Based on an online survey focusing on foreigners living in China, this work finds that there is a noticeable association between information channels and people's attitudes towards the COVID-19 pandemic. To be exact, it is found that the cognitive understanding, risk awareness, and behavioral responses towards the pandemic are different between respondents using different information channels to receive the updates of COVID-19. Although the difference in information channels may be due to some reasons that require further research, experimental observations emphasized that this difference has led to different information consumption and different COVID-19 awareness. Further, it is pointed out that improving accessibility and removing information bottlenecks in media platforms of different languages is crucial in promoting global coordination in the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic.
BrewerP. R. & LeyB. L. (2013). Whose science do you believe? Explaining trust in sources of scientific information about the environment.Science Communication, 35(1), 115–137.
2.
CalisherC., CarrollD., ColwellR., CorleyR. B., DaszakP., DrostenC.,… & GorbalenyaA. (2020). Statement in support of the scientists, public health professionals, and medical professionals of China combatting COVID-19.The Lancet, 395,(10226) e42–e43.
3.
CastilloC., MendozaM. & PobleteB. (2011, March). Information credibility on twitter.In Proceedings of the 20th international conference on World wide web (pp. 675–684).
HeymannD. L. (2020). Data sharing and outbreaks: best practice exemplified.The Lancet, 395(10223), 469–470.
6.
DepouxA., MartinS., KarafillakisE., PreetR., Wilder-SmithA. & LarsonH. (2020). The pandemic of social media panic travels faster than the COVID-19 outbreak.
7.
FlanaginA. J. & MetzgerM. J. (2000). Perceptions of Internet information credibility.Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 77(3), 515–540.
8.
IencaM. & VayenaE. (2020). On the responsible use of digital data to tackle the COVID-19 pandemic.Nature Medicine, 26(4), 463–464.
9.
KrepsG. L. & NeuhauserL. (2010). New directions in eHealth communication: opportunities and challenges.Patient Education and Counseling, 78(3), 329–336.
10.
LarsonH. J. (2020). Blocking information on COVID-19 can fuel the spread of misinformation.Nature, 306–306.
11.
OECD (2020) AI-powered COVID-19 watch, The Website of OECD. Available at: https://oecd.ai/covid (Accessed: 30 April 2020).
12.
OzbayF. A. & AlatasB. (2020). Fake news detection within online social media using supervised artificial intelligence algorithms.Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 540, 123174.
13.
PriceP. & BarneyS. E. (2020). Initiation of the Global Coalition for Radiotherapy during the COVID-19 pandemic.The Lancet Oncology, 21(6), 752–753.
14.
PulidoC. M., Villarejo-CarballidoB., Redondo-SamaG., & Gómez, A. (2020). COVID-19 infodemic: More retweets for science-based information on coronavirus than for false information.International Sociology, 0268580920914755.
15.
RodríguezC. P., CarballidoB. V, Redondo-SamaG., GuoM., RamisM. & FlechaR. (2020). False news around COVID-19 circulated less on Sina Weibo than on Twitter. How to overcome false information?.International and Multidisciplinary Journal of Social Sciences, 1–22.
16.
The Lancet (2020a). COVID-19: fighting panic with information.The Lancet, 395(10224), 537.
17.
The Lancet (2020b). Global Governance for COVID -19 Vaccines.The Lancet, 395(10241), 1883.
18.
The Lancet Diabetes Endocrinology (2020). Technology in the COVID-19 era: Pushing the Boundaries.The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, 8(7), 551.
19.
WestermanD., SpenceP. R. & Van Der HeideB. (2014). Social media as information source: Recency of updates and credibility of information.Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(2), 171–183.
20.
WilkinsE. J., MillerH. M., TilakE., and SchusterR. M. (2018). Communicating information on nature-related topics: Preferred information channels and trust in sources.Public Library of Science Country of Publication, 13(12), 1–17.
