["Social Science Quarterly, EarlyView. ", "\nAbstract\n\nBackground\nBehavioral responses to the COVID‐19 pandemic have become highly polarized, and public health initiatives often try to use different frames to influence behavior. If the polarization of behaviors is related to differences in responses to frames, then different health messages could be targeted to different groups to influence behavior.\n\n\nObjective\nTo determine whether risk preferences and susceptibility to gain/loss frames have been affected by COVID‐19 and whether they differ along partisan lines.\n\n\nMethods\nUsing repeated cross‐sectional data from a nationally representative dataset in the United States replicating the disease outbreak scenario collected before and after the onset of COVID‐19, we test whether responsiveness to the gain/loss frames has changed over time and whether the responsiveness varies by political affiliation.\n\n\nResults\nThe experimental results show that the risk preferences of the U.S. population is very susceptible to the framing of\nchoices, consistent with the literature finding risk loving preferences under the loss frame and risk aversion under the gain frame. However, the experience of COVID‐19 does not appear to have changed the responsiveness, nor are there\nsignificant differences between conservatives/Republicans and liberals/Democrats.\n\n\nConclusion\nTargeting different partisan groups with different risk‐related message frames is unlikely to be effective at altering behaviors.\n\n"]