Aşı Mesajlarına Yönelik Karşı Argüman Gelişiminde Dini Çerçeveleme Etkisinin Genişletilmiş-ELM Modeli Üzerinden İncelenmesi

Abstract

Pandeminin etkileri dalgalanarak devam ederken, toplu bağışıklığın sağlanması için aşı çalışmaları da hız kazanmıştır. Ancak aşılama hızı ve aşılanma oranları dikkate alındığında, sürü bağışıklığının sağlanmasını tehdit eden tereddütlerin bulunduğu vurgulanmalıdır. COVID-19 salgını, günlük yaşamdaki birçok yeni alışkanlık hakkında derin şüpheler uyandırdı ve aşı da bu konuların başında gelmektedir. Bu makale, aşılamaya yönelik tepkilerin iletişimsel bir kapsamı olabileceğinden hareketle aşı programını teşvik etmek amacıyla tasarlanmış mesaj çerçevelerini incelemeye adanmıştır. Ancak, pandeminin bireylerin tedbirlere ve aşının kendisine yönelik olumsuz inançlar üretmesine neden olan pek çok faktör keşfedilmemiş durumdadır. Bu nedenle, mevcut çalışmanın amacı, kriz zamanlarında bireylerin dini bir yaklaşım sergiledikleri varsayımından hareketle, belirli iletişim yaklaşımlarını analiz etmek ve dini çerçevelemenin aşılama tutumları üzerindeki etkilerini araştırmaktır. 2x2x2 denekler-arası ANCOVA tasarımına ait bulgular, bir çerçeveleme koşulunu kullanmanın aşılama hakkındaki genel düşünceleri etkilediğini ve özellikle dini çerçeveli mesajların karşıt tepkileri dönüştürme yeteneğine sınırlı da olsa sahip olduğunu ve dini çerçevelemenin kayıp çerçeveli mesajlarla etkileşimli şekilde genel olarak fayda sağladığını ortaya koymuştur. Çalışmanın sonucunda sonuçların teorik katkıları tartışılmıştır.

Keywords

• Dini Çerçeveleme
• Genişletilmiş-ELM
• Mesaja Çekilme
• Karşıt Tepki
• Mesaj Beklenmedikliği

The Religious Framing Impact on Counterarguing Towards Vaccination Ads: Consideration of the Extended-ELM Perspective

Abstract

As the fluctuating effects of the pandemic continue, vaccination studies accelerated to ensure mass immunity. However, considering the speed of inoculation, it should be emphasized that it is evident of hesitancy threatening the achievement of herd immunity. The COVID-19 pandemic has deeply stirred up suspicions about many new habits in daily lives; therefore the vaccination has no exception. This paper is dedicated to examining communication framings designed to promote vaccination programs, as it might be a communicative remedy of counter-responses against the vaccination. Yet, a great deal is unexplored how the pandemic causes people to generate counterarguments against the vaccination program. Therefore, this study aimed to analyze which features of the communications lead to such a negative belief and investigate the effects of religious framing on vaccination attitudes, based on the fact that people take a religious perspective in crisis times. Findings by 2×2x2 between-subjects design of ANCOVA revealed that selecting a framing path influences the general thought about vaccination, and religious-framed messages have the ability to transform counterarguing tendency. But these capabilities have some limitations and religious framing generally benefits through interaction with loss-framed messages. The theoretical contributions were mentioned following the results.

Keywords

• Religious Framing
• Extended-ELM
• Absorption
• Counterarguing
• Message Unexpectedness

References

1. Akhtar, N., Akhtar, M. N., Usman, M., Ali, M., & Siddiqi, U. I. (2020). COVID-19 restrictions and consumers’ psychological reactance toward offline shopping freedom restoration. The Service Industries Journal, 40(13), 891–913.
2. Banker, S., & Park, J. (2020). Evaluating prosocial COVID-19 messaging frames: Evidence from a field study on Facebook. Judgment and Decision Making, 15(6), 1037–1043.
3. Ben-Zeʼev, A. (2000). The subtlety of the emotions. (Firs Editi). Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
4. Bentzen, J. S. (2020). In Crisis, We Pray:Religiosity and the COVID-19 Pandemic. Copenhagen. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jeanet-Bentzen/publication/343627578_In_Crisis_We_Pray_Religiosity_and_the_COVID-19_Pandemic/links/5f34e703458515b7291bf329/In-Crisis-We-Pray-Religiosity-and-the-COVID-19-Pandemic.pdf
5. Bigman, C. A., Cappella, J. N., & Hornik, R. C. (2010). Effective or ineffective: Attribute framing and the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine. Patient Education and Counseling, 81, S70–S76.
6. Bin Shen, & Kim, Y. (2020). Green With Fear: Fear Appeals and Temporal Framing in Eco-Friendly Clothing Advertising. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, November, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887302X20968821
7. Boguszewski, R., Makowska, M., Bożewicz, M., & Podkowińska, M. (2020). The COVID-19 pandemic’s impact on religiosity in Poland. Religions, 11(12), 646–660.
8. Borah, P., Hwang, J., & Hsu, Y. C. (Louise). (2021). COVID-19 Vaccination Attitudes and Intention: Message Framing and the Moderating Role of Perceived Vaccine Benefits. Journal of Health Communication, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2021.1966687

9. Boyer, P., & Ramble, C. (2001). Cognitive templates for religious concepts: cross-cultural evidence for recall of counter-intuitive representations. Cognitive Science, 25, 535–564.
10. Bozkurt, H. B. (2018). An Overview of Vaccine Rejection and Review of Literature. Kafkas Journal of Medical Sciences, 8(1), 71–76. https://doi.org/10.5505/kjms.2018.12754
11. Briñol, P., & Petty, R. E. (2009). Source factors in persuasion: A self-validation approach,. European Review of Social Psychology, 20(1), 49–96.
12. Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1984). The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion. Advances in Consumer Research, 11, 673–675.
13. Callaghan, T., Moghtaderi, A., Lueck, J. A., Hotez, P., Strych, U., Dor, A., … Motta, M. (2021). Correlates and disparities of intention to vaccinate against COVID-19. Social Science and Medicine, 272(January), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113638
14. Ceylan, M., & Hayran, C. (2021). Message Framing Effects on Individuals’ Social Distancing and Helping Behavior During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Frontiers in Psychology, 12(March), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.579164
15. Cho, H., & Salmon, C. T. (2007). Unintended effects of health communication campaigns. Journal of Communication, 57(2), 293–317. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2007.00344.x
16. Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 103–126. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.072805.103054
17. Cohen, J. (2001). Defining identification: A theoretical look at the identification of audiences with media characters. Mass Communication & Society, 4, 245–264.
18. Cotte, J., Coulter, R. A., & Moore, M. (2005). Enhancing or disrupting guilt: The role of ad credibility and perceived manipulative intent. Journal of Business Research, 58(3), 361–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(03)00102-4
19. Cranney, S. (2017). Why did god make me this way? Religious coping and framing in the virtuous pedophile community. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 56(4), 852–868.
20. De Graaf, A., Hoeken, H., Sanders, J., & Beentjes, H. (2009). The role of dimensions of narrative engagement in narrative persuasion. Communications, 34, 385–405. https://doi.org/10.1515/C0MM.2009.024
21. Deslatte, A. (2020). To shop or shelter? Issue framing effects and social-distancing preferences in the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, 3(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.30636/jbpa.31.158
22. Dillard, J. P., & Shen, L. (2005). On the nature of reactance and its role in persuasive health communication. Communication Monographs, 72(2), 144–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750500111815
23. Dotson, M. J., & Hyatt, E. M. (2000). Religious symbols as peripheral cues in advertising: A replication of the elaboration likelihood model. Journal of Business Research, 48(1), 63–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(98)00076-9
24. Emmons, R. A. (2005). Emotion and Religion. In R. F. Paloutzian & C. L. Park (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of religion and spirituality (pp. 235–252). New York and London: The Guilford Press.
25. Epstein, R. N. E. (2018). Implications for community health practitioners: Framing religion and spirituality within a social ecological framework. In D. Oman (Ed.), Why Religion and Spirituality Matter for Public Health, Religion, Spirituality and Health: A Social Scientific Approach (pp. 305–322). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73966-3_17
26. Exline, J. J., Smyth, J. M., Gregory, J., Hockemeyer, J., & Tulloch, H. (2005). Religious Framing by Individuals With PTSD When Writing About Traumatic Experiences. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 15(1), 17–33. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327582ijpr1501
27. Gallagher, K. M., & Updegraff, J. A. (2012). Health message framing effects on attitudes, intentions, and behavior: a meta-analytic review. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 43(1), 101–116.
28. George, L. K., Larson, D. B., Koenig, H. G., & McCullough, M. E. (2000). Spirituality and health: What we know, what we need to know. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19(1), 102–116.
29. Gerend, M. A., & Sias, T. (2009). Message framing and color priming: How subtle threat cues affect persuasion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 999–1002.
30. Giordano, A. L., Prosek, E. A., & Lankford, C. T. (2014). Predicting Empathy: The Role of Religion and Spirituality. Journal of Professional Counseling: Practice, Theory & Research, 41(2), 53–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/15566382.2014.12033938
31. Gollust, S. E., & Cappella, J. N. (2014). Understanding public resistance to messages about health disparities. Journal of Health Communication, 19(4), 493–510. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2013.821561
32. Green, M. C. (2006). Narratives and cancer communication. Journal of Communication, 56, 163–183. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00288.x
33. Green, M. C., & Brock, T. C. (2000). The Role of Transportation in The Persuasiveness of Public Narratives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5), 701–721.
34. Haugtvedt, C. P., Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1992). Need for cognition and advertising: Understanding the role of personality variables in consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1(3), 239–260.
35. Hobson-West, P. (2003). Understanding vaccination resistance: Moving beyond risk. Health, Risk and Society, 5(3), 273–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698570310001606978
36. Huber, S., & Huber, O. W. (2012). The Centrality of Religiosity Scale (CRS). Religions, 3(3), 710–724. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel3030710
37. IPSOS. (2021). Korona Virüs Salgını ve Toplum. Retrieved from https://www.ipsos.com/tr-tr/asi-olmamis-bireylerin-65i-asi-sirasi-geldiginde-olma-niyetinde
38. Kim, H. K., Lee, T. K., & Kong, W. Y. (2020). The interplay between framing and regulatory focus in processing narratives about HPV vaccination in Singapore. Health Communication, 35(2), 222–232.
39. Kim, J., & Nan, X. (2019). Temporal Framing Effects Differ for Narrative Versus Non-Narrative Messages: The Case of Promoting HPV Vaccination. Communication Research, 46(3), 401–417. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650215626980
40. Kim, K., Bonn, M., & Cho, M. (2021). Clean safety message framing as survival strategies for small independent restaurants during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 46, 423–431.
41. Krakow, M. M., Yale, R. N., Jensen, J. D., Carcioppolo, N., & Ratcliff, C. L. (2018). Comparing mediational pathways for narrative- and argument-based messages: Believability, counterarguing, and emotional reaction. Human Communication Research, 44(3), 299–321. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqy002
42. Kreuter, M. W., Green, M. C., Cappella, J. N., Slater, M. D., Wise, M. E., Storey, D., … Woolley, S. (2007). Narrative communication in cancer prevention and control: A framework to guide research and application. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 33(3), 221–235. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02879904
43. Landrum, A. R., Olshansky, A., & Richards, O. (2021). Differential susceptibility to misleading flat earth arguments on youtube. Media Psychology, 24(1), 136–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2019.1669461
44. Lane, V., & Jacobson, R. (1997). The reciprocal impact of brand leveraging: Feedback effects from brand extension evaluation to brand evalution. Marketing Letters, 8(3), 261–271.
45. Lee, A. Y., & Aaker, J. L. (2004). Bringing the frame into focus: the influence of regulatory fit on processing fluency and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(2), 205–218.
46. Lim, J. R., Liu, B. F., Egnoto, M., & Roberts, H. A. (2019). Individuals’ religiosity and emotional coping in response to disasters. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 27(4), 331–345. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5973.12263
47. Liu, S., & Yang, J. Z. (2020). Incorporating Message Framing into Narrative Persuasion to Curb E-Cigarette Use Among College Students. Risk Analysis, 40(8), 1677–1690. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13502
48. Lumpkins, C. Y. (2010). Sacred symbols as a peripheral cue in health advertisements: An assessment of using religion to appeal to African American women about breast cancer screening. Journal of Media and Religion, 9(4), 181–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348423.2010.521083
49. Markstrom, C. A., Huey, E., Stiles, B. M., & Krause, A. L. (2010). Frameworks of caring and helping in adolescence: Are empathy, religiosity, and spirituality related constructs? Youth & Society, 42(1), 59–80. https://doi.org/10/1177/ 0044118X09333644
50. Milligan, M. A., Hoyt, D. L., Gold, A. K., Hiserodt, M., & Otto, M. W. (2021). COVID-19 vaccine acceptance: influential roles of political party and religiosity. Psychology, Health and Medicine, 00(00), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/13548506.2021.1969026
51. Moyer-Gusé, E. (2008). Toward a theory of entertainment persuasion: Explaining the persuasive effects of entertainment-education messages. Communication Theory, 18(3), 407–425. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2008.00328.x
52. Moyer-Gusé, E., & Nabi, R. L. (2010). Explaining the effects of narrative in an entertainment television program: Overcoming resistance to persuasion. Human Communication Research, 36(1), 26–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2009.01367.x
53. Murat, E., Karabulut, Ö., Benlioğlu, B., Öztürk, M., & Maşe, İ. (2021). Aşı karşıtlarından Maltepe’de Miting. Retrieved from https://www.dha.com.tr/istanbul/asi-karsitlarindan-maltepede-miting/haber-1847950
54. Naseri, A., & Tamam, E. (2012). Impact of Islamic religious symbol in producing favorable attitude toward advertisement. Revista de Administratie Publica Si Politici Sociale, 8, 61–77.
55. Niederdeppe, J., Kim, H. K., Lundell, H., Fazili, F., & Frazier, B. (2012). Beyond Counterarguing: Simple Elaboration, Complex Integration, and Counterelaboration in Response to Variations in Narrative Focus and Sidedness. Journal of Communication, 62(5), 758–777. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01671.x
56. O’Keefe, D. J., & Jensen, J. D. (2007). The relative persuasiveness of gain-framed loss-framed messages for encouraging disease prevention behaviors: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Health Communication, 12(7), 623–644.
57. Olagoke, A. A., Olagoke, O. O., & Hughes, A. M. (2021). Intention to Vaccinate Against the Novel 2019 Coronavirus Disease: The Role of Health Locus of Control and Religiosity. Journal of Religion and Health, 60(1), 65–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-020-01090-9
58. Ozorak, E. W. (2005). Cognitive Approaches to Religion. In R. F. Paloutzian & C. L. Park. (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of religion and spirituality (pp. 216–234). New York and London: The Guilford Press.
59. Palm, R., Bolsen, T., & Kingsland, J. T. (2021). The Effect of Frames on COVID-19 Vaccine Resistance. Frontiers in Political Science, 3(February), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2021.661257
60. Peng, L., Guo, Y., & Hu, D. (2021). Information Framing Effect on Public ’ s Intention to Receive the COVID-19 Vaccination in China. Vaccines, 9, 1–17.
61. Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(2), 135–146.
62. Petty, Richard E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Elaboration Likelihood Model. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 124–205. https://doi.org/DOI: 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60214-2
63. Ragsdale, J. . D., & Durham, K. R. . (1986). Audience Response to Religious Fear Appeals. Review of Religious Research, 28(1), 40–50.
64. Randolph, W., & Viswanath, K. (2004). Lessons learned from public health mass media campaigns: marketing health in a crowded media world. Annual Review of Public Health, 25, 419–437.
65. Reynolds-Tylus, T. (2019). Psychological Reactance and Persuasive Health Communication: A Review of the Literature. Frontiers in Communication, 4, 1–12.
66. Robbins, R., & Niederdeppe, J. (2019). Testing the role of narrative and gain-loss framing in messages to promote sleep hygiene among high school students. Journal of Health Communication, 24(1), 84–93.
67. Rothman, A. J., Martino, S. C., Bedell, B. T., Detweiler, J. B., & Salovey, P. (1999). The systematic influence of gain-and loss-framed messages on interest in and use of different types of health behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(11), 1355–1369.
68. Rothman, A. J., & Salovey, P. (1997). Shaping Perceptions to Motivate Healthy Behavior: The Role of Message Framing. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 3–19.
69. Rucker, D. D., & Petty, R. E. (2004). When Resistance Is Futile: Consequences of Failed Counterarguing for Attitude Certainty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(2), 219–235. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.2.219
70. Slater, M. D., & Rouner, D. (2002a). Entertainment-education and elaboration likelihood: Understanding the processing of narrative persuasion. Communication Theory, 12(2), 173–191.
71. Slater, M. D., & Rouner, D. (2002b). Entertainment-education and elaboration likelihood: Understanding the processing of narrative persuasion. Communication Theory, 12, 173–191.
72. Slater, Michael D., & Rouner, D. (2002). Entertainment-education and elaboration likelihood: Understanding the processing of narrative persuasion. Communication Theory, 12(2), 173–191. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2002.tb00265.x
73. Smith, S. M., & Petty, R. E. (1996). Message framing and persuasion: A message processing analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(3), 257–268.
74. Taylor, V. A., Halstead, D., & Haynes, P. J. (2010). Consumer responses to christian religious symbols in advertising. Journal of Advertising, 39(2), 79–92. https://doi.org/10.2753/JOA0091-3367390206
75. Vraga, E. K., & Jacobsen, K. H. (2020). Strategies for effective health communication during the coronavirus pandemic and future emerging infectious disease events. World Medical & Health Policy, 12(3), 233–241.
76. Walter, N., & Cohen, J. (2019). When less is more and more is less: The paradoxical metacognitive effects of counterarguing. Communication Monographs, 86(3), 377–397. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2019.1580378
77. Waqas, M. (2021). What drives Muslim Malaysian consumers’ general attitude towards religious advertising? Journal of Islamic Accounting and Business Research, 12(1), 97–111. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIABR-01-2020-0030
78. WHO. (2019). Ten threats to global health in 2019. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/news-room/spotlight/ten-threats-to-global-health-in-2019
79. WHO. (2020). Pandemic fatigue – reinvigorating the public to prevent COVID-19. Policy framework for supporting pandemic prevention and management. Copenhagen. https://doi.org/CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO
80. Yale, R. N. (2013). Measuring narrative believability: Development and validation of the Narrative Believability Scale (NBS-12). Journal of Communication, 63(3), 578–599.
81. Yu, N., Ahern, L. A., Connolly-Ahern, C., & Shen, F. (2010). Communicating the risks of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder: Effects of message framing and exemplification. Health Communication, 25(8), 692–699. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2010.521910