Communicating conflicting government directives during pandemic flu

Using a generalizable, national, random sample and theoretical underpinnings of two-sided messages such as attribution theory, optimal arousal theory and the discounting hypothesis, this study examines the most effective ways of persuading the public to comply with government directives in a flu pandemic. The U.S. plan currently calls for two key pandemic flu directives: “social distancing,” including staying home from work, school, shopping, places of worship and other public gatherings, and “public queuing,” the author's term for centralized mass distribution of medicines, vaccines and other supplies. The research examines implications of the potential contradiction in telling people to make financial, social and psychological sacrifices to isolate themselves while simultaneously encouraging them to gather at distribution centers. Using a 2x3 experimental design to present these policies in various ways, the author explores the impact of such mixed messages on behavioral intention and source credibility to predict whether perceived contradictions might lead people to discount risks and disregard recommendations. The study may also enlighten other areas of health communication where mixed messages currently lead to inaction, denial, or other risky and dysfunctional responses.