Haemaphysalis longicornis, also known as the Asian longhorned tick, is originally from East Asia but has established invasive populations in regions such as Australia, New Zealand, and several Pacific islands. This is an invasive species that was first detected in the United States in 2017 and has since been reported in 19 states, particularly in the eastern and southeastern regions [1-5]. The rapid proliferation of H longicornis across the United States can be attributed to its broad host range and its ability to reproduce rapidly through a parthenogenetic life cycle, allowing females to reproduce without the need for males [5-9].

H longicornis is considered a significant pest, particularly for livestock, where it poses substantial challenges to agricultural productivity and animal health. It is particularly dangerous to the livestock industry because it is a known vector of Theileria orientalis Ikeda, a hemoparasite that causes bovine theileriosis, in the United States [2,6,8,10-13]. Heavy infestations of H longicornis on cattle can have direct, detrimental impacts on cattle health, including significant blood loss, anemia, reduced production, weight loss, and even death [2,4,5,7,8]. Due to its expanding range and ability to carry pathogens, this tick species is considered a growing concern for the agricultural industry and public health in the United States [1,14].

Effectively managing the risks posed by H longicornis to the livestock industry requires comprehensive tick control strategies tailored for cattle producers. Recommended practices include mechanical approaches such as tick surveillance, manual removal, and vegetation management to limit tick habitats, as well as chemical measures like the application of on-animal acaricides or tick repellents [10,12,15,16]. Maintaining a closed herd is also advised to prevent the introduction and spread of ticks among livestock [10]. However, for these preventive strategies to be adopted effectively, raising awareness of tick-borne diseases and the risks they pose is essential. Educational interventions targeted at livestock producers can improve knowledge and awareness and promote the consistent use of proven prevention and control methods [17-19].

Supporting this need, prior research has shown that individuals with higher knowledge levels and greater awareness and concern about tick-borne diseases are more likely to engage in preventive behaviors [20-23]. Nevertheless, a widespread lack of confidence in the effectiveness of tick prevention products such as acaricides and repellents may discourage their use [23]. It has been reported that cattle producers often apply acaricides only occasionally and in response to visible tick presence rather than as part of a consistent, preventive routine [24]. Previous studies recommend that educational efforts address disease transmission routes, tick biology, and validated control strategies to support more systematic management practices. These findings highlight the importance of communication in shaping not only knowledge but also behavior.

Building on this insight, this study approached the issue from a risk communication perspective to better understand how information about tick-borne disease prevention in the context of H longicornis is perceived and acted upon by cattle producers. The goal was to inform more effective communication strategies that enhance awareness, improve risk perception, and ultimately encourage the adoption of preventive behaviors among this high-risk population.

Effective disease communication strategies can enhance public understanding, influence decision-making, and promote behaviors that support disease prevention [25-27]. To ensure maximum impact, communicators should customize their strategies to fit the specific behaviors and needs of target populations, including those at risk for tick-borne diseases, and account for varying contexts [28-30]. For example, digital technologies and online platforms have rapidly expanded the ways in which risk information can be delivered and received.

The rise of social media has revolutionized global communication, especially in fields like agriculture, where these platforms serve as powerful tools for disseminating technology and information [31]. Social media, with its potential for real-time updates and interactive engagement, is suited for risk communication, including that for tick-borne diseases [32-34]. These features allow communicators to effectively engage with the public, fostering a better understanding and management of tick risks [19,35]. Gupta et al [17] further indicated that social media appears to be an effective communication channel for spreading knowledge about tick-borne diseases. Platforms such as Facebook (Meta Platforms, Inc), X (formerly Twitter; X Corp), and YouTube (Google Inc) have become essential channels for sharing scientific information, making them indispensable for communicating risks [36,37].

The interactive nature of social media promotes risk perception and informed decision-making during disease outbreaks. Previous studies have pointed out that social media content about vector-borne diseases is positively related to users’ awareness and knowledge of the risk and preventive actions [38-40]. Although previous research suggests that cattle producers in the United States generally have a lower preference for and lower trust in social media [41], it also highlights that information shared through social media by credible sources such as peer cattle producers and beef industry organizations is often considered reliable [42]. Therefore, while social media may not be the preferred communication tool for this demographic, its importance in reaching broader audiences and conveying critical disease prevention messages cannot be underestimated.

In the context of US cattle producers, extension agents and peer cattle producers represent two of the most influential yet contrasting sources in terms of credibility and practical relevance. Extension agents have institutional expertise and are scientific authority figures. They serve as formal representatives of land-grant universities or government agricultural agencies. Their credibility stems from professional training, research-based knowledge, and access to current scientific information. Many producers view them as reliable and unbiased sources of practical advice. Effective communication by extension agents, especially when combined with interpersonal skills and an understanding of producer needs, can enhance the adoption of innovations and best practices [43-45]. In contrast, peer cattle producers are trusted for their practical experience and shared challenges. Producers see peers as credible because they have faced similar decisions in the same environment. Peer learning and observation strongly influence behavioral change, as agricultural producers trust advice from those living comparable realities [46,47]. Unlike extension agents, peers shape behavior through social connections and proven local success, offering a grassroots influence that complements expert-driven approaches.

Additionally, designing communication content that resonates with the target audience enhances the effectiveness of risk communication. Framing theory is often used to explain how the presentation of information through communication channels influences how audiences interpret and respond to a message. A frame highlights certain aspects of an issue while downplaying others, thus shaping the audience’s perception of the topic [48]. In the context of disease communication, gain-framed messages focus on prevention and present outcomes as clear and low-risk, conveying the idea that the disease is manageable. On the other hand, loss-framed messages, which emphasize the potential health risks, tend to communicate greater uncertainty and evoke stronger negative emotions such as fear [19,49-51]. Gain-framed appeals, which highlight the advantages of compliance, have statistically higher engagement rates and are more persuasive than loss-framed appeals, but the difference in effectiveness is quite small [52,53]. While this finding is supported by several studies [49,54], other research has demonstrated that framing messages around the severity of risk can also be effective in encouraging preventive actions [50,55]. Li et al [56] found that social media posts combining both positive and negative content generate more comments and reactions than those with purely negative content.

This exploratory study aimed to identify effective social media communication strategies for cattle producers in the United States and to explore the factors related to their risk-preventive intentions regarding the impact of H longicornis on the livestock industry. Adoption of personal preventive actions varies depending on individuals’ perceptions of tick-borne disease risks and their demographic characteristics. Therefore, targeted health promotion communication is essential for high-risk groups exposed to ticks. This area remains underresearched, and communicators should focus on ensuring that these at-risk populations adopt necessary prevention behaviors [15-17,19,30,57]. The following research questions were developed to align with the research objectives.

This quantitative study surveyed cattle producers in the United States using an online survey distributed via Qualtrics. Given the difficulty in reaching the target population, both online and offline methods were used to gather responses through convenience sampling. At the annual convention of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) in February 2024 in Orlando, Florida, we collected data directly from cattle producers. They were asked to complete the online questionnaire using iPads (Apple) and QR codes, resulting in 68 responses. Additionally, from May to June 2024, we collected 48 more responses through Facebook ads and advertisements in cattle magazines. A total of 116 valid responses were obtained in this study. Nonprobability sampling was adopted as a suitable method for making population estimates in this context because it allows targeting specific, hard-to-reach populations while maintaining a broad outreach, even though it does not involve random selection [58].

At the beginning of the questionnaire, we asked participants to identify the primary class of commodity they grow or produce. If “cattle” was not selected as one of the primary commodities, the respondent was excluded from the study to ensure that the collected sample aligned with our target population. Variables such as location and annual sales for the agricultural operation were also collected to gather comprehensive background information on the participants. Additionally, a pretest question, which required a response on a 5-point Likert scale, was asked to understand the respondent’s support for tick risk education.

The study used a quasi-experimental approach. To ensure complete and transparent reporting, this study adhered to the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES) [59], appropriate for quasi-experimental studies and web-based interventions. Specifically, we followed the recommendations for reporting internet-based surveys to ensure clear description of the participant recruitment and allocation procedures and data collection methods. These guidelines supported consistent and detailed reporting of our study methods and helped ensure that the study is interpretable and reproducible by others.

A 2×3 factorial design was implemented to examine the influence of message source (extension agent versus cattle producer) and message framing (prevention-oriented, fear-based, or neutral) on producer perceptions and behavioral intentions related to tick prevention. This design created 6 experimental conditions, with each participant randomly assigned to view 1 message from each source, totaling 2 messages per participant. Random assignment was used to minimize selection bias and balance potential confounders across groups.

To guage cattle producers’ perceptions of social media posts, this study developed a survey instrument focused on creating realistic simulated Facebook posts. Zeoob, an online educational tool that can generate simulated social media posts [60], was chosen for this purpose. Six posts were created, all related to H longicornis, and attributed to 2 personas—an extension agent and a cattle producer. Each persona shared 3 posts with different content. The content framing varied from a prevention-oriented message, which was gain framed (M1: “It is crucial to spray your pastures and animals to prevent ticks from infecting the herd.”), to a fear-based message, which was loss framed (M2: “Watch out! Cow-killing ticks are spreading across the U.S.”), and included a middle-ground approach (M3: “You don’t want to learn the hard way. Entire herds across the U.S. have been lost already.”).

Simulated posts were presented via the online survey platform. We excluded responses that were completed too quickly to ensure that respondents had sufficient exposure time to view each post. Participants could not revisit previous messages. Participants could view only the posts assigned to their experimental condition and had no opportunity to view posts from other subgroups.

The survey questions assessed participants’ likelihood of social engagement after viewing the social media post. Participants were asked how they would react, including choosing an emoji, commenting, or sharing the post. The likelihood of engagement was measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1=unlikely, 2=somewhat likely, 3=likely, 4=very likely, and 5=extremely likely). If participants indicated that they were at least somewhat likely to react by liking the post, they were further asked to select which emoji they might use. These emojis, modeled after those on Facebook, included 7 options such as like, love, and sad.

We also assessed their perceptions of the post, including their fear of H longicornis and the diseases it spreads as well as their attitudes supporting proactive preventive intentions and raising awareness about tick-related risks. To assess the participants’ preventive behavioral intentions in response to tick-borne diseases, we focused on 2 key measures: removing ticks through surveillance and spraying cattle with on-animal acaricides or tick repellents [10]. Each measure was assessed with 2 questions, all answered on a 5-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree).

Moreover, to enrich our findings, we included open-ended questions to capture the participants’ thoughts and reflections on the simulated social media posts viewed in their assigned experimental condition. Each respondent answered up to 28 questions, including 6 about their baseline characteristics as well as 2 sets of quasi-experimental questions (11 questions each). Figure 1 depicts the research process and the simulated social media posts.

SPSS software (version 29.0; IBM Corp) was used to analyze the quantitative data. The random assignment method was expected to distribute potential confounders evenly. We conducted ANOVA tests to compare baseline demographic variables and pretest attitudes across the randomized groups, using group assignment as the independent variable. All comparisons were nonsignificant, indicating that the groups did not differ in these baseline measures. To answer our first and second research questions, descriptive statistics were first used to explain how participants responded to different messages. ANOVA tests with post hoc comparisons were completed using the Scheffe correction. For the third research question, Spearman rank-order correlations were used to examine the associations between their social engagement on social media, perceptions of the post, and reported preventive intentions, given the ordinal nature of the Likert-type items.

Qualitative data were analyzed using a thematic analysis approach. First, all responses were read in full to ensure familiarization with the content. Initial codes that captured distinct concepts or sentiments were identified. Then, through an iterative process, similar codes were grouped into broader themes that illustrated cattle producers’ perspectives on message tone, credibility, perceived relevance, and barriers or motivators to engagement. Representative quotes were selected to illustrate each major theme. This procedure ensured a rigorous and transparent analysis of qualitative inputs, complementing the quantitative survey results.

This study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Florida (IRB#202201562). Written informed consent was obtained electronically from each participant prior to their participation. Participants were briefed about the study objective, procedures, voluntary nature of participation, and the right to decline or withdraw at any time without penalty. All data collected were anonymized before analysis. Participants were given a tick removal kit for their participation in the study. The value of each kit was under US $2.

Due to convenience sampling, most of the respondents came from southeastern states in the United States, such as Florida (30/116, 25.9%), Tennessee (20/116, 17.2%), and Kentucky (14/116, 12.1%). The agricultural operations of most cattle producers (98/116, 84.5%) were located in rural areas. Approximately half of the respondents (55/116, 47.4%) had annual sales of less than US $50,000, followed by those with sales between US $50,001 and US $150,000 (24/116, 20.7%). These figures reflect the national data from the 2022 Census of Agriculture, which reported an average annual agricultural income of US $79,790 [61]. Regarding their role in agriculture, 89 participants (76.7%) identified as owner or operator. Detailed characteristics of the sample are shown in Table 1.

To answer the first research question, in the quasi-experiment, we assessed cattle producers’ self-reported engagement with different simulated social media posts, specifically through choosing an emoji, commenting, and sharing the post. While the ANOVA did not reveal statistically significant differences across the 6 combinations of message source and message type, we observed several noteworthy descriptive patterns in the engagement data.

Overall, the results indicated that cattle producers are most likely to engage with posts through emoji reactions compared to commenting and sharing. Among the various emojis available on Facebook, the “Like” emoji remained the most frequently used in all experimental conditions, even compared to newer emojis. Commenting was generally less likely across all combinations of message source and type. The mean scores for commenting were consistently lower than those for emoji reactions and sharing, suggesting that while cattle producers may react to or share posts, they are less likely to engage in discussions or leave comments on these posts.

Further examination showed some variation in the mean engagement scores across the combinations of message source and type and highlighted some trends. For instance, the highest average likelihood score for emoji engagement (mean 2.89, SD 1.30) was observed for the cattle producer × M1 (cattle producer, prevention-oriented message) group, while the lowest (mean 2.38, SD 1.33) was observed for the extension agent × M2 (extension agent, fear-based message) group. Similar descriptive differences were noted for the sharing and commenting behaviors. However, it is important to note that these observed patterns did not reach statistical significance in this analysis and thus should be interpreted with caution as preliminary trends rather than as definitive group differences. Table 2 presents the descriptive results for social engagement across all experimental conditions.

To answer the second research question, we assessed several important dimensions, including participants’ fear and concern about tick-related risks, attitudes supporting preventive behaviors and local awareness, and their self-reported intentions to take preventive actions following exposure to the social media posts. Across these outcomes, while ANOVA results did not indicate significant differences between groups, we identified some descriptive patterns that may offer preliminary insights for future studies.

Regarding the respondent’s perception of the post, it was observed that the source of the message alone did not make a difference. However, when combined with the content of the message, distinct trends began to emerge. Specifically, when either an extension agent or a cattle producer used a prevention-oriented message to communicate the risks of H longicornis to the cattle, participants expressed higher levels of concern about tick risks. They also demonstrated more positive attitudes toward managing the risks associated with ticks. Conversely, when a fear-based message was employed as the communication strategy, it led to lower perceptions of post credibility or effectiveness.

Regarding responses related to preventive intentions, this study observed distinct patterns across different messaging sources and types. An analysis of responses to messages from an extension agent showed that the neutral message proved effective in prompting preventive intentions. For example, the extension agent × M2 condition had a relatively high mean score for examining gear and cattle for ticks (mean 3.94, SD 0.75) and using tick repellents (mean 3.88, SD 1.02). However, when cattle producers were the source of the message, the data revealed somewhat mixed outcomes. The prevention-oriented message had a relatively high mean score for encouraging cattle producers to examine gear and cattle for ticks as a precaution (mean 3.94, SD 0.89), but this communication strategy was less effective in promoting the use of tick repellents to avoid tick bites (mean 3.62, SD 1.23). Table 3 shows the perceptions of the posts and preventive behavioral intentions among participants in various experimental conditions.

To interpret and supplement the quantitative results, we further asked participants for their opinions on the simulated social media posts to gain deeper insights into their thoughts on the experimental conditions. Some responses were brief affirmations, such as “Good job” or “Great info.” These responses suggest that certain producers viewed the posts as useful and well presented, even if the messages did not always prompt further engagement or detailed feedback. Conversely, some participants offered minimal or neutral input, with responses such as “No” or “N/A.” Such replies indicate that not all respondents felt strongly about the content or were motivated to provide additional commentary.

After excluding brief or ambiguous responses, thematic analysis was conducted to identify distinct concepts emerging from the qualitative data. This approach yielded 3 dominant themes. The most frequently occurring theme was criticism of sensationalism and scare tactics. Respondents expressed concern over the use of alarming or exaggerated language in the social media posts. For instance, comments such as “Seems like a fear tactic instead of informational,” “Over exaggerated,” and “Sounds like a scare tactic by PETA [People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals].” All comments about the content being exaggerated were about posts with a fear-based or neutral message, with slightly more comments directed at posts with fear-based messages. This underscores the perception that fear-based messaging may undermine credibility, potentially resulting in skepticism or disengagement among the target audience. While some participants acknowledged that such messages were effective in capturing attention, several emphasized that communication should prioritize education over sensationalism, as reflected in the following comment: “The post should be more educational rather than shocking.”

Another closely related but different theme was social media skepticism and fatigue. Under this theme, participants expressed doubt not only about the content of the posts but also about the reliability and intentions behind social media communication in general. Comments such as “[It was] too much of a scare tactic to get someone to click the link” and “Less clickbait, obviously untrue” reflect broader concerns about the prevalence of clickbait in social media environments. Moreover, comments such as “I would look for verification on something other than Facebook before I reacted” suggest a distrust of information on social media. The primary distinction between this theme and the previous one lies in the focus: while criticism of sensationalism centers on the content and style of the specific posts, social media skepticism and fatigue reflect a deeper mistrust toward the platform itself and weariness with manipulative online communication strategies.

Additionally, a prominent theme was the desire for more detailed and contextual information. Several participants explicitly stated the need for “more information” or greater context, as exemplified by comments such as “Could use more information in general,” “I would like it to elaborate more,” and “I think more context should be included!” These responses may suggest that while social media posts can raise initial awareness, producers are looking for more substantive and actionable content that offers practical guidance on tick risks and prevention strategies. The call for additional information likely stems from the perception that the information in the simulated posts lacked sufficient detail or depth to fully inform decision-making or address producers’ informational needs. Additionally, some respondents highlighted the importance of factual accuracy, expressing a preference for information backed by evidence, through responses such as “Would react to see back up verification that it was real.” All comments under the theme of desire for more detailed and contextual information were directed at posts with fear-based or neutral messages, with the latter receiving more comments.

The analysis of social engagement, which included using emoji reactions, commenting, and sharing, revealed associations with risk perceptions, attitudes, and reported preventive intentions. Emoji reactions were highly correlated with both sharing (ρ=0.83, P<.001) and commenting (ρ=0.80, P<.001), suggesting that participants who engaged with posts through emojis were also more inclined to engage further by sharing or commenting. Furthermore, social engagement exhibited meaningful associations with perceptions and preventive actions. Participants’ interactions with social media posts showed low to moderate correlations with their perceptions and subsequent behavioral intentions. For instance, those who were more willing to share the post tended to have moderate concerns about the health risks ticks pose to their cattle (ρ=0.32, P <.001) and were also more likely to engage in preventive intentions such as regularly examining their gear and cattle for ticks (ρ=0.25, P<.001) and using tick repellents (ρ=0.29, P<.001).

The results also indicated that fears and attitudes toward managing the risks associated with ticks had a positive association with preventive intentions. The association between fear and preventive intentions was low to moderate. For instance, producers’ worries about cattle health because of ticks were moderately correlated with regular examination of gear and cattle for ticks (ρ=0.34, P<.001) and the use of tick repellents to avoid tick bites (ρ=0.33, P<.001). On the other hand, attitudes formed after viewing the posts were closely linked to the likelihood of engaging in preventive intentions against tick-borne risks, showing substantial to very strong associations (ρ=0.52‐0.64). All correlations reported in this study were positive. While these correlations point to meaningful links between risk perception, engagement, and behavioral intentions, it is important to emphasize that given the observational design, these associations do not imply prediction or causation. Table 4 shows the associations between social engagement, perceptions, and preventive intentions among the experimental conditions.