Who Says I Should Wear a Mask?

Source: upyernoz/Flickr

By now, most of us are used to seeing the same thing when we go to the grocery store, a restaurant, or a school building: a sign reminding us to wear a mask and stay 6 feet apart from others. While you likely pay attention to these guidelines, you may pay less attention to who is credited as the source of those guidelines. Next time you see one of these signs, take note—does it refer to recommendations from the CDC? A mandate by your governor? A local ordinance? No one at all? The big question is this: does the source (or lack thereof) matter for how people respond to the message?

While my day job involves using behavioral science to improve practice and policy in higher education, I’ve been working the past several months with a group of colleagues to explore how to best encourage behaviors that prevent the spread of coronavirus. We were inspired, in part, by “President Trump’s Coronavirus Guidelines for America,” a public health campaign launched in March 2020. This effort included postcards sent to U.S. households (at a cost to the USPS of $28 million) featuring tips for slowing the spread of coronavirus, such as staying home as much as possible and having groceries delivered. Importantly, the postcards were branded with President Trump’s name and logos for both the White House and the CDC. We wanted to know whether those decisions would affect how those guidelines were received. The first product of this research, published online today by the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, demonstrates that who we say a message is from may make a big difference in how people react.

For this study, we created 2,652 messages based on real-life examples of public health campaigns, and systematically varied the recommended behavior (e.g., wear a mask, stay 6 feet apart), message frame (e.g., protect yourself vs. protect the ones you love), potential punishment (e.g., a fine, arrest), and importantly, the source (President Trump, the CDC, President Trump and the CDC, state health department, local health department). We recruited online over 900 adults, who were generally representative of the U.S. population, to rate how effective they found five randomly selected messages. They also rated each message on how negatively they reacted to it. Although we did not test whether our messages changed actual behavior, people’s perceptions of message effectiveness and whether they have an oppositional reaction to that message are excellent predictors of the degree to which the message will influence their later actions.

We found that crediting coronavirus prevention measures to some official health organization—the CDC or a state or local health department—made the message more effective and reduced opposition to the message. However, when the recommendation came from President Trump, messages were less effective and elicited a more negative reaction. Even using no source proved better than citing the president as the source. To better understand this finding, we examined whether President Trump’s endorsement improved perceptions of a message among people who trust the president (according to a general trust rating from later in the survey). Importantly, citing President Trump as the message source neither helped nor hurt prevention messages among those who trust him, but it greatly undermined messages among those who reported no trust in President Trump.

Source: MTA/Flickr

What does this mean for you? If you have a hand in how you communicate wearing a mask or staying 6 feet apart where you work—be it a school, restaurant, store, or anywhere else—then you’re involved in public health messaging! Our research suggests you should do the following:

1. Cite a respected organization that endorses your request as the message source, like the CDC or your local health department. People in our study reported high levels of trust in these organizations. Whatever source you choose, make sure it is one that most of your audience would trust.
2. It is probably best to avoid using political or controversial figures in your message. Although our study only examined the effect of President Trump as the source, it could be that politicians are less trusted in these matters because they are not, for the most part, medical experts. Or it could be that serving in political roles just makes these sources too polarizing.

The main takeaway is that it’s important to lean on the credibility of trusted experts when convincing people to behave in ways that prevent the spread of coronavirus. We’re continuing to analyze our data to better understand which message elements are most effective for which types of prevention behaviors and for which types of people. We hope our research will not only help convince more people to wear masks and honor social distancing, but will help inform how we address a critical coronavirus prevention task on the horizon: getting people to vaccinate. These lessons will be important not just for stopping the spread of coronavirus, but in promoting public health practices that guard against future diseases, both known and unknown.