Not just conspiracy theories: Vaccine opponents and proponents add to the COVID-19 'infodemic' on Twitter

The Relationship Between News Coverage of COVID-19 Misinformation and Online Search Behavior

The spread of health misinformation poses a threat to public health as it can influence individuals' health beliefs and, potentially, behaviors, and their support for public health policies. The mainstream news media have the potential to inadvertently increase the salience of misinformation through their reporting. This study explores the agenda-setting effects of mainstream news media coverage on public salience of public health misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic. We analyzed the association between news media coverage and public salience - as measured by Google Trends relative search volume - of three different pieces of COVID-19 misinformation: (1) hydroxychloroquine is a safe and effective treatment for COVID-19; (2) the COVID-19 vaccines cause infertility; and (3) ivermectin is a safe and effective treatment for COVID-19. We plotted news coverage of each piece of misinformation against Google Trends relative search volume over time. Autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) models were used to account for autocorrelation and analyze the relationship between the two time series. News media coverage volume was a significant predictor of same-day relative search volume for hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. The relationship between news media coverage and searches for COVID-19 vaccines and infertility was not significant. These findings indicate mainstream news media coverage may contribute to the public salience of misinformation. Mainstream media outlets should contextualize their reporting on misinformation with verification from scientific consensus.

Exposure to conflicting COVID-19 information in undergraduates: Implications for pandemic-related information-seeking and concern, attention, and cognitive workload

Objectives: To examine college students' conflicting COVID-19 information exposure, information-seeking, concern, and cognitive functioning. Participants: 179 undergraduates were recruited in March-April 2020, and 220 in September 2020 (Samples 1 and 2, respectively). Methods: Students completed the Attention Network Test, NASA Task Load Index, and COVID-related questions. Results: In Sample 1, exposure to conflicting information predicted poorer attentional performance and greater COVID-related information-seeking and concern; concern was correlated with workload. In Sample 2, conflicting information was associated with information-seeking. In Sample 1, but not Sample 2, cognitive effects of conflicting information were mediated by information-seeking and virus-related concern. Conclusions: Conflicting COVID-19 information may undermine students' cognitive functions, bearing implications for health, academic performance, and stress. Strategies for countering these effects include enhancing the clarity of institutional messaging, and tailoring course curricula and offering workshops to students, faculty, administrators, and counseling staff to augment students' capacity to comprehend and utilize COVID-related communications.

Heuristic Information Processing as a Mediating Factor in the Process of Exposure to COVID-19 Vaccine Information and Misinformation Sharing on Social Media

Social media use for risk communication during the COVID-19 pandemic has caused considerable concerns about an overabundance of information, particularly misinformation. However, how exposure to COVID-19 information on social media can lead to subsequent misinformation sharing during the pandemic has received little research attention. This study adopted the social amplification of risk framework to delineate how exposure to COVID-19 vaccine information on social media can be associated with individuals' misinformation sharing through heuristic information processing. The role of social media trust was also examined. Results from an online survey (N = 1488) of Chinese Internet users revealed that exposure to COVID-19 vaccine information on social media was associated with misinformation sharing, mediated by both affect heuristics (i.e., negative affect toward the COVID-19 pandemic in general) and availability heuristics (i.e., perceived misinformation availability). Importantly, both high and low levels of trust in social media strengthened the mediating associations. While a low level of trust strengthened the association between exposure to COVID-19 vaccine information on social media and the affect heuristics, a high level of trust strengthened its association with the availability heuristics, both of which were associated with misinformation sharing. Our findings suggest that heuristic information processing is essential in amplifying the spread of misinformation after exposure to risk information on social media. It is also suggested that individuals should maintain a middle level of trust in social media, being open while critical of risk information on social media.

Descriptions of Scientific Evidence and Uncertainty of Unproven COVID-19 Therapies in US News: Content Analysis Study

BACKGROUND

Politicization and misinformation or disinformation of unproven COVID-19 therapies have resulted in communication challenges in presenting science to the public, especially in times of heightened public trepidation and uncertainty.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to examine how scientific evidence and uncertainty were portrayed in US news on 3 unproven COVID-19 therapeutics, prior to the development of proven therapeutics and vaccines.

METHODS

We conducted a media analysis of unproven COVID-19 therapeutics in early 2020. A total of 479 discussions of unproven COVID-19 therapeutics (hydroxychloroquine, remdesivir, and convalescent plasma) in traditional and online US news reports from January 1, 2020, to July 30, 2020, were systematically analyzed for theme, scientific evidence, evidence details and limitations, safety, efficacy, and sources of authority.

RESULTS

The majority of discussions included scientific evidence (n=322, 67%) although only 24% (n=116) of them mentioned publications. "Government" was the most frequently named source of authority for safety and efficacy claims on remdesivir (n=43, 35%) while "expert" claims were mostly mentioned for convalescent plasma (n=22, 38%). Most claims on hydroxychloroquine (n=236, 79%) were offered by a "prominent person," of which 97% (n=230) were from former US President Trump. Despite the inclusion of scientific evidence, many claims of the safety and efficacy were made by nonexperts. Few news reports expressed scientific uncertainty in discussions of unproven COVID-19 therapeutics as limitations of evidence were infrequently included in the body of news reports (n=125, 26%) and rarely found in headlines (n=2, 2%) or lead paragraphs (n=9, 9%; P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

These results highlight that while scientific evidence is discussed relatively frequently in news reports, scientific uncertainty is infrequently reported and rarely found in prominent headlines and lead paragraphs.

Covid-19 cure perceptions and media use in India

BACKGROUND

During the early phases of Covid-19, social media platforms became a significant source of misinformation, and India emerged as a global hotspot. Studies show that 'miracle cure' for preventing and treating Covid-19 infection has been a prominent topic of misinformation. This study explores the extent to which beliefs in cure for Covid-19 in three prominent medical traditions popular in India are associated with the exposure to and trust in various sources from which the public access information.

METHODS

We conducted an online structured questionnaire survey of 500 respondents in August 2020 in four major cities of India.

RESULTS

Despite the scientific consensus at that time that there was no cure for Covid-19, close to three-quarters of our respondents believe that there was a cure in at least one of the three popular medical traditions in India: Allopathy, Homeopathy, and Ayurveda. We find that exposure to and trust in WhatsApp are associated with false beliefs regarding the existence of a cure for Covid-19 (p = 0.001 and p = 0.014, respectively). While trust in science is associated with correct beliefs (p = 0.025), there is evidence that trust in government information may foster incorrect beliefs (p = 0.031).

CONCLUSIONS

The high trust in scientific research and its potential ability to instill correct beliefs could be exploited to combat Covid-19 misinformation in India. Potential interventions such as awareness campaigns to increase digital media literacy, regulating social media platforms, and voluntary content regulation by social media platforms - might help policymakers tackle Covid-19 related misinformation effectively.

Predicting Support for COVID-19 Policies with Partisan Media Use and Negative Emotion: Evidence from the U.S. and South Korea

While prior scholarship on preventive health behaviors has focused on identifying their cognitive predictors, emerging literature suggests that emotion may also be an important determinant of health behaviors. Drawing from appraisal theory and the discrete-emotions models of affect, the current study establishes emotional pathways to support for COVID-19 policies and social distancing behavior. Analyses of survey data collected in the U.S. and South Korea demonstrate that negative emotion experienced following partisan media use increases support for COVID-19 policies and social distancing behavior. Particularly, fear and anxiety toward the pandemic emerged as strong mediators in both countries while sadness also mediated the pathways in the U.S.

Beyond physical health: the role of psychosocial challenges and stigma in tackling the COVID-19 pandemic-A scoping review

BACKGROUND

The socio-cultural response to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) and the level of adherence to evidence-based guidelines played a crucial role in determining the morbidity and mortality outcomes during the pandemic. This review aims to evaluate the impact of stigma and psycho-socio-cultural challenges on efforts to control the COVID-19 pandemic and to identify ways to mitigate such challenges in future pandemics.

METHODS

Using keywords including COVID-19, coronavirus, stigma, psychosocial challenges, and others, the authors searched seven major databases with a time limitation of July 2021, which yielded 2,038 results. Out of these, 15 papers were included in this review.

RESULTS

The findings of the review indicated that several psychosocial, socio-economic, and ethno-cultural factors are linked to the transmission and control of COVID-19. The research revealed that stigma and related psychosocial challenges and others, such as anxiety, fear, and stigma-driven social isolation, have resulted in significant mental health problems.

DISCUSSION

The review underscores the negative impact of stigma on COVID-19 patients, survivors, and the general population. Addressing stigma and psychosocial challenges is crucial to effectively manage the current pandemic and to prevent similar challenges during future public health crises.

The role of conspiracy mindset in reducing support for child vaccination for COVID-19 in the United States

Introduction

We have previously proposed and tested a model that predicts reluctance to vaccinate against COVID-19 in the US from embrace of a conspiracy mindset that distrusts the federal health agencies of the US government and regards their intentions as malevolent. In this study, we tested the model's ability to predict adult support for COVID vaccination of children ages 5-11 after the vaccine was approved for this age group.

Methods

Relying on a national panel that was established in April 2021 (N = 1941) and followed until March of 2022, we examined the relation between conspiratorial thinking measured at baseline and belief in misinformation and conspiracies about COVID vaccines, trust in various health authorities, perceived risk of COVID to children, and belief in conspiracy theories about the pandemic's origin and impact. In addition, we tested a structural equation model (SEM) in which conspiracy mindset predicted adult support for childhood vaccination for COVID in January and March of 2022 as well as the adults own vaccination status and their willingness to recommend vaccinating children against measles, mumps and rubella (MMR).

Results

The model accounted for 76% of the variance in support for childhood vaccination for COVID-19; the relation between the mindset and support for vaccination was entirely mediated by baseline assessments of misinformation, trust, risk, and acceptance of pandemic conspiracy theories.

Discussion

The SEM replicated the prior test of the model, indicating that a conspiracy mindset present among at least 17% of the panel underlies their resistance to vaccinate both themselves and children. Efforts to counteract the mindset will likely require the intervention of trusted spokespersons who can overcome the skepticism inherent in conspiratorial thinking about the government and its health-related agencies' recommendations for a particular vaccine.

Who does COVID-19 hurt most? Perceptions of unequal impact and political implications

While the overall impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on U.S. population health has been devastating, it has not affected everyone equally. The risks of hospitalization and death from the disease are relatively low for the population as a whole, but much higher for specific subpopulations defined by age, health status, and race or ethnicity. The extent to which Americans perceive these disparities is an open question, with potentially important political implications. Recognition of unequal impacts may prime concerns about justice and fairness, making Americans more concerned and willing to support government intervention. On the other hand, belief that the pandemic primarily threatens "other people" or out-groups may reduce, rather than increase, a person's concern. Partisanship and media consumption habits are also likely to play a role in these perceptions, as they do in most issues related to COVID-19. In this paper, we use original survey data from the Cooperative Election Study (N = 1000) to explore Americans' perceptions of which groups are most harmed by the pandemic, the demographic and political determinants of these perceptions, and the relationship of these perceptions with their opinions about COVID-related mitigation policy. We find that, on average, people perceived accurately that certain groups (e.g., Black Americans, older people) were more affected, but these group perceptions varied by demographic and political characteristics of respondents. We find, in contrast with recent experimental evidence, that the perception that populations of color were harmed was associated with more support for pandemic mitigation strategies. More research should investigate the relationships among pandemic politics and the racial dynamics of the target populations most affected.

Media Trust and the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Analysis of Short-Term Trust Changes, Their Ideological Drivers and Consequences in Switzerland

We analyze short-term media trust changes during the COVID-19 pandemic, their ideological drivers and consequences based on panel data in German-speaking Switzerland. We thereby differentiate trust in political information from different types of traditional and non-traditional media. COVID-19 serves as a natural experiment, in which citizens' media trust at the outbreak of the crisis is compared with the same variables after the severe lockdown measures were lifted. Our data reveal that (1) media trust is consequential as it is associated with people's willingness to follow Covid-19 regulations; (2) media trust changes during the pandemic, with trust levels for most media decreasing, with the exception of public service broadcasting; (3) trust losses are hardly connected to ideological divides in Switzerland. Our findings highlight that public service broadcasting plays an exceptional role in the fight against a pandemic and that contrary to the US, no partisan trust divide occurs.

The Prevalence, Features, Influencing Factors, and Solutions for COVID-19 Vaccine Misinformation: Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

During the COVID-19 pandemic, infodemic spread even more rapidly than the pandemic itself. The COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy has been prevalent worldwide and hindered pandemic exiting strategies. Misinformation around COVID-19 vaccines is a vital contributor to vaccine hesitancy. However, no evidence systematically summarized COVID-19 vaccine misinformation.

OBJECTIVE

This review aims to synthesize the global evidence on misinformation related to COVID-19 vaccines, including its prevalence, features, influencing factors, impacts, and solutions for combating misinformation.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review by searching 5 peer-reviewed databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and EBSCO). We included original articles that investigated misinformation related to COVID-19 vaccines and were published in English from January 1, 2020, to August 18, 2022. We excluded publications that did not cover or focus on COVID-19 vaccine misinformation. The Appraisal tool for Cross-Sectional Studies, version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2), and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Checklist were used to assess the study quality. The review was guided by PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021288929).

RESULTS

Of the 8864 studies identified, 91 observational studies and 11 interventional studies met the inclusion criteria. Misinformation around COVID-19 vaccines covered conspiracy, concerns on vaccine safety and efficacy, no need for vaccines, morality, liberty, and humor. Conspiracy and safety concerns were the most prevalent misinformation. There was a great variation in misinformation prevalence, noted among 2.5%-55.4% in the general population and 6.0%-96.7% in the antivaccine/vaccine hesitant groups from survey-based studies, and in 0.1%-41.3% on general online data and 0.5%-56% on antivaccine/vaccine hesitant data from internet-based studies. Younger age, lower education and economic status, right-wing and conservative ideology, and having psychological problems enhanced beliefs in misinformation. The content, format, and source of misinformation influenced its spread. A 5-step framework was proposed to address vaccine-related misinformation, including identifying misinformation, regulating producers and distributors, cutting production and distribution, supporting target audiences, and disseminating trustworthy information. The debunking messages/videos were found to be effective in several experimental studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review provides comprehensive and up-to-date evidence on COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and helps responses to vaccine infodemic in future pandemics.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42021288929; https://tinyurl.com/2prejtfa.

Emotional Reactions to COVID-19 Projections and Consequences for Protective Policies and Personal Behavior

How does the public react to information about the likely progression of COVID-19 cases in the United States? How do these reactions vary over the course of the pandemic and by partisanship, and with what consequences for policy attitudes and personal behavior? We argue that reading projections about the peak of COVID-19 cases in the United States is likely to lead to increased levels of anxiety and sadness. We expect that these effects will be more pronounced and less polarized along partisan lines earlier in the pandemic. Finally, we expect that elevated anxiety and sadness should in turn lead to greater support for protective policies to combat the pandemic and a greater inclination to engage in protective behaviors. To test these arguments, we fielded online survey experiments at three points in time (April, June, and August 2020), in which respondents were randomly assigned to a control group or one of two projections about the likely progression of COVID-19 cases in the United States. Across all three waves, we find that exposure to information about case peaks increases anxiety and sadness, though the effects get weaker over time, particularly among Republicans. We also find evidence that these elevated emotional responses increase support for protective policies and behavior.

Geographical and Temporal Analysis of Tweets Related to COVID-19 and Cardiovascular Disease in the US

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in more than 600 million confirmed cases worldwide since December 2021. Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is both a risk factor for COVID-19 mortality and a complication that many COVID-19 patients develop. This study uses Twitter data to identify the spatiotemporal patterns and correlation of related tweets with daily COVID-19 cases and deaths at the national, regional, and state levels. We collected tweets mentioning both COVID-19 and CVD-related words from February to July 2020 (Eastern Time) and geocoded the tweets to the state level using GIScience techniques. We further proposed and validated that the Twitter user registration state can be a feasible proxy of geotags. We applied geographical and temporal analysis to investigate where and when people talked about COVID-19 and CVD. Our results indicated that the trend of COVID-19 and CVD-related tweets is correlated to the trend of COVID-19, especially the daily deaths. These social media messages revealed widespread recognition of CVD's important role in the COVID-19 pandemic, even before the medical community started to develop consensus and theory supports about CVD aspects of COVID-19. The second wave of the pandemic caused another rise in the related tweets but not as much as the first one, as tweet frequency increased from February to April, decreased till June, and bounced back in July. At the regional level, four regions (Northeast, Midwest, North, and West) had the same trend of related tweets compared to the country as a whole. However, only the Northeast region had a high correlation (0.8-0.9) between the tweet count, new cases, and new deaths. For the second wave of confirmed new cases, the major contributing regions, South and West, did not ripple as many related tweets as the first wave. Our understanding is that the early news attracted more attention and discussion all over the U.S. in the first wave, even though some regions were not impacted as much as the Northeast at that time. The study can be expanded to more geographic and temporal scales, and with more physical and socioeconomic variables, with better data acquisition in the future.

Emotion Dysregulation and Conspiracy Beliefs about COVID-19: The Moderating Role of Critical Social Media Use

As COVID-19 has spread worldwide, conspiracy theories have proliferated rapidly on social media platforms, adversely affecting public health. For this reason, media literacy interventions have been highly recommended, although the impact of critical social media use on the development of COVID-19 conspiracy theories has not yet been empirically studied. Moreover, emotional dysregulation may play another crucial role in the development of such theories, as they are often associated with stress, anxiety, lack of control, and other negative emotions. Therefore, the aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that emotion dysregulation would be positively associated with conspiracy beliefs about COVID-19 and that critical use of social media would attenuate this association. Data from 930 Italian participants (339 men and 591 women) were collected online during the third wave of the COVID-19 outbreak. A moderated model was tested using the PROCESS Macro for SPSS. Results showed that: (1) emotion dysregulation and critical social media use accounted for a significant proportion of the variance in conspiracy beliefs about COVID-19; and (2) critical social media use moderated the effect of emotion dysregulation on conspiracy beliefs about COVID-19. Implications for preventing the spread of conspiracy theories are discussed.

Red media, blue media, and misperceptions: examining a moderated serial mediation model of partisan media use and COVID-19 misperceptions

Misinformation and misperceptions about COVID-19 have undermined democratic system. Partisan media are regarded as one of the culprits for facilitating the spread of misinformation. Grounded in the extended communication mediation model, this study analyzes a U.S. survey sample and examines the conditional indirect effects of partisan media use on COVID-19 related misperceptions. Findings show that using conservative and liberal media both have positive effects on misperceptions and message derogation. Conservative media use has a negative impact on perceived response efficacy, whereas liberal media use positively influenced it. Furthermore, the effect of liberal media use on misperceptions became negative when serially mediated by perceived response efficacy and message derogation. Lastly, discussion network heterogeneity was a significant moderator, such that the indirect effects of partisan media use on misperceptions became weaker among those with a more heterogeneous discussion network. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12144-022-03772-x.

Contextualized impacts of an infodemic on vaccine hesitancy: The moderating role of socioeconomic and cultural factors

This study examines how perceived information overload and misinformation affect vaccine hesitancy and how this is moderated by structural and cultural factors. By applying and extending the fundamental cause theory, this study proposes a contextualized impact model to analyze a cross-national survey of 6034 residents in six societies in Asia, Europe and North America in June 2021. The study finds that (1) Older and highly-educated participants were less susceptible to COVID-19 information overload and belief in vaccine misinformation. (2) Perceived information overload led to an increase in vaccine acceptance and uptake, whereas belief in vaccine misinformation caused a decrease. (3) The structural differentiation of vaccine hesitancy was salient and higher socioeconomic status could buffer the negative impact of misinformation on vaccine acceptance. (4) Cultural factors such as collectivism and authoritarian mentality also served as buffers against the misinformation that reduced vaccine acceptance and uptake. These findings add nuanced footnotes to the fundamental causes theory and contribute to the discussion on the global recovery from the infodemic. Besides fact-checking and improving individual information literacy, effective and long-term information management and health policies must pay attention to stratified information gaps across socioeconomic groups, and to contextualize the communication and intervention strategies in different cultures.

An Ecological Theory Application and Expansion to the COVID-19 Pandemic's Impact on African Americans and Contributors to Vaccine Hesitancy

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted numerous social and health disparities within the United States, particularly those that impact African Americans. African Americans have been overrepresented in the number of COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths and have demonstrated lower vaccine inoculation compared to other ethnic groups. This article applies Urie Bronfenbrenner's Ecological Theory to the disproportionate impact the COVID-19 pandemic has had on African Americans and contributors to vaccine hesitancy while offering an expansion to the theory utilizing the Health Belief Model. The Health Belief Model was utilized to address the intervention limitations of the Ecological Theory as the better determine which system(s) would be most advantageous to for health intervention(s). This article extends the social work knowledge base and application by offering implications for practice and research.

Conservative Media Use and COVID-19 Related Behavior: The Moderating Role of Media Literacy Variables

At the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was no vaccine to cure or slow its impact due to the novelty of the virus, nor were there were any other standardized measures to handle its spread. Yet, despite the detrimental consequences of the pandemic and its impact on people's lives, the behavior of individuals to combat the pandemic was not necessarily consistent with official guidelines. To make things worse, the pandemic was highly politicized in countries such as the U.S. With a help of a national survey from the U.S., we examine the associations between media literacy variables and willingness to perform recommended COVID-19 related health behavior. Moreover, we also examine the moderating role of conservative media use in this relationship. Our findings show that conservative media use was negatively associated with these protective behaviors, and that both media literacy variables were positively related with willingness to perform recommended COVID-19 related health behavior. Our results show that media literacy can mitigate some of the impact of conservative media use on individuals. Our findings help understand the complexity of protective behavior against the virus during a highly politicized pandemic.

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and political ideation among college students in Central New York: The influence of differential media choice

•

News sources are central in predicting college students’ COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy.

•

Conservative political ideology promotes the consumption of right wing media.

•

Right wing media consumption is associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy.

•

Gender indirectly affects hesitancy through political ideology and news consumption.

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is context specific and highly dynamic in the United States. The objective of this study was to examine the underlying causes of COVID-19 vaccine use and hesitancy among students at two colleges in Central New York (USA) in order to better understand how to promote vaccination in this demographic. A Knowledge, Attitudes, Beliefs & Behaviors survey was designed to measure the relationship between gender, political ideology, media consumption, beliefs, mental health and anxiety, and pandemic-related behaviors. The survey was distributed by email to students in April 2021. Of 8,894 eligible respondents, 627 students completed the survey. Structural Equation Modeling was utilized to explore both direct and indirect relationships. Modeling suggests that the effect of political ideology (being more conservative) is to promote the consumption of right wing news, which in turn tends to increase vaccine hesitancy. Conservative political ideology does not directly lead to vaccine hesitancy, but it does encourage the consumption of news from sources that promote fear and hesitation about the vaccines. News sources significantly contribute to vaccine attitudes among this demographic.

COVID-19 vaccine misinformation in English-language news media: retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

To describe COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and track trends over time in traditional news media.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study of a large database of online articles, July 2020-June 2021.

SETTING

English-language articles from 100 news outlets with the greatest reach.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Numbers and percentages of articles containing COVID-19 vaccine misinformation over the study period. Further analysis by misinformation themes and whether articles included primary misinformation, fact-checking or simply referred to misinformation.

RESULTS

41 718 (3.2% of all COVID-19 vaccine articles) contained at least one of the vaccine misinformation themes based on the Boolean string developed for this study. The volume of such articles increased beginning in November 2020, but their percentage of all articles remained essentially stable after October 2020. 56.2% contained at least one mention of a safety theme, followed by development, production, and distribution (26.6%), and conspiracies (15.1%). Of 500 articles through January 2021 randomly selected from those identified by the Boolean string, 223 were not relevant, and 277 included either fact-checking (175 articles), refers to misinformation (87 articles) or primary misinformation (15 articles). In eight study weeks, the reach of these 277 articles (defined as visitors to the sites containing the articles) exceeded 250 million people. Fact-checking accounted for 69.6% of all reach for these articles and the number of such articles increased after November 2020. Overall, approximately 0.1% (95% CI 0.05% to 0.16%) of all articles on COVID-19 vaccines in our sample contained primary misinformation.

CONCLUSIONS

COVID-19 vaccine misinformation in traditional news media is uncommon but has the capacity to reach large numbers of readers and affect the vaccine conversation. Recent increases in fact-checking may counteract some of the misinformation currently circulating.

Vaccinating across the aisle: using co-partisan source cues to encourage COVID-19 vaccine uptake in the ideological right

Overcoming the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States will require most Americans to vaccinate against the disease. However, considerable research suggests that a significant proportion of Americans intend to forego vaccination, putting pandemic recovery at risk. Republicans are one of the largest groups of COVID-19 vaccine hesitant individuals. Therefore, identifying strategies to reduce vaccine hesitancy within this group is vital to ending the pandemic. In this study, we investigate the effectiveness of messages from co-partisan sources in reducing vaccine hesitancy. In a large (N = 3000) and demographically representative survey, we find that exposing “Middle-of-the-Road” partisans to pro-vaccine messages from co-partisan source cues reduces vaccine hesitancy. However, for those who identify as “Strong” or “Weak” partisans, we find no statistically significant differences in vaccination intentions when exposed to pro-vaccine messages from co-partisan sources. We conclude by discussing how our findings are helpful for vaccine communication efforts.

Whistling Through the COVID-19 Pandemic: Optimism Bias and Political Beliefs in the United States

Utilizing a nationally representative survey of Americans from December 2020, we consider the degree to which COVID-19 risk perceptions are related to political factors. We examine the likelihood that one believes they will be infected with COVID-19, the likelihood that a peer will be infected, and the difference between the individual and peer perceived risks, known as optimism bias, and compare these perceptions across partisan characteristics. Results show that Trump voting category is the most important contributor to perceived COVID-19 risks. We find similar partisan differences as prior research, note that these differences persisted through the end of 2020, despite the post-Thanksgiving surge with high and growing rates of COVID in all regions of the United States. Contrary to prior expectations, partisanship does not strongly predict the level of optimism bias, as both assessed personal and general health risks track closely with one another by both political party and ideology.

Psychological underpinnings of pandemic denial - patterns of disagreement with scientific experts in the German public during the COVID-19 pandemic

We investigated pandemic denial in the general public in Germany after the first wave of COVID-19 in May 2020. Using latent class analysis, we compared patterns of disagreement with claims about (a) the origin, spread, or infectiousness of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and (b) the personal risk from COVID-19 between scientific laypersons (N = 1,575) and scientific experts (N = 128). Two groups in the general public differed distinctively from expert evaluations. The Dismissive (8%) are characterized by low-risk assessment, low compliance with containment measures, and mistrust in politicians. The Doubtful (19%) are characterized by low cognitive reflection, high uncertainty in the distinction between true and false claims, and high social media intake. Our research indicates that pandemic denial cannot be linked to a single and distinct pattern of psychological dispositions but involves different subgroups within the general population that share high COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs and low beliefs in epistemic complexity.

Does media slant polarize compliance with science-based public health recommendations? Effects of media consumption patterns on COVID-19 attitudes and behaviors in the United States

Has political polarization undermined the media' informational role during the COVID-19 pandemic? Recent studies show that politicized reporting from conservative media discouraged compliance with COVID-19 guidelines in the U.S. However, greater attention to the 24-hour news cycle may make high-consumption viewers better factually informed regardless of the source. We examine how the extent of media consumption affects people's emotions, attitudes, and behaviors toward the pandemic. With an online survey of 1128 respondents, we found a strong convergence in anxiety and health-protective behaviors in more avid media viewers regardless of media outlet while finding a divergence in attitudes toward specific mitigation strategies.

Predictors of COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance and Hesitancy among Healthcare Workers in Southern California: Not Just "Anti" vs. "Pro" Vaccine

In this study, we evaluated the status of and attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccination of healthcare workers in two major hospital systems (academic and private) in Southern California. Responses were collected via an anonymous and voluntary survey from a total of 2491 participants, including nurses, physicians, other allied health professionals, and administrators. Among the 2491 participants that had been offered the vaccine at the time of the study, 2103 (84%) were vaccinated. The bulk of the participants were middle-aged college-educated White (73%), non-Hispanic women (77%), and nursing was the most represented medical occupation (35%). Political affiliation, education level, and income were shown to be significant factors associated with vaccination status. Our data suggest that the current allocation of healthcare workers into dichotomous groups such as "anti-vaccine vs. pro-vaccine" may be inadequate in accurately tailoring vaccine uptake interventions. We found that healthcare workers that have yet to receive the COVID-19 vaccine likely belong to one of four categories: the misinformed, the undecided, the uninformed, or the unconcerned. This diversity in vaccine hesitancy among healthcare workers highlights the importance of targeted intervention to increase vaccine confidence. Regardless of governmental vaccine mandates, addressing the root causes contributing to vaccine hesitancy continues to be of utmost importance.

COVID-19 News and Misinformation: Do They Matter for Public Health Prevention?

An infodemic caused by a rampant spread of a mixture of correct and incorrect information in a connected world creates uncertainty about and dismissal of proven public health measures. Two key factors that can influence COVID-19 preventive behaviors are information and self-efficacy. Misinformation (inaccurate or misleading information) can modify people's attitudes and behaviors and deter them from following preventive behaviors. Self-efficacy, on the other hand, has been linked to the likelihood to engaging in preventive behaviors. This cross-sectional study used a nationally representative survey of Americans from 2020 to determine the associations between (1) COVID-19 news sources and COVID-19 misinformation and (2) COVID-19 misinformation and COVID-19 prevention self-efficacy, using multivariable logistic regression. Results indicate that reliance on conservative sources for COVID-19 news is significantly associated with endorsing COVID-19 misinformation. In contrast, reliance on liberal sources, mainstream print, or social media for COVID-19 news are significantly negatively associated with endorsing COVID-19 misinformation. Furthermore, endorsing COVID-19 misinformation is related to low COVID-19 prevention self-efficacy, which, in turn, can modify COVID-19 preventive behaviors. These findings suggest that customizing health messages to debunk misinformation and increase self-efficacy for preventive behaviors can motivate individuals to comply with preventive behaviors and protect themselves from COVID-19.

COVID-19 and Motivated Reasoning: The Influence of Knowledge on COVID-Related Policy and Health Behavior

Objective

The spread of misinformation about COVID-19 severely influences the governments' ability to address the COVID-19 pandemic. This study explores the predictors of accurate beliefs about COVID-19 and its influence on COVID-related policy and behavior.

Methods

Data from an original survey collected by Lucid in July 2020 are used. Ordinary Least Squares regression (OLS) is used to predict accurate beliefs about COVID-19. Ordered logistic regression models are estimated to examine the relationship between COVID-19 knowledge, policy preferences, and health behavior intentions.

Results

Ideology and education were found to have a positive effect on knowledge about COVID-19. Moreover, low levels of knowledge about COVID-19 were found to reduce support for mandatory vaccination policy and willingness to get a coronavirus vaccine when available.

Conclusion

These findings will help policymakers develop communication strategies for the public on the coronavirus vaccination.

The Relationship Between Social Media Use and Beliefs in Conspiracy Theories and Misinformation

Numerous studies find associations between social media use and beliefs in conspiracy theories and misinformation. While such findings are often interpreted as evidence that social media causally promotes conspiracy beliefs, we theorize that this relationship is conditional on other individual-level predispositions. Across two studies, we examine the relationship between beliefs in conspiracy theories and media use, finding that individuals who get their news from social media and use social media frequently express more beliefs in some types of conspiracy theories and misinformation. However, we also find that these relationships are conditional on conspiracy thinking--the predisposition to interpret salient events as products of conspiracies--such that social media use becomes more strongly associated with conspiracy beliefs as conspiracy thinking intensifies. This pattern, which we observe across many beliefs from two studies, clarifies the relationship between social media use and beliefs in dubious ideas.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11109-021-09734-6.

Is COVID-19 Immune to Misinformation? A Brief Overview

During the current COVID-19 pandemic, misinformation is a major challenge, raising several social and psychological concerns. This article highlights the prevailing misinformation as an outbreak containing hoaxes, myths, and rumours. In comparison to traditional media, online media platforms facilitate misinformation even more widely. To further affirm this ethical concern, the researchers cite relevant studies demonstrating the role of new media in misinformation and its potential consequences. Besides other significant psychosocial impacts, such as xenophobia, psychological distress, LGBT rights violation, gender-based violence, misinformation is undermining healthcare workers' psychological health and their efforts to mitigate the impact of COVID-19. In view of the adverse consequences of misinformation, this article addresses it as a massive ethical challenge during the current outbreak. Thus, the researchers make relevant suggestions to evaluate misinformation sources and mitigate the psychosocial impacts attributed to misinformation during crises. They include forming mental health teams comprising of psychologists, psychiatrists, and trained paramedical staff; rapid dissemination of authentic and updated COVID-19 situation reports regularly; establishing helpline services; and recognizing a broader range of personal needs. All health authorities should make clear that they are listening and responding to public concerns. Much effort is needed to counteract COVID-19 misinformation.

Individual and social determinants of COVID-19 vaccine uptake

Background

COVID-19 has had a devastating impact and efforts are being made to speed up vaccinations. The growing problem of vaccine hesitancy may affect the uptake of COVID-19 vaccine. We examined the individual, communication and social determinants associated with vaccines uptake.

Methods

Data come from a nationwide online probability-based panel of 1012 representative adults in the United States and the survey was conducted before the vaccines were available. People under the federal poverty level and racial and ethnic minorities were oversampled. Our outcome variables of interest were likelihood of vaccinating self and likelihood of vaccinating people under one’s care (such as children) measuring behavioral intentions. Independent variables included perceptions of risk, exposure to different media for COVID-19 news, political party identification, confidence in scientists and social determinants of health. Logistic regression analysis was used to ascertain the effects of independent variables on the two outcome variables.

Results

The results indicated that 68 and 65% agreed to get the vaccine for themselves and people under their care, respectively. Risk perceptions (severity of and susceptibility to COVID-19) were significantly associated with vaccine uptake. People who relied on “conservative” news outlets, Republicans, and who had low confidence in scientists are least likely to vaccinate self or children. Non-Hispanic Blacks and those with least schooling were also less likely to receive vaccine for themselves or people in their care.

Conclusions

Our study identified race/ethnicity, risk perceptions, exposure to different media for COVID-19 news, party identification and confidence in scientists as factors that would be affecting COVID-19 vaccine uptake. The good news is that these are addressable through strategic public health communications, but a lot of work remains to be done with some urgency.

Patterns of Media Use, Strength of Belief in COVID-19 Conspiracy Theories, and the Prevention of COVID-19 From March to July 2020 in the United States: Survey Study

BACKGROUND

Holding conspiracy beliefs regarding the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States has been associated with reductions in both actions to prevent the spread of the infection (eg, mask wearing) and intentions to accept a vaccine when one becomes available. Patterns of media use have also been associated with acceptance of COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs. Here we ask whether the type of media on which a person relies increased, decreased, or had no additional effect on that person's COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs over a 4-month period.

OBJECTIVE

We used panel data to explore whether use of conservative and social media in the United States, which were previously found to be positively related to holding conspiracy beliefs about the origins and prevention of COVID-19, were associated with a net increase in the strength of those beliefs from March to July of 2020. We also asked whether mainstream news sources, which were previously found to be negatively related to belief in pandemic-related conspiracies, were associated with a net decrease in the strength of such beliefs over the study period. Additionally, we asked whether subsequent changes in pandemic conspiracy beliefs related to the use of media were also related to subsequent mask wearing and vaccination intentions.

METHODS

A survey that we conducted with a national US probability sample in March of 2020 and again in July with the same 840 respondents assessed belief in pandemic-related conspiracies, use of various types of media information sources, actions taken to prevent the spread of the disease and intentions to vaccinate, and various demographic characteristics. Change across the two waves was analyzed using path analytic techniques.

RESULTS

We found that conservative media use predicted an increase in conspiracy beliefs (β=.17, 99% CI .10-.25) and that reliance on mainstream print predicted a decrease in their belief (β=-.08, 99% CI -.14 to -.02). Although many social media platforms reported downgrading or removing false or misleading content, ongoing use of such platforms by respondents predicted growth in conspiracy beliefs as well (β=.072, 99% CI .018-.123). Importantly, conspiracy belief changes related to media use between the two waves of the study were associated with the uptake of mask wearing and changes in vaccination intentions in July. Unlike other media, use of mainstream broadcast television predicted greater mask wearing (β=.17, 99% CI .09-.26) and vaccination intention (β=.08, 95% CI .02-.14), independent of conspiracy beliefs.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings point to the need for greater efforts on the part of commentators, reporters, and guests on conservative media to report verifiable information about the pandemic. The results also suggest that social media platforms need to be more aggressive in downgrading, blocking, and counteracting claims about COVID-19 vaccines, claims about mask wearing, and conspiracy beliefs that have been judged problematic by public health authorities.

Adherence to COVID-19 mitigation measures among American adults: the need for consistent and unified messaging

In the United States, elite and media communications about the risks of, and mitigation strategies for, COVID-19 have been characterized by lack of consensus. In this study, we draw from a nationally representative sample of American adults to examine the associations between exposure to different media and platforms (mainstream, conservative, liberal or social media) and adherence to COVID-19 mitigation measures such as physical distancing and mask use. We also examine the individual and social factors associated with adherence to mitigation measures. We find that exposure to conservative outlets, being republican, having low confidence in scientists and high perception of information overload are associated with low adherence. In contrast, exposure to liberal and mainstream news outlets, being democrat, having high confidence in scientists, and low perception of information overload are associated with high adherence. The findings suggest the need for consistent and unified public health messaging that cuts across partisan splits and the growing skepticism in science.

Association of Political Party Affiliation With Physical Distancing Among Young Adults During the COVID-19 Pandemic

This cross-sectional study estimates the association of political party affiliation with physical distancing behaviors among young adults during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.

Re-thinking Information Ethics: Truth, Conspiracy Theories, and Librarians in the COVID-19 Era

The COVID-19 pandemic is an international public health crisis without precedent in the last century. The novelty and rapid spread of the virus have added a new urgency to the availability and distribution of reliable information to help curb its fatal potential. As seasoned and trusted purveyors of reliable public information, librarians have attempted to respond to the “infodemic” of fake news, disinformation, and propaganda with a variety of strategies, but the COVID-19 pandemic presents a unique challenge because of the deadly stakes involved. The seriousness of the current situation requires that librarians and associated professionals re-evaluate the ethical basis of their approach to information provision to counter the growing prominence of conspiracy theories in the public sphere and official decision making. This paper analyzes the conspiracy mindset and specific COVID-19 conspiracy theories in discussing how libraries might address the problems of truth and untruth in ethically sound ways. As a contribution to the re-evaluation we propose, the paper presents an ethical framework based on alethic rights—or rights to truth—as conceived by Italian philosopher Franca D’Agostini and how these might inform professional approaches that support personal safety, open knowledge, and social justice.

The impact of COVID-19 among Black women: evaluating perspectives and sources of information

OBJECTIVES

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has burgeoned into a pandemic that highlights the countless social and health disparities that have existed in Black communities within the United States for centuries. Recent epidemiological data show that Black communities are being disproportionately impacted by COVID-19, resulting in higher morbidity and mortality rates compared to other racial and ethnic groups. For Black women in particular, a long-standing history of systemic racism and marginalization has resulted in increased vulnerability and susceptibility to certain adverse health outcomes. Recent data show that COVID-19 knowledge rates among Black participants are low, and that Black women who become infected with COVID-19 have higher risks of complications and mortality compared to their non-Black counterparts. Given this data, there is a need to explore where and how Black women are obtaining information that pertains to COVID-19, along with the impacts that COVID-19 may be having on their daily lives.

DESIGN

We conducted interviews with 15 Black women who are clients at a community-based family service center to assess their understanding of COVID-19, determine how they were obtaining COVID-19 information, and evaluate the various impacts that COVID-19 was having on their lives. An initial codebook was developed based on the recorded interviews which included deductive and inductive codes. A thematic analysis of the data was then conducted using MaxQDA (Verbi Software), focusing on Black women's experiences related to COVID-19.

RESULTS

The majority of participants were using a combination of social media platforms and news sources to obtain information about COVID-19. Most participants (79%) expressed confusion, misunderstanding, and mistrust of the information that they were receiving about COVID-19.

CONCLUSION

In addressing COVID-19-related health disparities within Black communities, it is imperative for trusted entities and organizations within Black communities to provide accurate and tailored information regarding this novel virus.

Considering Emotion in COVID-19 Vaccine Communication: Addressing Vaccine Hesitancy and Fostering Vaccine Confidence

Long-term control of the COVID-19 pandemic hinges in part on the development and uptake of a preventive vaccine. In addition to a segment of population that refuses vaccines, the novelty of the disease and concerns over safety and efficacy of the vaccine have a sizable proportion of the U.S. indicating reluctance to getting vaccinated against COVID-19. Among various efforts to address vaccine hesitancy and foster vaccine confidence, evidence-based communication strategies are critical. There are opportunities to consider the role of emotion in communication efforts. In this commentary, we highlight several ways negative as well as positive emotions may be considered and leveraged. Examples include attending to negative emotions such as fear and anxiety, raising awareness of emotional manipulations by anti-vaccine disinformation efforts, and activating positive emotions such as altruism and hope as part of vaccine education endeavors.

An Investigation of Low COVID-19 Vaccination Intentions among Black Americans: The Role of Behavioral Beliefs and Trust in COVID-19 Information Sources

Developing a COVID-19 vaccine is a critical strategy for combatting the pandemic. However, for vaccination efforts to succeed, there must be widespread willingness to vaccinate. Prior research has found that Black Americans, who are disproportionately impacted by COVID-19, report lower intentions to get a vaccine than do other populations. We investigate two potential contributors to this disparity: COVID-19 vaccine-related behavioral beliefs and trust in four COVID-19 information sources (mainstream media, social media, President Trump, and public health officials and agencies). Using a nationally-representative survey (n= 889), we demonstrate that differences in vaccination beliefs explain the lower vaccination intentions reported by Black participants, compared to non-Black participants. However, while trust in information sources is associated with vaccination beliefs, differences in trust do not account for the observed differences in vaccination beliefs by race. Furthermore, we find that race moderates the relationships between trust in two sources (Trump and public health officials and agencies) and vaccination beliefs. The effects of trusting these sources on COVID-19 vaccine-related beliefs are smaller among Black participants; thus trust in these sources is less consequential to their pro-vaccination beliefs. Our results suggest that trust in information sources alone does not explain the observed relationship between race and vaccination beliefs.