ABSTRACT

During the 2020 coronavirus pandemic, governments across the globe relied heavily on the legacy media, not only to inform citizens about fast-paced developments in the midst of a crisis, but also to stimulate compliance with strict interventions. Prospect theory postulates that gain versus loss framing may affect preferences for different interventions. In a conceptual replication of Tversky and Kahneman’s seminal prospect theory, findings from surveys in the US and the Netherlands (N = 1,121) demonstrate that gain frames of the coronavirus promote support for risk-aversive interventions, whereas loss frames result in relatively more support for risk-seeking alternatives. Loss frames elicit stronger negative emotions, such as frustration and powerlessness. The experience of powerlessness, in turn, mediates the effects of loss versus gain frames on support for stricter interventions. Together, these findings indicate that framing the pandemic in terms of gains may be most effective in promoting support for risk-aversive treatments of the pandemic.

摘要

在 2020 年冠状病毒大流行期间，全球各国政府严重依赖传统媒体，不仅向公民通报危机中的快节奏发展，而且鼓励遵守严格的干预措施。前景理论假设收益与损失框架可能会影响对不同干预措施的偏好。在 Tversky 和 ​​Kahneman 开创性的前景理论的概念复制中，美国和荷兰的调查结果（N= 1,121) 表明冠状病毒的增益框架促进了对规避风险干预的支持，而损失框架导致对寻求风险的替代方案的支持相对更多。损失框架会引发更强烈的负面情绪，例如沮丧和无能为力。反过来，无能为力的经历会调节损失与获得框架对支持更严格干预措施的影响。总之，这些发现表明，根据收益来构建大流行可能最有效地促进对大流行的风险规避治疗的支持。