ArticlePloS one2025
Trading-off health safety, civil liberties, and unemployment based on communication strategies: the social dilemma in fighting pandemics.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Crisis management often requires decisions that prioritize the collective good over individual interests. Effective crisis communication strategies can influence individuals' behavior towards the collective good, preventing negative societal externalities. However, little is known about how these strategies affect individual acceptance of decisions that involve trade-offs between individual and collective interests. We study individual choice behavior regarding maintaining or lifting government-imposed restrictions on private and public life in a referendum setting in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Maintaining or lifting the restrictive measures represents a social dilemma that involves trade-offs between civil liberties, health safety, and economic consequences. In three online experiments, we test the impact of communication strategies that focus on health and/or economic factors, as well as risk attribution (i.e. who is at risk by an increase of infections), on individual acceptance of restrictive measures. Results across all experiments show that the majority favors maintaining the COVID-19 measures, indicating that individuals act ethically by trading off individual harm (i.e., restrictions on private and public life) for the prevention of increased societal harm (i.e., infections, deaths). When communication focuses only on health factors, acceptance levels remain robust, regardless of whether the risk is attributed to others, the individual's group, or the individual. However, when economic factors (i.e., unemployment rates) are included, acceptance of restrictive measures significantly drops. Notably, in an economic-focused communication, attributing risk to the individual's group increases acceptance such that significantly less individuals vote to lift measures when their group is at higher risk. Overall, these results demonstrate the impact of communication strategies on acceptance of crisis management measures: Our findings have implications for policy makers who design communication strategies to enforce restrictive policies in times of crisis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.