Reducing mask resistance among White evangelical Christians with value-consistent messages
Masks as Helpful. Respondents placed themselves on a scale where 0 represents the belief that masks are not at all helpful and 10 the belief that they are extremely helpful. Control group opinion was 5.39. The results support H1: Evangelicals in the religious condition were more likely to indicate masks are helpful ( P = 0.01) . In the full sample, Trump’s patriotism message shifted opinion in the expected direction, but the result is just above a cutoff of P ≤ 0.05. However, as illustrated in , it did make evangelicals who identify as Republican (or lean Republican) more likely to think masks are useful, supporting H2a ( P ≤ 0.05 for these groups). Individual Mask Behavior. Respondents who planned to come close to nonhousehold members in the next 2 wk indicated how likely it is that they would wear a mask (1 = very unlikely to 4 = very likely). Control group mean mask intention was 2.83. The treatments did not lead to a significant increase in personal intention to wear a mask (column 2 in ) and there is no differential effect by partisanship. Mask Behavior by Others. One other-oriented question asked, on a 0 to 10 scale, how important it is for people in the respondent’s community to wear masks. Results support H1: The religious message increased perceptions of masks’ importance. Mean importance was 5.83 in the control group, and increased by almost half a unit among those exposed to the religious message ( P = 0.04) (column 3 in ). The patriotism message was not significant in the full sample, yet strong Republicans exposed to the message rated mask wearing as more important, supporting H2a ( P < 0.05) . A second other-oriented question asked whether Trump should (0) never, (0.5) sometimes, or (1) always wear a protective mask when meeting with people. The control group mean was 0.57. Results support all three hypotheses: Exposure to the religious message ( P = 0.01) and patriotism message ( P = 0.02) increased support for Trump wearing a mask (column 4 in ), and the patriotism message only affected Republicans and Republican-leaners ( P < 0.08) . Mask Mandates. Respondents indicated whether it was appropriate for government officials to mandate masks. Control group support was quite low, at 34%. Supporting H1, H2, and H2a, the religious message boosted support to 43% ( P = 0.00), exposure to the patriotism message increased support to 41% ( P = 0.04), and the patriotism message was particularly effective among Republicans ( P ≤ 0.05 for all groups) . 

Respondents placed themselves on a scale where 0 represents the belief that masks are not at all helpful and 10 the belief that they are extremely helpful. Control group opinion was 5.39. The results support H1: Evangelicals in the religious condition were more likely to indicate masks are helpful ( P = 0.01) . In the full sample, Trump’s patriotism message shifted opinion in the expected direction, but the result is just above a cutoff of P ≤ 0.05. However, as illustrated in , it did make evangelicals who identify as Republican (or lean Republican) more likely to think masks are useful, supporting H2a ( P ≤ 0.05 for these groups). 

Respondents who planned to come close to nonhousehold members in the next 2 wk indicated how likely it is that they would wear a mask (1 = very unlikely to 4 = very likely). Control group mean mask intention was 2.83. The treatments did not lead to a significant increase in personal intention to wear a mask (column 2 in ) and there is no differential effect by partisanship. 

One other-oriented question asked, on a 0 to 10 scale, how important it is for people in the respondent’s community to wear masks. Results support H1: The religious message increased perceptions of masks’ importance. Mean importance was 5.83 in the control group, and increased by almost half a unit among those exposed to the religious message ( P = 0.04) (column 3 in ). The patriotism message was not significant in the full sample, yet strong Republicans exposed to the message rated mask wearing as more important, supporting H2a ( P < 0.05) . A second other-oriented question asked whether Trump should (0) never, (0.5) sometimes, or (1) always wear a protective mask when meeting with people. The control group mean was 0.57. Results support all three hypotheses: Exposure to the religious message ( P = 0.01) and patriotism message ( P = 0.02) increased support for Trump wearing a mask (column 4 in ), and the patriotism message only affected Republicans and Republican-leaners ( P < 0.08) . 

Respondents indicated whether it was appropriate for government officials to mandate masks. Control group support was quite low, at 34%. Supporting H1, H2, and H2a, the religious message boosted support to 43% ( P = 0.00), exposure to the patriotism message increased support to 41% ( P = 0.04), and the patriotism message was particularly effective among Republicans ( P ≤ 0.05 for all groups) . 

Value-consistent promask messages can shift opinion among mask-skeptical groups. Among White evangelicals, a religious message increased support for masks. A patriotism message by Trump had similar effects among Republican evangelicals, although we cannot isolate the extent to which this effect is driven by the reference to Trump or the value. Messaging was less effective in shifting behavior. We conclude that Trump, evangelicals, and others can help mitigate the pandemic’s toll by crafting value-aligned promask messages. Meanwhile, skepticism has emerged among evangelicals regarding vaccines . Our research is relevant to this domain: value-consistent messages carry the potential to change attitudes in ways useful to mitigating the toll of the COVID-19 pandemic. 

The YouGov survey ran in August 2020, and drew a sample of 1,500 United States adults matched to a national frame according to gender, age, race, education, and “evangelical or born-again Christian” identity. Of the sample, 56% is Republican. See SI Appendix for more details and the complete treatment text. Respondents were evenly distributed across experimental conditions on a host of demographic and political attitude measures. The study contains no deception and was reviewed and deemed exempt by the Institutional Review Board at Vanderbilt University. Data, code, and materials are available in Dataverse. 

Supplementary File 

