Emotion, analytic thinking and susceptibility to misinformation during the COVID-19 outbreak

Li, Minghui; Chen, Zhiqin; Rao, Li‐Lin

doi:10.1016/j.chb.2022.107295

“…This finding is inconsistent with Zhang et al (33), which found that health-related rumors evoking positive emotions were more likely to be false than negative ones. Nonetheless, our finding is consistent with Li et al (82), which demonstrated that heightened emotions were associated with the veracity of the information. Both the positive and negative emotions increase uncritical acceptance of information.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Content characteristics predict the putative authenticity of COVID-19 rumors

Zhao

¹

,

Fu

²

,

Kang

³

2022

Front. Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rumors regarding COVID-19 have been prevalent on the Internet and affect the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. Using 1,296 COVID-19 rumors collected from an online platform (piyao.org.cn) in China, we found measurable differences in the content characteristics between true and false rumors. We revealed that the length of a rumor's headline is negatively related to the probability of a rumor being true [odds ratio (OR) = 0.37, 95% CI (0.30, 0.44)]. In contrast, the length of a rumor's statement is positively related to this probability [OR = 1.11, 95% CI (1.09, 1.13)]. In addition, we found that a rumor is more likely to be true if it contains concrete places [OR = 20.83, 95% CI (9.60, 48.98)] and it specifies the date or time of events [OR = 22.31, 95% CI (9.63, 57.92)]. The rumor is also likely to be true when it does not evoke positive or negative emotions [OR = 0.15, 95% CI (0.08, 0.29)] and does not include a call for action [OR = 0.06, 95% CI (0.02, 0.12)]. By contrast, the presence of source cues [OR = 0.64, 95% CI (0.31, 1.28)] and visuals [OR = 1.41, 95% CI (0.53, 3.73)] is related to this probability with limited significance. Our findings provide some clues for identifying COVID-19 rumors using their content characteristics.

show abstract

“…More than half of the participants reported they experienced no negative emotions during the COVID-19 pandemic, which was contrary to the reports of Wang et al and Li et al [ 26 , 27 ]. The reasons for this may be as follows: first, our study was completed from 13 February to 26 April 2022, while the epidemic situation in China has been predominantly under control since 8 April 2020 [ 28 ].…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 91%

Health Behaviours among Travellers Regarding Risk Compensation Following COVID-19 Vaccination in Taizhou, China

Yang

¹

,

Wang

²

,

Xu

³

et al. 2023

Canadian Journal of Infectious Diseases and Medical Microbiolog

3

0

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background. During the COVID-19 pandemic, public transport was restricted in many countries because of the transmission risk. According to the risk compensation theory, travellers post-COVID-19 vaccination may encounter higher risks; however, no real-world studies provide such evidence. Therefore, we conducted a survey to assess whether risk compensation would occur among travellers’ health-related behaviours after COVID-19 vaccination, potentially aggravating the transmission of the virus. Materials and Methods. A self-administered online survey was designed and distributed over WeChat to identify the difference in health behaviours before and after COVID-19 vaccination among travellers at a train station in Taizhou, China, from 13 February to 26 April 2022. Results. A total of 602 individuals completed the questionnaire. The results revealed no statistical difference between the health behaviours reported by the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. Participants who received the first dose of the vaccine earlier showed no statistical difference in harmful health behaviours (hand washing frequency decreased by 4.1% P = 0.145 ) and the duration of public transport travel increased by 3.4% P = 0.437 )), but showed better protective health behaviours (mask-wearing duration increased by 24.7% P = 0.014 )). Compared to those vaccinated less than three times, participants vaccinated against COVID-19 three times showed no statistical differences in harmful health behaviours mask-wearing duration decreased by 7.0% P = 0.927 ), their hand washing frequency decreased by 4.8% P = 0.905 ), and the duration of public transport travel increased by 2.5% P = 0.287 ). After vaccination, when compared to themselves before vaccination, participants exhibited better health behaviours (increased hand washing frequency and mask-wearing duration, and decreased duration of public transport travel) to some extent. Conclusion. In conclusion, this study found no evidence of risk compensation among travellers. After being vaccinated, health behaviours partly improved among travellers.

show abstract

“…Furthermore, the effect of analytic thinking on accurate COVID-19 beliefs may be mediated by social media use (Stecula & Pickup, 2021) such that analytic thinking may influence the media that one engages with (such that more analytic people engage with higher quality sources, see also Choung et al, 2020;Mosleh et al, 2021) There is also evidence that people who are more analytic are (or were) more likely to get COVID-19 vaccinations (Caravaggio et al, 2021;Lindeman et al, 2022;Newton et al, 2021;Pennycook, McPhetres, et al, 2021) and, more broadly, more willing to engage in other preventative behaviors (although the evidence in this case is more inconsistent and likely depends on which behaviors and when/where) (Pennycook, McPhetres, et al, 2021;Stanley et al, 2021;Swami & Barron, 2021;Teovanović et al, 2021). Emotionality also plays a role in COVID-19 misperceptions such that people who are more emotional tend to have more misperceptions, although analytic thinking appears to blunt its impact (M. Li et al, 2022).…”

Section: Covid-19 Misperceptionsmentioning

confidence: 99%