Literature DB >> 33351776

Investigating and Improving the Accuracy of US Citizens' Beliefs About the COVID-19 Pandemic: Longitudinal Survey Study.

Aart van Stekelenburg1, Gabi Schaap1, Harm Veling1, Moniek Buijzen1,2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 infodemic, a surge of information and misinformation, has sparked worry about the public's perception of the coronavirus pandemic. Excessive information and misinformation can lead to belief in false information as well as reduce the accurate interpretation of true information. Such incorrect beliefs about the COVID-19 pandemic might lead to behavior that puts people at risk of both contracting and spreading the virus.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was two-fold. First, we attempted to gain insight into public beliefs about the novel coronavirus and COVID-19 in one of the worst hit countries: the United States. Second, we aimed to test whether a short intervention could improve people's belief accuracy by empowering them to consider scientific consensus when evaluating claims related to the pandemic.
METHODS: We conducted a 4-week longitudinal study among US citizens, starting on April 27, 2020, just after daily COVID-19 deaths in the United States had peaked. Each week, we measured participants' belief accuracy related to the coronavirus and COVID-19 by asking them to indicate to what extent they believed a number of true and false statements (split 50/50). Furthermore, each new survey wave included both the original statements and four new statements: two false and two true statements. Half of the participants were exposed to an intervention aimed at increasing belief accuracy. The intervention consisted of a short infographic that set out three steps to verify information by searching for and verifying a scientific consensus.
RESULTS: A total of 1202 US citizens, balanced regarding age, gender, and ethnicity to approximate the US general public, completed the baseline (T0) wave survey. Retention rate for the follow-up waves- first follow-up wave (T1), second follow-up wave (T2), and final wave (T3)-was high (≥85%). Mean scores of belief accuracy were high for all waves, with scores reflecting low belief in false statements and high belief in true statements; the belief accuracy scale ranged from -1, indicating completely inaccurate beliefs, to 1, indicating completely accurate beliefs (T0 mean 0.75, T1 mean 0.78, T2 mean 0.77, and T3 mean 0.75). Accurate beliefs were correlated with self-reported behavior aimed at preventing the coronavirus from spreading (eg, social distancing) (r at all waves was between 0.26 and 0.29 and all P values were less than .001) and were associated with trust in scientists (ie, higher trust was associated with more accurate beliefs), political orientation (ie, liberal, Democratic participants held more accurate beliefs than conservative, Republican participants), and the primary news source (ie, participants reporting CNN or Fox News as the main news source held less accurate beliefs than others). The intervention did not significantly improve belief accuracy.
CONCLUSIONS: The supposed infodemic was not reflected in US citizens' beliefs about the COVID-19 pandemic. Most people were quite able to figure out the facts in these relatively early days of the crisis, calling into question the prevalence of misinformation and the public's susceptibility to misinformation. ©Aart van Stekelenburg, Gabi Schaap, Harm Veling, Moniek Buijzen. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 12.01.2021.

Entities:  

Keywords:  COVID-19 pandemic; belief accuracy; boosting; infodemic; infodemiology; media use; misinformation; political orientation; trust in scientists

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33351776      PMCID: PMC7806340          DOI: 10.2196/24069

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Internet Res        ISSN: 1438-8871            Impact factor:   5.428


  12 in total

Review 1.  Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response.

Authors:  Jay J Van Bavel; Katherine Baicker; Paulo S Boggio; Valerio Capraro; Aleksandra Cichocka; Mina Cikara; Molly J Crockett; Alia J Crum; Karen M Douglas; James N Druckman; John Drury; Oeindrila Dube; Naomi Ellemers; Eli J Finkel; James H Fowler; Michele Gelfand; Shihui Han; S Alexander Haslam; Jolanda Jetten; Shinobu Kitayama; Dean Mobbs; Lucy E Napper; Dominic J Packer; Gordon Pennycook; Ellen Peters; Richard E Petty; David G Rand; Stephen D Reicher; Simone Schnall; Azim Shariff; Linda J Skitka; Sandra Susan Smith; Cass R Sunstein; Nassim Tabri; Joshua A Tucker; Sander van der Linden; Paul van Lange; Kim A Weeden; Michael J A Wohl; Jamil Zaki; Sean R Zion; Robb Willer
Journal:  Nat Hum Behav       Date:  2020-04-30

Review 2.  Nudging and Boosting: Steering or Empowering Good Decisions.

Authors:  Ralph Hertwig; Till Grüne-Yanoff
Journal:  Perspect Psychol Sci       Date:  2017-08-09

3.  Reinforcing Spirals Model: Conceptualizing the Relationship Between Media Content Exposure and the Development and Maintenance of Attitudes.

Authors:  Michael D Slater
Journal:  Media Psychol       Date:  2015-07-01

4.  The scientific consensus on climate change as a gateway belief: experimental evidence.

Authors:  Sander L van der Linden; Anthony A Leiserowitz; Geoffrey D Feinberg; Edward W Maibach
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-02-25       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Exposure to untrustworthy websites in the 2016 US election.

Authors:  Andrew M Guess; Brendan Nyhan; Jason Reifler
Journal:  Nat Hum Behav       Date:  2020-03-02

6.  Fighting COVID-19 Misinformation on Social Media: Experimental Evidence for a Scalable Accuracy-Nudge Intervention.

Authors:  Gordon Pennycook; Jonathon McPhetres; Yunhao Zhang; Jackson G Lu; David G Rand
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2020-06-30

7.  A digital media literacy intervention increases discernment between mainstream and false news in the United States and India.

Authors:  Andrew M Guess; Michael Lerner; Benjamin Lyons; Jacob M Montgomery; Brendan Nyhan; Jason Reifler; Neelanjan Sircar
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2020-06-22       Impact factor: 11.205

8.  Evaluating the fake news problem at the scale of the information ecosystem.

Authors:  Jennifer Allen; Baird Howland; Markus Mobius; David Rothschild; Duncan J Watts
Journal:  Sci Adv       Date:  2020-04-03       Impact factor: 14.136

9.  The online anti-vaccine movement in the age of COVID-19.

Authors:  Talha Burki
Journal:  Lancet Digit Health       Date:  2020-09-22
View more
  9 in total

1.  Morbid Polarization: Exposure to COVID-19 and Partisan Disagreement about Pandemic Response.

Authors:  Cristian G Rodriguez; Shana Kushner Gadarian; Sara Wallace Goodman; Thomas B Pepinsky
Journal:  Polit Psychol       Date:  2022-02-26

2.  Behavioral and Attitudinal Correlates of Trusted Sources of COVID-19 Vaccine Information in the US.

Authors:  Carl A Latkin; Lauren Dayton; Jacob R Miller; Grace Yi; Afareen Jaleel; Chikaodinaka C Nwosu; Cui Yang; Oluwaseun Falade-Nwulia
Journal:  Behav Sci (Basel)       Date:  2021-04-20

Review 3.  Addressing vaccine hesitancy and resistance for COVID-19 vaccines.

Authors:  Micah D J Peters
Journal:  Int J Nurs Stud       Date:  2022-04-01       Impact factor: 6.612

4.  Distressed Democrats and relaxed Republicans? Partisanship and mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Authors:  Sean Bock; Landon Schnabel
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-04-21       Impact factor: 3.752

5.  Community centered public safety resilience under public emergencies: A case study of COVID-19.

Authors:  Jiaxin Zhang; Guoqing Zha; Xing Pan; Dujun Zuo; Qianxin Xu; Huixiong Wang
Journal:  Risk Anal       Date:  2022-04-22       Impact factor: 4.302

6.  A continuous time meta-analysis of the relationship between conspiracy beliefs and individual preventive behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Authors:  Lukasz Stasielowicz
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-07-07       Impact factor: 4.996

7.  COVID-19 risk perception and hoax beliefs in the US immediately before and after the announcement of President Trump's diagnosis.

Authors:  Lisa-Maria Tanase; John Kerr; Alexandra L J Freeman; Claudia R Schneider
Journal:  R Soc Open Sci       Date:  2022-08-03       Impact factor: 3.653

8.  COVID-19 Vaccination Intent, Barriers and Facilitators in Healthcare Workers: Insights from a Cross-Sectional Study on 2500 Employees at LMU University Hospital in Munich, Germany.

Authors:  Ana Zhelyazkova; Selina Kim; Matthias Klein; Stephan Prueckner; Sophia Horster; Philipp Kressirer; Alexander Choukér; Michaela Coenen; Kristina Adorjan
Journal:  Vaccines (Basel)       Date:  2022-07-31

9.  SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.7 UK Variant of Concern Lineage-Related Perceptions, COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance and Travel Worry Among Healthcare Workers.

Authors:  Mohamad-Hani Temsah; Mazin Barry; Fadi Aljamaan; Abdullah N Alhuzaimi; Ayman Al-Eyadhy; Basema Saddik; Fahad Alsohime; Ali Alhaboob; Khalid Alhasan; Ali Alaraj; Rabih Halwani; Amr Jamal; Nurah Alamro; Reem Temsah; Samia Esmaeil; Shuliweeh Alenezi; Fahad Alzamil; Ali M Somily; Jaffar A Al-Tawfiq
Journal:  Front Public Health       Date:  2021-05-26
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.