| Summary: | <jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>COVID-19 prevention behaviors may be seen as self-interested or prosocial. Using American samples from MTurk and Prolific (total <jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 6850), we investigated which framing is more effective—and motivation is stronger—for fostering prevention behavior intentions. We evaluated messaging that emphasized <jats:italic>personal</jats:italic>, <jats:italic>public</jats:italic>, or <jats:italic>personal and public</jats:italic> benefits of prevention. In initial studies (conducted March 14–16, 2020), the Public treatment was more effective than the Personal treatment, and no less effective than the Personal + Public treatment. In additional studies (conducted April 17–30, 2020), all three treatments were similarly effective. Across all these studies, the perceived <jats:italic>public</jats:italic> threat of coronavirus was also more strongly associated with prevention intentions than the perceived <jats:italic>personal</jats:italic> threat. Furthermore, people who behaved prosocially in incentivized economic games years before the pandemic had greater prevention intentions. Finally, in a field experiment (conducted December 21–23, 2020), we used our three messaging strategies to motivate contact-tracing app signups (<jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 152,556 newsletter subscribers). The design of this experiment prevents strong causal inference; however, the results provide suggestive evidence that the Personal + Public treatment may have been more effective than the Personal or Public treatment. Together, our results highlight the importance of prosocial motives for COVID-19 prevention.</jats:p>
|
|---|