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