How can we better frame COVID-19 public health messages?

This Perspective discusses the use of fear appeals in promoting health behaviour. The discussion establishes that fear appeal-based public health messages (i.e. public health messages that emphasise the consequences of failing to engage in a particular health behaviour) have two components (1) perceived threat and (2) perceived efficacy. A perceived threat has two subcomponents (a) perceived high susceptibility (e.g. 'I can contract COVID-19') and (b) perceived high severity (e.g. 'COVID-19 can kill me'). In a parallel fashion, perceived efficacy has two subcomponents (a) high response efficacy (e.g. 'Staying at home can reduce my risk for COVID-19') and (b) high self-efficacy (e.g. 'I can stay at home'). This discussion demonstrates that for fear appeals to have a desirable effect on health behaviour change, all of the four conditions (i.e. high perceived susceptibility, high perceived severity, high response efficacy, and high self-efficacy) are important and need to be fulfilled. However, empirical evidence shows that the four conditions are almost never fulfilled, calling into question the effectiveness of using fear appeals in promoting health behaviour change. In contrast, gain-framed public health messages (i.e. public health messages that highlight the benefits of engaging in a particular health behaviour), which do not require the fulfillment of these four conditions, have been shown to have positive effects on behaviour change outcomes. We argue that public health messages that highlight the benefits of engaging in COVID-19 preventive behaviour can have persuasive, desirable effects on health behaviour change, compared to public health messages that highlight the consequences of failing to engage in a particular COVID-19 preventive behaviour.