Verification Upon Exposure to COVID-19 Misinformation: Predictors,Outcomes,and the Mediating Role of Verification

Abstract

This study proposes a theory-oriented model that examines the predictors and outcomes of people’s verification of COVID-19 misinformation. Using an online experiment with 400 U.S. adults, this study showed that those who believed that others might be influenced by misinformation and that such influence had serious consequences for others as well as those with a higher level of fear and anxiety were more likely to perform institutional verification by using search engines, prestigious medical sites, or fact-checking sites. The intention to conduct institutional verification increased individuals’ efficacy beliefs regarding correcting misinformation, which motivated them to correct misinformation on social media.

Keywords

COVID-19 misinformation verification fear anxiety the influence of presumed influence

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Baek

Y. M.

Kang

Kim

(2019). Fake news should be regulated because it influences both “others” and “me”: How and why the influence of presumed influence model should be extended. Mass Communication and Society, 22(3), 301–323. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2018.1562076

Beck

A. T.

Emery

Greenberg

R. L.

(2005). Anxiety disorders and phobias: A cognitive perspective. Basic Books.

Bursztyn

Rao

Roth

C. P.

Yanagizawa-Drott

D. H.

Roth

Yanagizawa-Drott

Alesina

Candelaria

Cantoni

Caprettini

Dix

Droste

Ferrara

La Glaeser

Han

Mattheis

Nunn

Obermeyer

Perez-Truglia

. . . Zhao

(2020). Misinformation during a pandemic. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w27417/w27417.pdf

Chen

Feeley

T. H.

(2014). Numeracy, information seeking, and self-efficacy in managing health: An analysis using the 2007 Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS). Health Communication, 29(9), 843–853. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2013.807904

Cheng

Chen

Z. F.

(2020). The influence of presumed fake news influence: Examining public support for corporate corrective response, media literacy interventions, and governmental regulation. Mass Communication and Society, 23(5), 705–729. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2020.1750656

Chia

S. C.

(2006). How peers mediate media influence on adolescents’ sexual attitudes and sexual behavior. Journal of Communication, 56(3), 585–606. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00302.x

Davison

W. P.

(1983). The Third-person effect in communication. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1086/268763

Edgerly

Mourão

R. R.

Thorson

Tham

S. M.

(2020). When do audiences verify? How perceptions about message and source influence audience verification of news headlines. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 97(1), 52–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699019864680

Fallis

(2004). On verifying the accuracy of information: Philosophical perspectives. Library Trends, 52(3), 463–487.

10.

Flanagin

A. J.

Metzger

M. J.

(2000). Perceptions of Internet information credibility. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 77(3), 515–540. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900007700304

11.

Flanagin

A. J.

Metzger

M. J.

(2007). The role of site features, user attributes, and information verification behaviors on the perceived credibility of web-based information. New Media & Society, 9(2), 319–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444807075015

12.

Fornell

Larcker

D. F.

(1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104

13.

Goldstein

C. M.

Murray

E. J.

Beard

Schnoes

A. M.

Wang

M. L.

(2020). Science communication in the age of misinformation. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 54(12), 985–990. https://doi.org/10.1093/abm/kaaa088

14.

Gunther

A. C.

Bolt

Borzekowski

D. L. G.

Liebhart

J. L.

Dillard

J. P.

(2006). Presumed influence on peer norms: How mass media indirectly affect adolescent smoking. Journal of Communication, 56(1), 52–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00002.x

15.

Gunther

A. C.

Storey

J. D.

(2003). The influence of presumed influence. Journal of Communication, 53(2), 199–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2003.tb02586.x

16.

S. S.

Detenber

B. H.

Rosenthal

Lee

E. W. J.

(2014). Seeking information about climate change: Effects of media use in an extended PRISM. Science Communication, 36(3), 270–295. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547013520238

17.

Howard

M. C.

(n.d.). Sobel test formula for serial mediation/sequential mediation. https://mattchoward.com/sobel-test-formula-for-serial-mediation-sequential-mediation/

18.

Huang

Yang

Z. J.

(2018). Risk, affect, and policy support: Public perception of air pollution in China. Asian Journal of Communication, 28(3), 281–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/01292986.2017.1386220

19.

Izard

C. E.

(1977). Human emotions. Plenum Press.

20.

Izard

C. E.

Ackerman

B. P.

(2000). Motivational, organizational, and regulatory functions of discrete emotions. In Lewis

Haviland-Jones

J. M.

(Eds.), Handbook of emotions (Vol. 2, pp. 253–264). Guilford Press.

21.

Jackson

(1992). Message effects research: Principles of design and analysis. Guilford Press.

22.

Jun

Meng

Johar

G. V.

(2017). Perceived social presence reduces fact-checking. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(23), 5976–5981. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1700175114

23.

Kahlor

Dunwoody

Griffin

R. J.

Neuwirth

(2006). Seeking and processing information about impersonal risk. Science Communication, 28(2), 163–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547006293916

24.

Kaiser Family Foundation. (2021, November 8). KFF COVID-19 vaccine monitor: Media and misinformation. https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/poll-finding/kff-covid-19-vaccine-monitor-media-and-misinformation/

25.

Kees

Berry

Burton

Sheehan

(2017). An analysis of data quality: Professional panels, student subject pools, and Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Journal of Advertising, 46(1), 141–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2016.1269304

26.

Kim

H. J.

(2016). The role of emotions and culture in the third-person effect process of news coverage of election poll results. Communication Research, 43(1), 109–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650214558252

27.

Kuang

Wilson

S. R.

(2017). A meta-analysis of uncertainty and information management in illness contexts. Journal of Communication, 67(3), 378–401. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12299

28.

Kuhlthau

C. C.

(1991). Inside the search process: Information seeking from the user’s perspective. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42(5), 361–371.

29.

Lazarus

R. S.

(1991). Emotion and adaptation. Oxford University Press.

30.

Hmielowski

Yan

(2021). Clearing the smog? Examining the relationship between traditional media versus nontraditional internet-based media and risk information seeking in China. International Journal of Communication, 15, 4208–4229. http://ijoc.org

31.

Mason

Suri

(2012). Conducting behavioral research on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods, 44(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0124-6

32.

Nabi

R. L.

(2003). Exploring the framing effects of emotion. Communication Research, 30(2), 224–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650202250881

33.

Nan

(2012). Communicating to young adults about HPV vaccination: Consideration of message framing, motivation, and gender. Health Communication, 27(1), 10–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2011.567447

34.

Nee

R. C.

(2019). Youthquakes in a post-truth era: Exploring social media news use and information verification actions among global teens and young adults. Journalism and Mass Communication Educator, 74(2), 171–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077695818825215

35.

The New York Times. (2021, August 10). Virus misinformation spikes as Delta cases surge. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/10/technology/covid-delta-misinformation-surge.html

36.

H. J.

Lee

(2019). When do people verify and share health rumors on social media? The effects of message importance, health anxiety, and health literacy. Journal of Health Communication, 24(11), 837–847. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2019.1677824

37.

Öhman

(2008). Fear and anxiety: Overlaps and dissociations. In Lewis

Haviland-Jones

J. M.

Barrett

L. F.

(Eds.), Handbook of emotions (pp. 709–728). The Guilford Press.

38.

Pew Research Center. (2020, April 15). Early in outbreak, Americans cited claims about risk level and details of coronavirus as made-up news. https://www.journalism.org/2020/04/15/early-in-outbreak-americans-cited-claims-about-risk-level-and-details-of-coronavirus-as-made-up-news/

39.

Ramírez

A. S.

Freres

Martinez

L. S.

Lewis

Bourgoin

Kelly

B. J.

Lee

C. J.

Nagler

Schwartz

J. S.

Hornik

R. C.

(2013). Information seeking from media and family/friends increases the likelihood of engaging in healthy lifestyle behaviors. Journal of Health Communication, 18(5), 527–542. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2012.743632

40.

Rimal

R. N.

(2001). Perceived risk and self-efficacy as motivators: Understanding individuals’ long-term use of health information. Journal of Communication, 51(4), 633–654. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2001.tb02900.x

41.

Robertson

C. T.

Mourão

R. R.

Thorson

(2020). Who uses fact-checking sites? The impact of demographics, political antecedents, and media use on fact-checking site awareness, attitudes, and behavior. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 25(2), 217–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161219898055

42.

Rogers

R. W.

(1983). Cognitive and psychological processes in fear appeals and attitude change: A revised theory of protection motivation. In Cacioppo

J. T.

Petty

R. E.

(Eds.), Social psychophysiology: A sourcebook (pp. 153–176). The Guilford Press.

43.

Roseman

I. J.

Smith

C. A.

(2001). Appraisal theory. In Scherer

K. R.

Schorr

Johnstone

(Eds.), Appraisal processes in emotion: Theory, methods, research (pp. 3–19). Oxford University Press.

44.

Shaffer

J. A.

DeGeest

(2016). Tackling the problem of construct proliferation. Organizational Research Methods, 19(1), 80–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428115598239

45.

Shah

D. V.

Faber

R. J.

Youn

(1999). Susceptibility and severity: Perceptual dimensions underlying the third-person effect. Communication Research, 26(2), 240–267. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365099026002006

46.

(2013). A further extension of the extended parallel process model (E-EPPM): Implications of cognitive appraisal theory of emotion and dispositional coping style. Health Communication, 28(1), 72–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2012.708633

47.

Kuang

Cho

(2016). Reexamining fear appeal models from cognitive appraisal theory and functional emotion theory perspectives. Communication Monographs, 83(1), 120–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2015.1044257

48.

Stritch

J. M.

Pedersen

M. J.

Taggart

(2017). The opportunities and limitations of using Mechanical Turk (MTURK) in public administration and management scholarship. International Public Management Journal, 20(3), 489–511. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2016.1276493

49.

Sun

(2013). When presumed influence turns real. In Dillard

J. P.

Shen

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of persuasion. Developments in theory and practice (2nd ed., pp. 371–387). SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452218410

50.

Sylvers

Lilienfeld

S. O.

LaPrairie

J. L.

(2011). Differences between trait fear and trait anxiety: Implications for psychopathology. Clinical Psychology Review, 31(1), 122–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2010.08.004

51.

Tal-Or

Tsfati

Gunther

A. C.

(2009). The influence of presumed media influence. In Nabi

R. L.

Oliver

M. B.

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of media processes and effects (pp. 99–112). SAGE.

52.

Tandoc

E. C.

Jr. Ling

Westlund

Duffy

Goh

Zheng Wei

(2018). Audiences’ acts of authentication in the age of fake news: A conceptual framework. New Media and Society, 20(8), 2745–2763. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817731756

53.

Taylor

A. B.

MacKinnon

D. P.

Tein

J.-Y.

(2008). Tests of the three-path mediated effect. Organizational Research Methods, 11(2), 241–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428107300344

54.

Torres

Gerhart

Negahban

(2018). Epistemology in the era of fake news: An exploration of information verification behaviors among social networking site users. SIGMIS Database, 49(3), 78–97. https://doi.org/10.1145/3242734.3242740

55.

Tsai

H. Y. S.

Jiang

Alhabash

Larose

Rifon

N. J.

Cotten

S. R.

(2016). Understanding online safety behaviors: A protection motivation theory perspective. Computers and Security, 59, 138–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2016.02.009

56.

Turner

M. M.

Rimal

R. N.

Morrison

Kim

(2006). The role of anxiety in seeking and retaining risk information: Testing the risk perception attitude framework in two studies. Human Communication Research, 32(2), 130–156. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2006.00006.x

57.

United Nations. (2020, March 31). UN tackles “infodemic” of misinformation and cybercrime in COVID- crisis19. https://www.un.org/en/un-coronavirus-communications-team/un-tackling-%E2%80%98infodemic%E2%80%99-misinformation-and-cybercrime-covid-19

58.

Vraga

E. K.

Bode

(2020). Correction as a solution for health misinformation on social media. American Journal of Public Health, 110(Suppl. 3), S278–S280. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2020.305916

59.

Walter

Brooks

J. J.

Saucier

C. J.

Suresh

(2020). Evaluating the impact of attempts to correct health misinformation on social media: A meta-analysis. Health Communication, 36, 1776–1784. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2020.1794553

60.

Walter

Cohen

Holbert

R. L.

Morag

(2020). Fact-checking: A meta-analysis of what works and for whom. Political Communication, 37(3), 350–375. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2019.1668894

61.

Walter

Tukachinsky

(2020). A meta-analytic examination of the continued influence of misinformation in the face of correction: How powerful is it, why does it happen, and how to stop it? Communication Research, 47(2), 155–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650219854600

62.

World Health Organization. (2020). Mythbusters. https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/myth-busters

63.

Witte

Cameron

K. A.

McKeon

J. K.

Berkowitz

J. M.

(1996). Predicting risk behaviors: Development and validation of a diagnostic scale. Journal of Health Communication, 1(4), 317–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/108107396127988

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.

0.00 MB

1.36 MB