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.
BaekY. M.KangH.KimS. (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
2.
BeckA. T.EmeryG.GreenbergR. L. (2005). Anxiety disorders and phobias: A cognitive perspective. Basic Books.
3.
BursztynL.RaoA.RothC. P.Yanagizawa-DrottD. H.RothC.Yanagizawa-DrottD.AlesinaA.CandelariaL.CantoniD.CaprettiniB.DixR.DrosteM.FerraraE.La GlaeserE.HanR.MattheisR.NunnN.ObermeyerZ.Perez-TrugliaR.. . . ZhaoA. (2020). Misinformation during a pandemic. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w27417/w27417.pdf
4.
ChenY.FeeleyT. 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
5.
ChengY.ChenZ. 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
6.
ChiaS. 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
7.
DavisonW. P. (1983). The Third-person effect in communication. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1086/268763
8.
EdgerlyS.MourãoR. R.ThorsonE.ThamS. 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
9.
FallisD. (2004). On verifying the accuracy of information: Philosophical perspectives. Library Trends, 52(3), 463–487.
10.
FlanaginA. J.MetzgerM. J. (2000). Perceptions of Internet information credibility. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 77(3), 515–540. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900007700304
11.
FlanaginA. J.MetzgerM. 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.
FornellC.LarckerD. 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.
GoldsteinC. M.MurrayE. J.BeardJ.SchnoesA. M.WangM. 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.
GuntherA. C.BoltD.BorzekowskiD. L. G.LiebhartJ. L.DillardJ. 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
HoS. S.DetenberB. H.RosenthalS.LeeE. 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
HuangJ.YangZ. 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.
IzardC. E. (1977). Human emotions. Plenum Press.
20.
IzardC. E.AckermanB. P. (2000). Motivational, organizational, and regulatory functions of discrete emotions. In LewisM.Haviland-JonesJ. M. (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (Vol. 2, pp. 253–264). Guilford Press.
21.
JacksonS. (1992). Message effects research: Principles of design and analysis. Guilford Press.
22.
JunY.MengR.JoharG. 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.
KahlorL.DunwoodyS.GriffinR. J.NeuwirthK. (2006). Seeking and processing information about impersonal risk. Science Communication, 28(2), 163–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547006293916
KeesJ.BerryC.BurtonS.SheehanK. (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.
KimH. 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.
KuangK.WilsonS. 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.
KuhlthauC. 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.
LazarusR. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. Oxford University Press.
30.
MaY.HmielowskiJ.YanW. (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
NanX. (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.
NeeR. 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
OhH. J.LeeH. (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.
ÖhmanA. (2008). Fear and anxiety: Overlaps and dissociations. In LewisM.Haviland-JonesJ. M.BarrettL. F. (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (pp. 709–728). The Guilford Press.
RamírezA. S.FreresD.MartinezL. S.LewisN.BourgoinA.KellyB. J.LeeC. J.NaglerR.SchwartzJ. S.HornikR. 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.
RimalR. 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.
RobertsonC. T.MourãoR. R.ThorsonE. (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.
RogersR. W. (1983). Cognitive and psychological processes in fear appeals and attitude change: A revised theory of protection motivation. In CacioppoJ. T.PettyR. E. (Eds.), Social psychophysiology: A sourcebook (pp. 153–176). The Guilford Press.
43.
RosemanI. J.SmithC. A. (2001). Appraisal theory. In SchererK. R.SchorrA.JohnstoneT. (Eds.), Appraisal processes in emotion: Theory, methods, research (pp. 3–19). Oxford University Press.
44.
ShafferJ. A.DeGeestD.LiA. (2016). Tackling the problem of construct proliferation. Organizational Research Methods, 19(1), 80–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428115598239
45.
ShahD. V.FaberR. J.YounS. (1999). Susceptibility and severity: Perceptual dimensions underlying the third-person effect. Communication Research, 26(2), 240–267. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365099026002006
46.
SoJ. (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.
SoJ.KuangK.ChoH. (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.
StritchJ. M.PedersenM. J.TaggartG. (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.
SunY. (2013). When presumed influence turns real. In DillardJ. P.ShenL. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of persuasion. Developments in theory and practice (2nd ed., pp. 371–387). SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452218410
50.
SylversP.LilienfeldS. O.LaPrairieJ. 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-OrN.TsfatiY.GuntherA. C. (2009). The influence of presumed media influence. In NabiR. L.OliverM. B. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of media processes and effects (pp. 99–112). SAGE.
52.
TandocE. C.Jr.LingR.WestlundO.DuffyA.GohD.Zheng WeiL. (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.
TaylorA. B.MacKinnonD. P.TeinJ.-Y. (2008). Tests of the three-path mediated effect. Organizational Research Methods, 11(2), 241–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428107300344
54.
TorresR.GerhartN.NegahbanA. (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.
TsaiH. Y. S.JiangM.AlhabashS.LaroseR.RifonN. J.CottenS. 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.
TurnerM. M.RimalR. N.MorrisonD.KimH. (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
VragaE. K.BodeL. (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.
WalterN.BrooksJ. J.SaucierC. J.SureshS. (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.
WalterN.CohenJ.HolbertR. L.MoragY. (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.
WalterN.TukachinskyR. (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
WitteK.CameronK. A.McKeonJ. K.BerkowitzJ. 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.
