Abstract: 【Purpose/significance】This study explicitly distinguishes between two distinct risk communication strategies used by gov?
ernment regulatory authorities (i. e., the communicator-centered "explanation" strategy and the message-centered IDEA model).
【Method/process】Immediately after the Changsheng substandard vaccine incident, a post-test only quasi-experimental cross?sectional survey research design was employed to examine the differential effects of regulators' instructional messages on the public's
risk perceptions, risk acceptance, and behavioral intentions regarding domestic vaccines.【Result/conclusion】Results indicate that
compared to the explanation-based strategy, the IDEA model is significantly more effective in reducing individuals' risk perception,
increasing their risk acceptance, and sustaining their intention to consume and positively evaluate domestic vaccines. The differential
effect derives mainly from the explanation-based strategy leading to a deepened negative perception of domestic vaccine associated
with a more conservative behavioral intention. In addition, the interaction effect between communication strategies and demographic
characteristics shows no significance that the IDEA model does not need to be tailored to meet the information needs from multicul?
tural groups.【Innovation/limitation】The findings not only render a reliable empirical basis for upholding the shift from "monologue" to "dialogue" in risk communication, but also confirms the validity and cross-cultural generalizability of the IDEA model in the risk con?
text of China. Practical implications for government regulators and risk communicators are also discussed.