The Roles of Information Valence,Media Literacy and Perceived Information Quality on the Association Between Frequent Social Media Exposure and COVID-19 Vaccination Intention
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online February, 2023
The Roles of Information Valence,Media Literacy and Perceived Information Quality on the Association Between Frequent Social Media Exposure and COVID-19 Vaccination Intention
This study aimed to examine the associations between frequent exposure to positive/negative information about vaccine efficacy/safety on social media and intention of COVID-19 vaccination, and to test if media literacy and perceived information quality would moderate such associations.
Design
A multi-city cross-sectional survey.
Setting
At five universities in different regions of China.
Subjects
6922 university students (a response rate of 72.3%).
Measures
frequency of exposure to social media information about COVID-19 vaccination, media literacy, perceived information quality, intention of COVID-19 vaccination, and sociodemographic characteristics.
Analysis
Logistic regression analysis was conducted to test main and interaction effects.
Results
Higher exposure to positive information about vaccine efficacy (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.30, P < .001) and vaccine safety (AOR = 1.27, P < .001) were positively associated with vaccination intention. No significant associations were shown between exposure to negative information about vaccine efficacy/safety and vaccination intention. Higher net exposure to negative vs positive information was negatively associated with vaccination intention (AOR = .82, P < .001). High media literacy was further found to attenuate the effect of negative information exposure and strengthen that of positive information exposure. Perceived information quality was not a significant moderator.
Conclusion
The valence of social media information regarding the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines and individuals’ media literacy jointly shaped COVID-19 vaccination intention. The findings can inform the development of effective health promotion strategies for enhancing COVID-19 vaccination.
GerbnerG. Cultivation analysis: An overview. Mass Commun Soc. 1998;1(3-4):175-194.
3.
GerbnerGGrossLMorganMSignorielliN. The “mainstreaming” of America: Violence profile number 11. J Commun. 1980;30(3):10-29.
4.
IslamMSKamalA-HMKabirA, et al.COVID-19 vaccine rumors and conspiracy theories: The need for cognitive inoculation against misinformation to improve vaccine adherence. PLoS One. 2021;16(5):e0251605.
5.
JamisonAMBroniatowskiDADredzeMSangraulaASmithMCQuinnSC. Not just conspiracy theories: Vaccine opponents and proponents add to the COVID-19 ‘infodemic’on Twitter. Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review. 2020;1(3).
6.
LoombaSde FigueiredoAPiatekSJde GraafKLarsonHJ. Measuring the impact of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation on vaccination intent in the UK and USA. Nat Human Behav. 2021;5(3):337-348.
7.
AllingtonDMcAndrewSMoxham-HallVDuffyB. Coronavirus conspiracy suspicions, general vaccine attitudes, trust and coronavirus information source as predictors of vaccine hesitancy among UK residents during the COVID-19 pandemic [Online ahead of print]. Psychol Med. 2021:1-12.
8.
PanYXinMZhangC, et al.Associations of mental health and personal preventive measure compliance with exposure to COVID-19 information during work resumption following the COVID-19 outbreak in China: Cross-sectional survey study. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(10):e22596.
9.
Al-DmourHMasa’dehRSalmanAAbuhasheshMAl-DmourR. Influence of social media platforms on public health protection against the COVID-19 pandemic via the mediating effects of public health awareness and behavioral changes: Integrated model. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(8):e19996.
10.
AllingtonDDuffyBWesselySDhavanNRubinJ. Health-protective behaviour, social media usage and conspiracy belief during the COVID-19 public health emergency. Psychol Med. 2020:1-7.
11.
LongJLiuT-QLiaoY-H, et al.Prevalence and correlates of problematic smartphone use in a large random sample of Chinese undergraduates. BMC Psychiatr. 2016;16(1):408.
12.
Zeballos RivasDRLopez JaldinMLNina CanaviriBPortugal EscalanteLFAlanes FernándezAMCAguilar TiconaJP. Social media exposure, risk perception, preventive behaviors and attitudes during the COVID-19 epidemic in La Paz, Bolivia: A cross sectional study. PLoS One. 2021;16(1):e0245859.
13.
Mat DawiNNamaziHHwangHJIsmailSMaresovaPKrejcarO. Attitude toward protective behavior engagement during COVID-19 pandemic in Malaysia: The role of e-government and social media. 2021;9(113).
14.
RuizJBBellRA. Predictors of intention to vaccinate against COVID-19: Results of a nationwide survey. Vaccine. 2021;39(7):1080-1086.
15.
Piltch-LoebRSavoiaEGoldbergB, et al.Examining the effect of information channel on COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. PLoS One. 2021;16(5):e0251095.
16.
ZhuDXieXGanY. Information source and valence: How information credibility influences earthquake risk perception. J Environ Psychol. 2011;31(2):129-136.
17.
UnkelbachCAlvesHKochA. Chapter three - negativity bias, positivity bias, and valence asymmetries: Explaining the differential processing of positive and negative information. In: GawronskiB, ed. Adv Exp Soc Psychol. 2020;62:115-187.
18.
CacioppoJTBerntsonGG. Relationship between attitudes and evaluative space: A critical review, with emphasis on the separability of positive and negative substrates. 1994;115(3):401.
19.
JohnsonNFVelásquezNRestrepoNJ, et al.The online competition between pro- and anti-vaccination views. Nature. 2020;582(7811):230-233.
20.
HouZTongYDuF, et al.Assessing COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, confidence, and public engagement: A global social listening study. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23(6):e27632.
21.
NanXMaddenK. HPV vaccine information in the blogosphere: how positive and negative blogs influence vaccine-related risk perceptions, attitudes, and behavioral intentions. Health Commun. 2012;27(8):829-836.
22.
MargolisMABrewerNTShahPDCaloWAGilkeyMB. Stories about HPV vaccine in social media, traditional media, and conversations. Prev Med. 2019;118:251-256.
23.
BetschCSchmidPHeinemeierDKornLHoltmannCBöhmR. Beyond confidence: Development of a measure assessing the 5C psychological antecedents of vaccination. PLoS One. 2018;13(12):e0208601.
24.
ShermanSMSmithLESimJ, et al.COVID-19 vaccination intention in the UK: Results from the COVID-19 vaccination acceptability study (CoVAccS), a nationally representative cross-sectional survey. Hum Vaccines Immunother2021;17(6):1612-1621.
25.
SchwarzingerMWatsonVArwidsonPAllaFLuchiniS. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in a representative working-age population in France: A survey experiment based on vaccine characteristics. Lancet Public Health. 2021;6(4):e210-e221.
26.
FreemanDLoeBSChadwickA, et al.COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the UK: The Oxford coronavirus explanations, attitudes, and narratives survey (Oceans) II. Psychol Med. 2020:1-15.
27.
McLeanSAPaxtonSJWertheimEH. The role of media literacy in body dissatisfaction and disordered eating: A systematic review. Body Image. 2016;19:9-23.
28.
JeongSHChoHHwangY. Media literacy interventions: A meta-analytic review. J Commun. 2012;62(3).
29.
ChongYYChengHYChanHYLChienWTWongSYS. COVID-19 pandemic, infodemic and the role of eHealth literacy. Int J Nurs Stud. 2020;108:103644.
30.
NiuZWangTHuPMeiJTangZ. Chinese public’s engagement in preventive and intervening health behaviors during the early breakout of COVID-19: Cross-sectional study. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(8):e19995.
31.
PatilUKostarevaUHadleyM, et al.Health literacy, digital health literacy, and COVID-19 pandemic attitudes and behaviors in U.S. College students: Implications for interventions. Int J Environ Res Publ Health. 2021;18(6):3301.
32.
PotterWJ. Examining cultivation from a psychological perspective: Component subprocesses. Commun Res. 1991;18(1):77-102.
33.
MeppelinkCSSmitEGFransenMLDivianiN. “I was right about vaccination”: Confirmation bias and health literacy in online health information seeking. J Health Commun. 2019;24(2):129-140.
34.
FuLYZookKSpoehr-LabuttaZHuPJosephJG. Search engine ranking, quality, and content of web pages that are critical versus noncritical of human papillomavirus vaccine. J Adolesc Health. 2016;58(1):33-39.
35.
LeeYWStrongDMKahnBKWangRY. AIMQ: A methodology for information quality assessment. Inf Manag. 2002;40(2):133-146.
36.
PettyRECacioppoJT. The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Communication and Persuasion: Springer; 1986:1-24.
37.
O’KeefeDJ. The elaboration likelihood model. In: DillardJPShenL, eds. The Sage handbook of persuasion: Developments in theory and practice. 2nd ed.Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2013:137-149.
38.
GhasemaghaeiMHassaneinK. A macro model of online information quality perceptions: A review and synthesis of the literature. Comput Hum Behav. 2016;55:972-991.
39.
MoPK-hLuoSWangS, et al.Intention to receive the COVID-19 vaccination in China: Application of the diffusion of innovations theory and the moderating role of openness to experience. Vaccines. 2021;9(2):129.
40.
BartschSMO’SheaKJFergusonMC, et al.Vaccine efficacy needed for a COVID-19 coronavirus vaccine to prevent or stop an epidemic as the sole intervention. Am J Prev Med. 2020;59(4):493-503.
41.
LazarusJVRatzanSCPalayewA, et al.A global survey of potential acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine. Nat Med. 2021;27(2):225-228.
42.
KrepsSPrasadSBrownsteinJS, et al.Factors associated with US Adults’ likelihood of accepting COVID-19 vaccination. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(10):e2025594.
43.
AustinEWPinkletonBERadanielina-HitaMLRanW. The role of parents’ critical thinking about media in shaping expectancies, efficacy and nutrition behaviors for families. Health Commun. 2015;30(12):1256-1268.
44.
AustinEWMuldrowAAustinBW. Examining how media literacy and personality factors predict skepticism toward alcohol advertising. J Health Commun. 2016;21(5):600-609.
ChristensenPAOlsenRJLongSW, et al.Signals of significantly increased vaccine breakthrough, decreased hospitalization rates, and less severe disease in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 caused by the omicron variant of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in Houston, Texas. Am J Pathol. 2022;192(4):642-652.
47.
CollieSChampionJMoultrieHBekkerL-GGrayG. Effectiveness of BNT162b2 vaccine against omicron variant in South Africa. N Engl J Med. 2022;386(5):494-496.
48.
WaltzE. Does the world need an Omicron vaccine? What researchers say. Nature. 2022;602(7896):192-193.
49.
YinFWuZXiaXJiMWangYHuZ. Unfolding the determinants of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance in China. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23(1):e26089.
50.
ZhangKCFangYCaoH, et al.Behavioral intention to receive a COVID-19 vaccination among chinese factory workers: Cross-sectional online survey. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23(3):e24673.
51.
HortonR. Offline: Managing the COVID-19 vaccine infodemic. Lancet. 2020;396(10261):1474.
52.
NiLChenYWde BrujinO. Towards understanding socially influenced vaccination decision making: An integrated model of multiple criteria belief modelling and social network analysis. Eur J Oper Res. 2021;293(1):276-289.
53.
BurkiT. The online anti-vaccine movement in the age of COVID-19. Lancet Digit Health. 2020;2(10):e504-e505.
54.
ChenKLuoYHuAZhaoJZhangL. Characteristics of misinformation spreading on social media during the COVID-19 outbreak in China: A descriptive analysis. Risk Manag Healthc Pol. 2021;14:1869-1879.
55.
DadaczynskiKOkanOMesserM, et al.Digital health literacy and web-based information-seeking behaviors of university students in Germany during the COVID-19 pandemic: Cross-sectional survey study. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23(1):e24097.
56.
VahediZSibalisASutherlandJE. Are media literacy interventions effective at changing attitudes and intentions towards risky health behaviors in adolescents? A meta-analytic review. J Adolesc. 2018;67:140-152.
57.
SasakiTBeckerDVJanssenMANeelR. Does greater product information actually inform consumer decisions? The relationship between product information quantity and diversity of consumer decisions. J Econ Psychol. 2011;32(3):391-398.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
