The Impact of Information Sources on Covid-19 Knowledge Accumulation and Vaccination Intention (original) (raw)
Related papers
BMC Public Health, 2022
Background: Tackling infodemics with flooding misinformation is key to managing the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet only a few studies have attempted to understand the characteristics of the people who believe in misinformation. Methods: Data was used from an online survey that was administered in April 2020 to 6518 English-speaking adult participants in the United States. We created binary variables to represent four misinformation categories related to COVID-19: general COVID-19-related, vaccine/anti-vaccine, COVID-19 as an act of bioterrorism, and mode of transmission. Using binary logistic regression and the LASSO regularization, we then identified the important predictors of belief in each type of misinformation. Nested vector bootstrapping approach was used to estimate the standard error of the LASSO coefficients. Results: About 30% of our sample reported believing in at least one type of COVID-19-related misinformation. Belief in one type of misinformation was not strongly associated with belief in other types. We also identified 58 demographic and socioeconomic factors that predicted people's susceptibility to at least one type of COVID-19 misinformation. Different groups, characterized by distinct sets of predictors, were susceptible to different types of misinformation. There were 25 predictors for general COVID-19 misinformation, 42 for COVID-19 vaccine, 36 for COVID-19 as an act of bioterrorism, and 27 for mode of COVID-transmission. Conclusion: Our findings confirm the existence of groups with unique characteristics that believe in different types of COVID-19 misinformation. Findings are readily applicable by policymakers to inform careful targeting of misinformation mitigation strategies.
2021
There are many ways to go wrong when evaluating new information, e.g. by putting unwarranted trust in non-experts, or failing to scrutinize information about threats. We examined how effective people were at evaluating information about the COVID-19 pandemic. Early in the course of the pandemic, we recruited 1791 participants from six countries with varying levels of pandemic severity, and asked them to evaluate true and false pandemic-related statements (assertions and prescriptions) sampled from the media. We experimentally manipulated the source of each statement (a doctor, a political/religious leader, social media, etc.). Overall, people proved to be epistemically vigilant: they distinguished between true and false statements, especially prescriptions, and they trusted doctors more than other sources. These effects were moderated by feeling threatened by the pandemic, and by strong identification with some sources (political/religious leaders). These findings provide optimism i...
Vaccines
The reluctance of people to receive safe and recommended available vaccines is a well-documented public health challenge. As information and communication technologies evolve, this challenge gets more complex and even harder to manage during complex public health situations. In this experimental study, we examine the relationship between vaccine information frames (with scientific information vs. without scientific information) and channels (through government vs. religious organizations) and vaccination willingness in the U.S. in the context of a pandemic. Additionally, we evaluate the interaction between vaccine skepticism, vaccine information frames, and vaccine information channels on vaccination willingness. This experimental study uses data from Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTURK) to evaluate the relationships between vaccine skepticism, vaccine information frames, and channels on vaccination willingness. We find that contrary to our hypothesis, a vaccine advisory framed with scien...
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
BackgroundDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, there is a heightened need to understand health information seeking behaviors to address disparities in knowledge and beliefs about the crisis.ObjectiveThis study assessed sociodemographic predictors of the use and trust of different COVID-19 information sources, as well as the association between information sources and knowledge and beliefs about the pandemic.MethodsAn online survey was conducted among US adults in two rounds during March and April 2020 using advertisement-based recruitment on social media. Participants were asked about their use of 11 different COVID-19 information sources as well as their most trusted source of information. The selection of COVID-related knowledge and belief questions was based on past empirical literature and salient concerns at the time of survey implementation.ResultsThe sample consisted of 11,242 participants. When combined, traditional media sources (television, radio, podcasts, or newspapers) were th...
An Assessment of the Rapid Decline of Trust in US Sources of Public Information about COVID-19
Journal of Health Communication
We conducted a longitidinal assessment of 806 respondents in March, 2020 in the US to examine the trustworthiness of sources of information about COVID-19. Respondents were recontacted after four months. Information sources included mainstream media, state health departments, the CDC, the White House, and a well-known university. We also examined how demographics, political partisanship, and skepticism about COVID-19 were associated with the perceived trustworthiness of information sources and decreased trustworthiness over time. At baseline, the majority of respondants reported high trust in COVID-19 information from state health departments (75.6%), the CDC (80.9%), and a university (Johns Hopkins, 81.1%). Mainstream media was trusted by less than half the respondents (41.2%), and the White House was the least trusted source (30.9%). At the 4-month follow-up, a significant decrease in trustworthiness in all five sources of COVID-19 information was observed. The most pronounced reductions were from the CDC and the White House. In multivariate analyses, factors associated with rating the CDC, state health department, and a university as trustworthy sources of COVID-19 information were political party affiliation, level of education, and skepticism about COVID-19. The most consistent predictor of decreased trust was political party affiliation, with Democrats as compared to Republicans less likely to report decreased trust across all sources.
Background: Tackling infodemics with flooding misinformation is key to managing the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet only a few studies have attempted to understand the characteristics of the people who believe in and adhere to misinformation. Methods: Data was used from an online survey that was administered in April 2020 to 6,518 English-speaking adult participants in the United States. We created binary variables to represent four misinformation categories related to COVID-19: general COVID-19-related, vaccine/anti-vaccine, COVID-19 as an act of bioterrorism, and mode of transmission. Using binary logistic regression and the LASSO regularization, we then identified the important predictors of adherence to each type of misinformation. Nested vector bootstrapping approach was used to estimate the standard error of the LASSO coefficients. Results: About 30% of our sample reported adhering to at least one type of COVID-19-related misinformation. Adherence to one type of misinformation was not ...
Online misinformation is linked to early COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy and refusal
Scientific Reports
Widespread uptake of vaccines is necessary to achieve herd immunity. However, uptake rates have varied across U.S. states during the first six months of the COVID-19 vaccination program. Misbeliefs may play an important role in vaccine hesitancy, and there is a need to understand relationships between misinformation, beliefs, behaviors, and health outcomes. Here we investigate the extent to which COVID-19 vaccination rates and vaccine hesitancy are associated with levels of online misinformation about vaccines. We also look for evidence of directionality from online misinformation to vaccine hesitancy. We find a negative relationship between misinformation and vaccination uptake rates. Online misinformation is also correlated with vaccine hesitancy rates taken from survey data. Associations between vaccine outcomes and misinformation remain significant when accounting for political as well as demographic and socioeconomic factors. While vaccine hesitancy is strongly associated with ...
The different forms of COVID-19 misinformation and their consequences
Misinformation Review, 2020
As the COVID-19 pandemic progresses, an understanding of the structure and organization of beliefs in pandemic conspiracy theories and misinformation becomes increasingly critical for addressing the threat posed by these dubious ideas. In polling Americans about beliefs in 11 such ideas, we observed clear groupings of beliefs that correspond with different individual-level characteristics (e.g., support for Trump, distrust of scientists) and behavioral intentions (e.g., to take a vaccine, to engage in social activities). Moreover, we found that conspiracy theories enjoy more support, on average, than misinformation about dangerous health practices. Our findings suggest several paths for policymakers, communicators, and scientists to minimize the spread and impact of COVID-19 misinformation and conspiracy theories.
2021
Background: Early in the pandemic, misinformation about COVID-19 was spread on social media. The purpose of this study was to describe trusted sources of COVID-19 information and claims seen and believed about COVID-19 early in the pandemic among U.S. adults. Then, we assessed the impact of believing such claims on engaging in personal protective actions (PPA). Methods: We used baseline data from the CHASING COVID Cohort (n = 7,070) collected March 28, 2020 to April 20, 2020 to describe trusted sources of COVID-19 information as well as claims circulating on social media that had been seen and believed. We used Poisson regression to determine the association of believing certain claims with engaging in a higher number of PPA. Results: The top three trusted sources of COVID-19 information were the CDC (67.9%), the WHO (53.7%), and State Health Departments (53.0%). Several COVID-19 claims circulated on social media had been seen, e.g., that the virus was created in a laboratory (54.8%...
PLOS ONE, 2022
The COVID-19 pandemic has been damaging to the lives of people all around the world. Accompanied by the pandemic is aninfodemic, an abundant and uncontrolled spread of potentially harmful misinformation. The infodemic may severely change the pandemic’s course by interfering with public health interventions such as wearing masks, social distancing, and vaccination. In particular, the impact of the infodemic on vaccination is critical because it holds the key to reverting to pre-pandemic normalcy. This paper presents findings from a global survey on the extent of worldwide exposure to the COVID-19 infodemic, assesses different populations’ susceptibility to false claims, and analyzes its association with vaccine acceptance. Based on responses gathered from over 18,400 individuals from 40 countries, we find a strong association between perceived believability of COVID-19 misinformation and vaccination hesitancy. Our study shows that only half of the online users exposed to rumors might...