the vaccine, and the person receiving it will be asked to wait for 15–30 minutes before leaving the vaccination site. This is so that health workers can observe individuals for any unexpected reactions following vaccination.

Like any vaccine, COVID-19 vaccines can cause mild-to-moderate side effects, such as a low-grade fever or pain or redness at the injection site. These should go away on their own within a few days. See WHO’s Safety of COVID-19 Vaccines explainer and Vaccines Safety Q&A to learn more about common side effects and find out who should consult with a doctor before vaccination.

Vaccine doses

For some COVID-19 vaccines, two doses are required . It’s important to get the second dose if the vaccine requires two doses.

For vaccines that require two doses, the first dose presents antigens – proteins that stimulate the production of antibodies – to the immune system for the first time. Scientists call this priming the immune response. The second dose acts as a booster, ensuring the immune system develops a memory response to fight off the virus if it encounters it again.

Because of the urgent need for a COVID-19 vaccine, initial clinical trials of vaccine candidates were performed with the shortest possible duration between doses. Therefore an interval of 21–28 days (3–4 weeks) between doses is recommended by WHO. Depending on the vaccine, the interval may be extended for up to 42 days – or even up to 12 weeks for some vaccines – on the basis of current evidence.

There are many COVID-19 vaccines being developed and produced by different manufacturers around the world. WHO recommends that a vaccine from the same manufacturer be used for both doses if you require two doses. This recommendation may be updated as further information becomes available.

Safety against infection and transmission after vaccination

Available clinical trials have shown COVID-19 vaccines to be safe and highly effective at preventing severe disease. Given how new COVID-19 is, researchers are still looking into how long a vaccinated person is likely to be protected from infection, and whether vaccinated people can still transmit the virus to others. As the vaccine rollout expands, WHO will continue to monitor the data alongside regulatory authorities.

Safe and effective vaccines are making a significant contribution to preventing severe disease and death from COVID-19. As vaccines are rolling out and immunity is building, it is important to continue to follow all of the recommended measures that reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2. This includes physically distancing yourself from others; wearing a mask, especially in crowded and poorly ventilated settings; cleaning your hands frequently; covering any cough or sneeze in your bent elbow; and opening windows when indoors.

Share full article

Supported by

The Morning Newsletter

Vaccine Persuasion

Many vaccine skeptics have changed their minds.

By David Leonhardt

When the Kaiser Family Foundation conducted a poll at the start of the year and asked American adults whether they planned to get vaccinated, 23 percent said no.

But a significant portion of that group — about one quarter of it — has since decided to receive a shot. The Kaiser pollsters recently followed up and asked these converts what led them to change their minds . The answers are important, because they offer insight into how the millions of still unvaccinated Americans might be persuaded to get shots, too.

First, a little background: A few weeks ago, it seemed plausible that Covid-19 might be in permanent retreat, at least in communities with high vaccination rates. But the Delta variant has changed the situation. The number of cases is rising in all 50 states .

Although vaccinated people remain almost guaranteed to avoid serious symptoms, Delta has put the unvaccinated at greater risk of contracting the virus — and, by extension, of hospitalization and death. The Covid death rate in recent days has been significantly higher in states with low vaccination rates than in those with higher rates:

(For more detailed state-level charts, see this piece by my colleagues Lauren Leatherby and Amy Schoenfeld Walker. The same pattern is evident at the county level, as the health policy expert Charles Gaba has been explaining on Twitter.)

Nationwide, more than 99 percent of recent deaths have occurred among unvaccinated people, and more than 97 percent of recent hospitalizations have occurred among the unvaccinated, according to the C.D.C. “Look,” President Biden said on Friday, “the only pandemic we have is among the unvaccinated.”

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber? Log in .

Want all of The Times? Subscribe .

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

The PMC website is updating on October 15, 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
Elsevier - PMC COVID-19 Collection

An Ethical Anaylsis of the Arguments Both For and Against COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates for Healthcare Workers

Since the development of the first U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved vaccine for the prevention of serious disease and death associated with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, health care workers have been expected to comply with mandatory immunization requirements or face potential termination of employment and censure by their state medical boards. Although most accepted this mandate, there have been several who have felt this was an unnecessary intrusion and violation of their right to choose their own health care mitigation strategies, or an infringement on their autonomy and other civil liberties. Others have argued that being a health care professional places your duties above your own self-interests, so-called fiduciary duties. As a result of these duties, there is an expected obligation to do the best action to achieve the “most good” for society. A so-called “utilitarian argument.”

We explore arguments both for and against these mandatory vaccine requirements and conclude using duty- and consequence-based moral reasoning to weigh the merits of each.

Conclusions

Although arguments for and against vaccine mandates are compelling, it is the opinion of the Ethics Committee of the American Academy of Emergency Medicine that vaccine mandates for health care workers are ethically just and appropriate, and the benefit to society far outweighs the minor inconvenience to an individual's personal liberties.

Introduction

The introduction of COVID-19 vaccine mandates for health care workers has caused debate and disruption in hospitals across the world, as well as within the United States. Several arguments have been made for and against the mandates, although mostly in political and social media. As the Ethics Committee of the American Academy of Emergency Medicine (AAEM), we are entrusted to guide the Academy and its members, and hopefully the entire emergency medicine (EM) community, regarding ethical matters affecting all facets of emergency care. COVID-19 quickly became a polarizing public health crisis, affecting people of all educational, socioeconomic, political, religious, and demographic backgrounds. COVID-19 greatly impacted emergency departments (EDs), which are often front and center to issues related to not only disease and its manifestations, but to the effects of vaccine mandates on health care professionals. As an ethics committee, we focus our arguments solely on ethics and do not debate the safety or efficacy of vaccines. The Ethics Committee accepts that these vaccines were recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and are U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved, and proceed with the assumption that these vaccines meet safety requirements ( 1 ). We will also not debate the role of immunity from prior COVID-19 infection as being equivalent to the vaccine, as study on the equivalency is still ongoing at the time of writing this article. We will also avoid religious and legal arguments (except to mention one precedent case on public health law and vaccine mandates, which was based on a utilitarian ethical principle). Similarly, we will avoid discussion of religious or medical exemptions that may legitimately prevent receiving the vaccine. We present the arguments both for and against vaccine mandates and weigh the substantive arguments made by two panels of members, representing arguments “for” (M.M., B.W., A.U., E.S.) and “against” (L.D., R.B., D.F., A.G.) mandates. A.G. examined each of the arguments for their ethical soundness and, using principles of moral reasoning invoking deontology and consequentialism, concluded with the recommended moral position.

Of note, we use the term health care workers to include a physician-led team that may consist of any combination of residents, fellows, medical students, nurses, advanced practice providers, and health care assistants and technologists. It is not enough to focus on one out of this diverse group. As a physician-led group, it is the position of AAEM and most physician societies that medical care is best led by a board-certified physician, who also ensures the professional ethics guiding their practice are exhibited in each team member.

Arguments in Favor of Vaccine Mandates

Historically, vaccine mandates have been part of the protections under public health laws of many nations of the world. As far back as 1807, the German state of Bavaria introduced a mandate for vaccination of the public after development of the smallpox vaccine ( 2 ). In the 1905 Jacobson vs. Massachusetts decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that state vaccine mandates were legal and enforceable to protect public health ( 3 ). Although in recent years there have been controversies regarding mandatory vaccination for schoolchildren, in large part these vaccination mandates have continued yearly without public debate. Generally speaking, and using the principle of acceptability, most members of the public have long accepted the role vaccines play in protecting their health and the health of those around them. There are many definitions of acceptability in ethics, however, we find most illustrative the following: “Acceptability is a multi-faceted construct that reflects the extent to which people delivering or receiving a healthcare intervention consider it to be appropriate, based on anticipated or experienced cognitive and emotional responses to the intervention” ( 4 ).

The initial argument in support of the COVID-19 vaccine mandates for health care workers must start with the principle of justice and consistency and their related ethical concepts that support fair and equitable treatment of individuals. Although justice is typically viewed through a patient-centric lens, it is reasonable to expect that health care workers not only treat their patients justly, but be treated and act justly and consistent with their professional ethics. Justice is defined as “fair, equitable, and appropriate treatment of persons” ( 5 ). There is a further implied principle within justice, that is, consistency. It is impossible to be just yet inconsistent. Just policies, even with caveats and exceptions, must be reproducible and consistent, otherwise they will not withstand scrutiny by society and, as a result, will not be ethical. A policy is just if it is fair, and the policy to mandate that health care workers receive the COVID-19 vaccine is fair, equitable, and appropriate, as it seeks to provide a means to distribute a necessary treatment without discrimination or bias and its benefits far outweigh any risks.

For the last half century, health care workers had generally accepted, as part of the requirements for obtaining hospital privileges, the role of mandatory vaccines for their and society's good. It is reasonable and expected then to mandate additional vaccines, as diseases become prevalent and vaccines are discovered, with the same intent to provide protection to health care workers and their patients. Prior to March 2020, proof of certain mandatory vaccinations, such as hepatitis B, tetanus, measles, mumps and rubella, and other childhood vaccinations (or proof of immunity) was an accepted norm in the process of starting clinical work in most clinical settings in the United States ( 6 ). When the COVID-19 vaccination became available, given the similar public health protection that the vaccination provided for this disease, it is reasonable and not an unusual or unfair burden on health care workers to add one more vaccine to the multitude they are required to get in order to provide clinical care. As stated in the first principle of AAEM's Principles of Ethics, there is a fiduciary duty by physicians to place the patient's interests above their own ( 7 ). In keeping with this principle, it is hard to conceive that refusing to protect oneself from severe disease from COVID-19, as well as the reported decreased rate of viral transmission and hence disease in vaccinated persons compared with the unvaccinated, is consistent with placing the interests of patients above health care workers ( 8 ).

One of the core tenets of medical ethics is the principle of nonmaleficence. This is best described as our unique duty to “do no harm,” as described in the Hippocratic Oath, which states physicians must “act in a way which does no harm” ( 9 ). Given the data that suggest even with the most recent highly virulent and contagious mutations of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, there is a decreased risk of transmission from vaccinated individuals, hence vaccinated health care workers uphold their duty of nonmaleficence to their patients. In contrast, remaining unvaccinated potentially exposes highly vulnerable patients and coworkers to the virus and potentially COVID-19. In addition, a health care worker who is unavailable due to COVID-19 and who is unvaccinated unfairly shifts more work burden on to their vaccinated coworkers and reduces the pool of health care workers available to society, which is worse during a pandemic.

Given the trust that society has in the medical profession, and the resultant duty that health care workers owe to society, ensuring wellness both physically and emotionally is integral in providing ethically based care. Health care workers aim not just to avoid causing harm to patients, but to ensure good. Beneficence , another throwback to the Hippocratic Oath, is defined as “an act of charity, mercy, and kindness with a strong connotation of doing good to others including moral obligation. All professionals have the foundational moral imperative of doing right. In the context of the professional–client relationship, the professional is obligated to, always and without exception, favor the well-being and interest of the client” ( 10 ). This definition is especially helpful in reiterating the fiduciary responsibility health care workers have to their patients and the need to ensure they are willing and able to provide ethical care, which implies having not only the technical and experiential knowledge, but the appropriate state of mind and physical well-being. A sick health care worker diminishes the potency of the physician–patient relationship.

As alluded to earlier, public health ethics, policy, and law have generally been structured around the utilitarian principle of doing the best for the most ( 11 ). Its underlying theme is to maximize the good in society to the benefit of the most members of that society. It acknowledges that there are certain segments of the society in which individual liberties may be affected to protect the welfare of other members, but it is felt to be just and appropriate ethically for the greater good of society. Like all other vaccines mandated to attend school or for employment in a health care facility in the United States, once the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine was approved by the FDA, its role in risk-mitigating the serious sequela of COVID-19 was sufficient justification to mandate that all health care workers add this vaccine to the list of mandatory vaccines, thereby ensuring protection for the vulnerable who seek medical care ( 12 ). Serving as a mini-cosmos of society, vaccine mandates for health care workers ensure that the greatest utility (i.e., protection from COVID-19) is achieved.

Argument against Vaccine Mandates

Utilitarianism appeals to us during times of crisis. It offers an enticing solution: do the greatest good, to the greatest number of people. However, the pursuit of utilitarian ideals often challenges the rights of the individual. In the COVID-19 pandemic, the utilitarian argument has been applied to vaccine mandates.

Why is vaccination a moral issue? The decision to become vaccinated and the prevention of harm fulfills the first categorical imperative and it also has the appeal of prudence. Vaccine mandates risk treating individuals as a means to an end and risk running afoul of the second categorical imperative. Utilitarian advocates would argue for a vaccine mandate as it provides the greatest well-being for the most people possible. The utilitarian argument that vaccine mandates are doing the best for the most falls flat when taking into consideration that a vaccine for the seasonal influenza virus (flu), for example, is available and, although required by many health care facilities, it is not mandated, as there is a workaround for those who refuse it. Using the principle of consistency to ensure like circumstances are treated similarly: if utilitarianism was to be the underpinning of the COVID-19 vaccine mandate, one would expect that the flu vaccine would also be mandated, as its impact on the health care field is just as large as SARS-CoV-2, yet only four states require it ( 13 ). Furthermore, individuals who choose not to receive an influenza vaccine are not harassed, stigmatized, or threatened with termination of their job, but are allowed to seek exemptions or are required to mask for the entirety of the flu season. Consistency is key in ethical principles and consistency in this utilitarian argument seems to be lacking.

To the “pro” argument on acceptability, we must disagree. It requires very little formal research to establish that many things deemed absolutely correct 100 years ago may not be acceptable today. Society only questions the “status quo” when enough individuals refuse to follow it, or when advances in science or other studies elevate our collective knowledge. There are, and have been, many “accepted” practices that are not fair, equitable, just, or ethical, and hence acceptability as a criterion lacks merits. Likewise, we must question the “fiduciary” argument that blindly mandates physician wellness and interests below that of their patients. Moral injury, burnout, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, for example, are all concepts permeating the medical (especially EM) literature, and are directly related to the work environment of medicine. Although it is important in general terms to hold the patient's medical interests over one's own, does this require self-sacrifice in order to uphold the Hippocratic Oath? Are we, as health care workers, now enslaved to the profession without any rights of our own? We are entrusted with great responsibility and trust by society and have access to the greatest bodies of knowledge, yet as subject matter experts we are not afforded the same “right to refuse” as any other autonomous agent in the free world. For that, we call foul.

It is our position that Kantian ethics provide a solution to this dilemma and address both the concerns of individual rights and society at large. Kant's moral theory describes individuals as having intrinsic worth as autonomous, rational agents. He describes a concept of “good will” in which people have the capacity to recognize a moral act and the duty to act on it. This is an ongoing, conscious process ( 14 ). In contrast, utilitarianism would view the intrinsic value of individual choice in its effects. In Jeremy Bentham's interpretation, this was hedonism: the degree of how much pleasure could be caused or pain avoided ( 15 , 16 ). Other philosophers view the ideal outcomes of personal decisions as well-being. For the utilitarian John Stuart Mill, decisions or rules were also viewed as moral to the degree in which they benefited the majority ( 17 ).

Central to Kant's work were his categorical imperatives, that is, moral laws applicable to all individuals ( 14 ). These are laws freely accessible to individuals using reason and intellect and apply to all equally. The first principle described the concept of universalizability; a moral actor considers the principle underlying their personal decisions and the effect if all other individuals acted in a similar manner. The second principle emphasizes that humanity should be an end in itself, and never a means to an end. As human beings are rational and autonomous, we can set our own goals; humans exist for themselves and are morally self-governed.

It is important to note that Kant thought that decisions could be divided into those that were prudent and those that were ethical ( 14 ). Often, these categories coincide. During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a wide range of public health decisions made with the intent of limiting morbidity and mortality. Masking, travel restrictions, and quarantining after exposure fall into both categories. A prudent individual, concerned about their own health and considering their duty to preserve both their own health and that of their peers would reasonably adopt these measures to preserve their own health and longevity as well as that of their peers.

Kantian philosophers must argue against these mandates, as it is the individual's duty to identify the moral good offered by these vaccines and take the appropriate action. Compelling action and violating personal autonomy to reach the so-called, “herd immunity” would be a moral evil.

To this dilemma, we offer a solution. We have seen the public's trust in clinicians and the medical establishment erode throughout this pandemic, as people chafe against changing mandates and norms. The evidence we have of the benefit of the vaccines for our patients is clear; it is both a prudent and moral decision. But it is a personal decision based on moral duty. Physicians must continue to educate and guide to moral clarity. To do anything else is to treat our patients as a means to an end.

We have presented ethical arguments both for and against a mandate for health care workers to receive vaccination against COVID-19. A key argument for vaccine mandates rests on the ethical requirements for health care workers to place the well-being of the community as a whole above their own individual interests. Whereas, the key arguments against mandates state that an individual's autonomy must be primary, and that autonomy should not be overridden or ignored in the name of a “higher” good.

Both arguments being compelling, it is the opinion of the Ethics Committee of AAEM that vaccine mandates for health care workers are ethically just and appropriate, and the benefit to society far outweighs the minor inconvenience to an individual's personal liberties. This opinion rests on the following key conditions: the risks of the disease are significant to society as a whole, the vaccine has been FDA-approved (which implies thoroughly tested and deemed “safe”), and there are exceptions for those with legitimate medical or religious reasons. Vaccine mandates are consistent with professional ethics and fiduciary duties to patients. Society's interest should be held as primary over individual interests, especially as it concerns an action that is consistent and congruent with actions in our well established and accepted practice of medicine. That said, as we see a shift from pandemic to endemic status, and the research grows on natural vs. obtained immunity, there may be a shift in this opinion over time on mandatory COVID-19 vaccination.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the AAEM Ethics Committee for their assistance in providing critical feedback on this manuscript.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings
My Bibliography
Collections
Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

Create a new collection
Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

Search in PubMed
Search in NLM Catalog
Add to Search

Persuasive messaging to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake intentions

Affiliations.

1 Yale Institute for Global Health, New Haven, CT, USA; Department of Internal Medicine, Section of Infectious Diseases, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
2 Institution for Social and Policy Studies, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA; Center for the Study of American Politics, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA.
3 Institution for Social and Policy Studies, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA; Center for the Study of American Politics, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA; Department of Political Science, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA.
4 Yale Institute for Global Health, New Haven, CT, USA; Department of Internal Medicine, Section of Infectious Diseases, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA; Department of Epidemiology of Microbial Diseases, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT, USA; Yale School of Nursing, West Haven, CT, USA.
5 Institution for Social and Policy Studies, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA; Center for the Study of American Politics, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA; Department of Political Science, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA. Electronic address: [email protected].
PMID: 34774363
PMCID: PMC8531257
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.10.039

Widespread vaccination remains the best option for controlling the spread of COVID-19 and ending the pandemic. Despite the considerable disruption the virus has caused to people's lives, many people are still hesitant to receive a vaccine. Without high rates of uptake, however, the pandemic is likely to be prolonged. Here we use two survey experiments to study how persuasive messaging affects COVID-19 vaccine uptake intentions. In the first experiment, we test a large number of treatment messages. One subgroup of messages draws on the idea that mass vaccination is a collective action problem and highlighting the prosocial benefit of vaccination or the reputational costs that one might incur if one chooses not to vaccinate. Another subgroup of messages built on contemporary concerns about the pandemic, like issues of restricting personal freedom or economic security. We find that persuasive messaging that invokes prosocial vaccination and social image concerns is effective at increasing intended uptake and also the willingness to persuade others and judgments of non-vaccinators. We replicate this result on a nationally representative sample of Americans and observe that prosocial messaging is robust across subgroups, including those who are most hesitant about vaccines generally. The experiments demonstrate how persuasive messaging can induce individuals to be more likely to vaccinate and also create spillover effects to persuade others to do so as well. The first experiment in this study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov and can be found under the ID number NCT04460703 . This study was registered at Open Science Framework (OSF) at: https://osf.io/qu8nb/?view_only=82f06ecad77f4e54b02e8581a65047d7.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Experiment 1. Messages that frame…

Experiment 1. Messages that frame vaccination as a cooperative action to protect others…

Experiment 2. The Not Bravery,…

Experiment 2. The Not Bravery, Community Interest, and Community Interest + Embarrassment messages…

Publication types

Search in MeSH

Associated data

Search in ClinicalTrials.gov

Related information

Grants and funding.

UL1 TR001863/TR/NCATS NIH HHS/United States

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

ClinicalKey
Elsevier Science
Europe PubMed Central
PubMed Central
MedlinePlus Health Information
Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

EDITORIAL article

Editorial: coronavirus disease (covid-19): the impact and role of mass media during the pandemic.

$\nPatrícia Arriaga$

1 Department of Social and Organizational Psychology, Iscte-University Institute of Lisbon, CIS-IUL, Lisbon, Portugal
2 Department of Psychology and Social Work, Mid Sweden University, Östersund, Sweden
3 Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Medical School and University Hospital, Eberhard Karls University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany

Editorial on the Research Topic Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19): The Impact and Role of Mass Media During the Pandemic

The outbreak of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has created a global health crisis that had a deep impact on the way we perceive our world and our everyday lives. Not only has the rate of contagion and patterns of transmission threatened our sense of agency, but the safety measures to contain the spread of the virus also required social and physical distancing, preventing us from finding solace in the company of others. Within this context, we launched our Research Topic on March 27th, 2020, and invited researchers to address the Impact and Role of Mass Media During the Pandemic on our lives at individual and social levels.

Despite all the hardships, disruption, and uncertainty brought by the pandemic, we received diverse and insightful manuscript proposals. Frontiers in Psychology published 15 articles, involving 61 authors from 8 countries, which were included in distinct specialized sections, including Health Psychology, Personality and Social Psychology, Emotion Science, and Organizational Psychology. Despite the diversity of this collective endeavor, the contributions fall into four areas of research: (1) the use of media in public health communication; (2) the diffusion of false information; (3) the compliance with the health recommendations; and (4) how media use relates to mental health and well-being.

A first line of research includes contributions examining the use of media in public health communication. Drawing on media messages used in previous health crises, such as Ebola and Zika, Hauer and Sood describe how health organizations use media. They offer a set of recommendations for COVID-19 related media messages, including the importance of message framing, interactive public forums with up-to-date information, and an honest communication about what is known and unknown about the pandemic and the virus. Following a content analysis approach, Parvin et al. studied the representations of COVID-19 in the opinion section of five Asian e-newspapers. The authors identified eight main issues (health and drugs, preparedness and awareness, social welfare and humanity, governance and institutions, the environment and wildlife, politics, innovation and technology, and the economy) and examined how e-newspapers from these countries attributed different weights to these issues and how this relates to the countries' cultural specificity. Raccanello et al. show how the internet can be a platform to disseminate a public campaign devised to inform adults about coping strategies that could help children and teenagers deal with the challenges of the pandemic. The authors examined the dissemination of the program through the analysis of website traffic, showing that in the 40 days following publication, the website reached 6,090 visits.

A second related line of research that drew the concern of researchers was the diffusion of false information about COVID-19 through the media. Lobato et al. examined the role of distinct individual differences (political orientation, social dominance orientation, traditionalism, conspiracy ideation, attitudes about science) on the willingness to share misinformation about COVID-19 over social media. The misinformation topics varied between the severity and spread of COVID-19, treatment and prevention, conspiracy theories, and miscellaneous unverifiable claims. Their results from 296 adult participants (Mage = 36.23; 117 women) suggest two different profiles. One indicating that those reporting more liberal positions and lower social dominance were less willing to share conspiracy misinformation. The other profile indicated that participants scoring high on social dominance and low in traditionalism were more willing to share both conspiracy and other miscellaneous claims, but less willing to share misinformation about the severity and spread of COVID-19. Their findings can have relevant contributions for the identification of specific individual profiles related to the widespread of distinct types of misinformation. Dhanani and Franz examined a sample of 1,141 adults (Mage = 44.66; 46.9% female, 74.7% White ethnic identity) living in the United States in March 2020. The authors examined how media consumption and information source were related to knowledge about COVID-19, the endorsement of misinformation about COVID-19, and prejudice toward Asian Americans. Higher levels of trust in informational sources such as public health organizations (e.g., Center for Disease Control) was associated with greater knowledge, lower endorsement of misinformation, and less prejudice toward Asian Americans. Media source was associated with distinct levels of knowledge, willingness to endorsement misinformation and prejudice toward American Asians, with social media use (e.g., Twitter, Facebook) being related with a lower knowledge about COVID-19, higher endorsement of misinformation, and stronger prejudice toward Asian Americans.

A third line of research addressed the factors that could contribute to compliance with the health recommendations to avoid the spread of the disease. Vai et al. studied early pre-lockdown risk perceptions about COVID-19 and the trust in media sources among 2,223 Italians (Mage = 36.4, 69.2% female). They found that the perceived usefulness of the containment measures (e.g., social distancing) was related to threat perception and efficacy beliefs. Lower threat perception was associated with less perception of utility of the containment measures. Although most participants considered themselves and others capable of taking preventive measures, they saw the measures as generally ineffective. Participants acknowledged using the internet as their main source of information and considered health organizations' websites as the most trustworthy source. Albeit frequently used, social media was in general considered an unreliable source of information. Tomczyk et al. studied knowledge about preventive behaviors, risk perception, stigmatizing attitudes (support for discrimination and blame), and sociodemographic data (e.g., age, gender, country of origin, education level, region, persons per household) as predictors of compliance with the behavioral recommendations among 157 Germans, (age range: 18–77 years, 80% female). Low compliance was associated with male gender, younger age, and lower public stigma. Regarding stigmatizing attitudes, the authors only found a relation between support for discrimination (i.e., support for compulsory measures) and higher intention to comply with recommendations. Mahmood et al. studied the relation between social media use, risk perception, preventive behaviors, and self-efficacy in a sample of 310 Pakistani adults (54.2% female). The authors found social media use to be positively related to self-efficacy and perceived threat, which were both positively related to preventive behaviors (e.g., hand hygiene, social distancing). Information credibility was also related to compliance with health recommendations. Lep et al. examined the relationship between information source perceived credibility and trust, and participants' levels of self-protective behavior among 1,718 Slovenians (age range: 18–81 years, 81.7% female). The authors found that scientists, general practitioners (family doctors), and the National Institute of Public Health were perceived as the more credible source of information, while social media and government officials received the lowest ratings. Perceived information credibility was found to be associated with lower levels of negative emotional responses (e.g., nervousness, helplessness) and a higher level of observance of self-protective measures (e.g., hand washing). Siebenhaar et al. also studied the link between compliance, distress by information, and information avoidance. They examined the online survey responses of 1,059 adults living in Germany (Mage = 39.53, 79.4% female). Their results suggested that distress by information could lead to higher compliance with preventive measures. Distress by information was also associated with higher information avoidance, which in turn is related to less compliance. Gantiva et al. studied the effectiveness of different messages regarding the intentions toward self-care behaviors, perceived efficacy to motivate self-care behaviors in others, perceived risk, and perceived message strength, in a sample of 319 Colombians (age range: 18–60 years, 69.9% female). Their experiment included the manipulation of message framing (gain vs. loss) and message content (economy vs. health). Participants judged gain-frame health related messages to be stronger and more effective in changing self-behavior, whereas loss-framed health messages resulted in increased perceived risk. Rahn et al. offer a comparative view of compliance and risk perception, examining three hazard types: COVID-19 pandemic, violent acts, and severe weather. With a sample of 403 Germans (age range: 18–89 years, 72% female), they studied how age, gender, previous hazard experience and different components of risk appraisal (perceived severity, anticipated negative emotions, anticipatory worry, and risk perception) were related to the intention to comply with behavioral recommendations. They found that higher age predicted compliance with health recommendations to prevent COVID-19, anticipatory worry predicted compliance with warning messages regarding violent acts, and women complied more often with severe weather recommendations than men.

A fourth line of research examined media use, mental health and well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic. Gabbiadini et al. addressed the use of digital technology (e.g., voice/video calls, online games, watching movies in party mode) to stay connected with others during lockdown. Participants, 465 Italians (age range: 18–73 years, 348 female), reported more perceived social support associated with the use of these digital technologies, which in turn was associated with fewer feelings of loneliness, boredom, anger, and higher sense of belongingness. Muñiz-Velázquez et al. compared the media habits of 249 Spanish adults (Mage = 42.06, 53.8% female) before and during confinement. They compared the type of media consumed (e.g., watching TV series, listening to radio, watching news) and found the increased consumption of TV and social networking sites during confinement to be negatively associated with reported level of happiness. People who reported higher levels of well-being also reported watching less TV and less use of social networking sites. Majeed et al. , on the other hand, examined the relation between problematic social media use, fear of COVID-19, depression, and mindfulness. Their study, involving 267 Pakistani adults (90 female), suggested trait mindfulness had a buffer effect, reducing the impact of problematic media use and fear of COVID-19 on depression.

Taken together, these findings highlight how using different frames for mass media gives a more expansive view of its positive and negative roles, but also showcase the major concerns in the context of a pandemic crisis. As limitations we highlight the use of cross-sectional designs in most studies, not allowing to establish true inferences of causal relationships. The outcome of some studies may also be limited by the unbalanced number of female and male participants, by the non-probability sampling method used, and by the restricted time frame in which the research occurred. Nevertheless, we are confident that all the selected studies in our Research Topic bring important and enduring contributions to the understanding of how media, individual differences, and social factors intertwine to shape our lives, which can also be useful to guide public policies during these challenging times.

Author Contributions

PA: conceptualization, writing the original draft, funding acquisition, writing—review, and editing. FE: conceptualization, writing—review, and editing. MP: writing—review and editing. NP: conceptualization, writing the original draft, writing—review, and editing. All authors approved the submitted version.

PA and NP received partial support to work on this Research Topic through Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (FCT) with reference to the project PTDC/CCI-INF/29234/2017. MP contribution was supported by the German Research Foundation (DFG, PA847/22-1 and PA847/25-1). The authors are independent of the funders.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher's Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Acknowledgments

We would like to express our gratitude to all the authors who proposed their work, all the researchers who reviewed the submissions to this Research Topic, and to Rob Richards for proofreading the Editorial manuscript.

Keywords: COVID-19, coronavirus disease, mass media, health communication, prevention, intervention, social behavioral changes

Citation: Arriaga P, Esteves F, Pavlova MA and Piçarra N (2021) Editorial: Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19): The Impact and Role of Mass Media During the Pandemic. Front. Psychol. 12:729238. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.729238

Received: 22 June 2021; Accepted: 30 July 2021; Published: 23 August 2021.

Edited and reviewed by: Eduard Brandstätter , Johannes Kepler University of Linz, Austria

Copyright © 2021 Arriaga, Esteves, Pavlova and Piçarra. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Patrícia Arriaga, patricia.arriaga@iscte-iul.pt

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

IMAGES

10+ Examples of a Persuasive Essay About Covid-19
≫ Vaccinations: Are There any Real Benefits? Free Essay Sample on
Examples for Crafting a Winning Persuasive Essay on Covid-19
📌 Essay Sample on Impact of COVID 19
10+ Examples of a Persuasive Essay About Covid-19
⇉Pros and Cons about Vaccines Essay Example

VIDEO

How to Structure Your Persuasive Essay
Word of the Day: Eloquent
How to write a supporting paragraph
Why you should get the COVID vaccine?
Covid 19 Vaccine Persuasive Speech Rotary Competition
Why not to get the covid-19 vaccine ( persuasive speech)

COMMENTS

Persuasive Essay About Covid19
Writing a persuasive essay about COVID-19 requires a thoughtful approach to present your arguments effectively. Here are some tips to help you craft a compelling persuasive essay on this topic: Choose a Specific Angle: Narrow your focus to a specific aspect of COVID-19, like vaccination or public health measures.
Which of the following are examples of persuasive essay topics?
In the provided list, the example 'Covid-19 vaccines should be mandatory for everyone' is a persuasive essay topic as it presents a specific stance that can be argued for or against with supporting evidence. 'Marijuana should not be legalized' also qualifies as a persuasive essay topic due to its controversy and potential for argumentation.
Persuasive messaging to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake intentions
Here we use two survey experiments to study how persuasive messaging affects COVID-19 vaccine uptake intentions. In the first experiment, we test a large number of treatment messages. One subgroup of messages draws on the idea that mass vaccination is a collective action problem and highlighting the prosocial benefit of vaccination or the ...
Covid-19 Vaccine Argumentative Essay
Topic: To what extent do you support or oppose the governments' mandatory vaccination policies against the Covid-19 pandemic? For more than a year, people from many countries have been living through the peak of the global COVID-19 pandemic around the world, which has caused serious and terrible consequences, because of this, there is now a chase for the development of the necessary vaccines.
Why it's safe and important to get the COVID-19 vaccine
The COVID-19 vaccination will help keep you from getting the virus. COVID-19 vaccines were evaluated in clinical trials and have been approved because those studies show that the vaccine significantly reduces the probability of contracting the virus. Based on what has been proved about vaccines for other diseases, the COVID-19 vaccine may help ...
Benefits of Covid-19 Vaccine: Argumentative Essay
Firstly, the COVID-19 vaccine is necessary because it helps build protection against the virus. COVID-19 is a terrifying and dangerous communicable disease. The virus affects the respiratory organ of the human system. 'The COVID-19 vaccine when taken into the body contains inactive parts of a particular organism (antigens) that triggers an ...
How to convince someone to get the vaccine
March 25, 2021. As a (presumably) vaccinated person yourself, you are a living, breathing example of the benefits of getting the COVID-19 shot. Focus on the big-picture positives: The vaccine is ...
Essay on Coronavirus Vaccine
500+ Words Essay on Coronavirus Vaccine. The Coronavirus has infected millions of people so far all over the world. In addition to that, millions of people have lost their lives to it. Ever since the outbreak, researchers all over the world have been working constantly to develop vaccines that will work effectively against the virus.
Should COVID-19 vaccines be mandatory? Two experts discuss
COVID-19 vaccination should be mandatory - at least for certain groups. This means there would be penalties for failure to vaccinate, such as fines or limitations on freedom of movement. The ...
Lessons learned: What makes vaccine messages persuasive
Vaccine hesitancy threatened public health's response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Scientists at the University of Maryland recently reviewed 47 randomized controlled trials to determine how COVID-19 communications persuaded—or failed to persuade—people to take the vaccine. (Health Communication, 2023 DOI: 10.1080/10410236.2023.2218145).
More Questions and Answers About COVID-19 Vaccines
In the case of [COVID-19 vaccines], we had a lot of urgency and all the money was put up, up front. The companies didn't have to find the money for each stage—they were just able to just proceed from the safety study to the effectiveness study very quickly. This let the coronavirus vaccines go to the front of the line because of the urgency.
Debate on mandatory COVID-19 vaccination
Discussion. Although vaccines demonstrate effectiveness against this disease, vaccine hesitancy reveals concerns towards short-term and long-term side effects or adverse reactions such as post-inoculation death. Mandatory vaccination is used to provide herd immunity, but is refutable due to infringement of human rights and autonomy.
Why You Should Get Vaccinated Persuasive Essay
Vaccination stands as a monumental achievement in medicine, offering protection against various infectious diseases and significantly improving public health. The journey from the development of the smallpox vaccine to the rapid response to COVID-19 vaccines highlights the importance and versatility of vaccination in addressing health challenges.
Understanding personalized persuasion strategies in implicit attitudes
While extensive research has explored how individuals perceive and respond to COVID-19 vaccines and persuasive vaccination measures (Lin and Wang 2020; Wismans et al. 2021; Karlsson et al. 2021 ...
Getting the COVID-19 Vaccine
This article is part of a series of explainers on vaccine development and distribution. Learn more about vaccines - from how they work and how they're made to ensuring safety and equitable access - in WHO's Vaccines Explained series.. Vaccines are a critical tool in the battle against COVID-19, and getting vaccinated is one of the best ways to protect yourself and others from COVID-19.
Vaccine Persuasion
Hearing pro-vaccine messages from doctors, friends and relatives. For many people who got vaccinated, messages from politicians, national experts and the mass media were persuasive.
An Ethical Anaylsis of the Arguments Both For and Against COVID-19
Like all other vaccines mandated to attend school or for employment in a health care facility in the United States, once the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine was approved by the FDA, its role in risk-mitigating the serious sequela of COVID-19 was sufficient justification to mandate that all health care workers add this vaccine to the list of ...
How to Write About Coronavirus in a College Essay
Writing About COVID-19 in College Essays. Experts say students should be honest and not limit themselves to merely their experiences with the pandemic. The global impact of COVID-19, the disease ...
Persuasive messaging to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake ...
Without high rates of uptake, however, the pandemic is likely to be prolonged. Here we use two survey experiments to study how persuasive messaging affects COVID-19 vaccine uptake intentions. In the first experiment, we test a large number of treatment messages. One subgroup of messages draws on the idea that mass vaccination is a collective ...
Frontiers
The outbreak of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has created a global health crisis that had a deep impact on the way we perceive our world and our everyday lives. Not only has the rate of contagion and patterns of transmission threatened our sense of agency, but the safety measures to contain the spread of the virus also required social ...
Long-term effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against infections
Our analyses indicate that vaccine effectiveness generally decreases over time against SARS-CoV-2 infections, hospitalisations, and mortality. The baseline vaccine effectiveness levels for the omicron variant were notably lower than for other variants. Therefore, other preventive measures (eg, face-mask wearing and physical distancing) might be necessary to manage the pandemic in the long term.
Vaccination Essay
A vaccination is "the injection of a killed or weakened organism that produces immunity in the body against that organism" (vaccines.gov). Vaccines are designed to provide immunization to certain illnesses. People of all ages are encouraged to get vaccinations not only to protect themselves but also for the safety of the public.
A Short Essay On The Virus Called CoVID-19
The Current Status of the CoVID-19 Pandemic. CoVID-19 started infecting people in the city of Wuhan, China in mid-December of 2019. Within a month, more than ten thousand people were infected and ...

How to Write a Persuasive Essay About Covid19 | Examples & Tips

Steps to Write a Persuasive Essay About Covid-19

Step 1: Choose a Specific Thesis Statement

Step 2: Research and Gather Information

Step 3: Outline Your Essay

Step 4: Write the Introduction

Step 5: Provide Background Information

Step 6: Develop Body Paragraphs

Step 7: Address Counterarguments

Step 8: Write the Conclusion

Step 9: Revise and Proofread

Step 10: Cite Your Sources

Examples of Persuasive Essay About COVID-19

Examples of Persuasive Essay About COVID-19 Vaccine

Examples of Persuasive Essay About COVID-19 Integration

Examples of Argumentative Essay About Covid 19

Examples of Persuasive Speeches About Covid-19

Tips to Write a Persuasive Essay About Covid-19

Common Topics for a Persuasive Essay on COVID-19

Frequently Asked Questions

How do I write an informative essay about COVID-19?

How do I write an expository essay about COVID-19?

Keep reading

How to convince someone to get the vaccine

Most U.S. residents who remain unvaccinated will need convincing, poll finds

VIDEO: Southern Californians had vaccine questions. We got a virologist and an ob/gyn to answer

Biden announces Uber, Lyft rides amid July 4 vaccine push

Shorter lines and TikTok ads: California’s push to beat vaccine hesitancy

More to Read

More COVID shots are coming. Will a weary public be more interested this year?

How to get more people vaccinated? ‘You stop talking and you listen,’ Walensky says

Editorial: Confused about the second COVID booster? So are some of the experts

More From the Los Angeles Times

Homebuyers beware: How to avoid properties with high landslide risk

How parents and caregivers can evaluate the research on MERT and other potential treatments

Want to attend a Big Ten football game? Here’s a guide to all 18 stadiums

Apple AirTags are helping cops catch thieves. Here’s how you can protect yourself

Essay on Coronavirus Vaccine

Working of Coronavirus Vaccine

Safety of Coronavirus Vaccine

FAQ on Essay on Coronavirus Vaccine

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Download the App

Should COVID-19 vaccines be mandatory? Two experts discuss

Disclosure statement

Professor of Indigenous Cultural and Creative Industries (Identified)

Communications Director

Associate Director, Post-Award, RGCF

University Relations Manager

2024 Vice-Chancellor's Research Fellowships

Lessons learned: What makes vaccine messages persuasive

News from the School

Air pollution exposure in infancy may limit economic mobility in adulthood

Reducing health inequities in the Mississippi Delta

Climate change and planetary health concentration launches

Orientation 2024: New students encouraged to engage across differences

More Questions and Answers About COVID-19 Vaccines

RELATED CONTENT

Facebook Live Q&A

Related Content

What to Know About the Updated COVID Vaccine for Fall, Winter 2024–25

Why We’re Still Waiting for a Pandemic Treaty

Why COVID Surges in the Summer

The Problem with Pulse Oximeters: A Long History of Racial Bias

What to Know About COVID FLiRT Variants

Why You Should Get Vaccinated Persuasive Essay

Table of contents

Cite this paper

Related articles

Most popular essays

Join our 150k of happy users

Understanding personalized persuasion strategies in implicit attitudes towards the COVID-19 vaccine: the moderating effects of personality traits based on an ERP study

Similar content being viewed by others

Post-truth epistemic beliefs rooted in the Dark Factor of Personality are associated with higher COVID-19 vaccination refusal

Information processing style and institutional trust as factors of COVID vaccine hesitancy

Lack of affective priming indicates attitude-behaviour discrepancy for COVID-19 affiliated words

Explicit attitude and implicit attitude

Personality traits based on cognitive and affective processing

Implicit conflict and response monitoring using ERPs