Randomized controlled trial demonstrates high-level construal messaging improves public attitudes toward vaccination and compensation.
This study aimed to assess the impact of high-level versus low-level construal messages about the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (CVICP) on public attitudes toward the program and COVID-19 vaccination. A randomized controlled experimental design was employed. Adults aged 18 to 64 residing in the Republic of Korea were randomly assigned to either an experimental group (high-level construal message) or a control group (low-level construal message). Both groups viewed a 2-minute video about the CVICP, with construal level as the sole variable. Pre- and post-intervention questionnaires evaluated attitudes toward the CVICP and COVID-19 vaccination, including satisfaction, perceived necessity, and perceived effectiveness in enhancing vaccine acceptance. Data were analyzed using the paired t-test, repeated measures 2-way analysis of variance, and multiple linear regression. The experimental group showed statistically significant improvements across all 6 attitude measures following exposure to the high-level construal message. By contrast, the control group demonstrated significant improvement in only 3 attitudes: satisfaction with the CVICP, willingness to recommend vaccination, and willingness for future vaccination. A significant difference between groups was observed for perceived effectiveness of the CVICP in enhancing vaccine acceptance (p=0.01), with high-level construal messaging being more impactful. High-level construal messages are more effective than low-level messages in shaping public perceptions and addressing vaccine hesitancy. Policymakers and health authorities should incorporate high-level construal elements into communication strategies to build trust and support for vaccination programs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Moon et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: