Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11861/11017
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorDr. LO Lap Yanen_US
dc.contributor.authorTam, Yat Yien_US
dc.contributor.authorSin, Cheuk Yingen_US
dc.contributor.authorDr. LI Wang On, Alexen_US
dc.date.accessioned2025-07-08T04:31:43Z-
dc.date.available2025-07-08T04:31:43Z-
dc.date.issued2025-
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Communication in Healthcare, 2025.en_US
dc.identifier.issn1753-8068-
dc.identifier.issn1753-8076-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11861/11017-
dc.description.abstractBackground: Extended Parallel Process Model, behavioral model, and empathetic approach proposed different theoretical assumptions in explaining why people take vaccines. Yet no single reviewed empirical study tried to compare their theoretical effectiveness in motivating people to join the vaccination campaign. This study therefore tried to fill this gap via examining the persuasiveness of different promotion materials to the participants in a hypothetical vaccination campaign, while controlling a number of personal factors and writing styles of the materials. Methods: A total of 216 adult participants were recruited for this questionnaire-based study. All participants were firstly introduced to a hypothetical scenario and then randomly assigned into 4 different groups. They were asked to read corresponding promotion materials before deciding their likeness to receive a vaccination. Results: All promotion materials were effective in enhancing the likeliness of taking the vaccination, compared with the control condition. After controlling participants’ age, their vaccination records, and health efficacy, participants were more likely to join the vaccination campaign after reading the promotion materials related with efficacies and caring for others, than reading the materials about positive reinforcements, regardless of the writing styles. Conclusion: These exploratory findings provide empirical evidence in further understanding the ways of delivering the important messages in public communication. The current research suggests that the feasibility of the effective resources and empathetic gestures to the needy should be prominently emphasized in the promotion of vaccination campaigns, whereas participants might feel a diminution of their prosocial behaviors when money rewards were associated. Limitation of the research design is also discussed.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Communication in Healthcareen_US
dc.titleMoney, efficacy, or empathy? a comparative study on strategies to motivate people to get vaccinateden_US
dc.typePeer Reviewed Journal Articleen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1080/17538068.2025.2526220-
item.fulltextNo Fulltext-
crisitem.author.deptUniversity Management-
crisitem.author.deptDepartment of Counselling & Psychology-
Appears in Collections:Counselling and Psychology - Publication
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

9
checked on Jul 10, 2025

Google ScholarTM

Impact Indices

Altmetric

PlumX

Metrics


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.