| Literature DB >> 35206563 |
Ammar Redza Ahmad Rizal1, Shahrina Md Nordin2, Wan Fatimah Wan Ahmad2, Muhammad Jazlan Ahmad Khiri3, Siti Haslina Hussin3.
Abstract
The global COVID-19 mass vaccination program has created a polemic amongst pro- and anti-vaccination groups on social media. However, the working mechanism on how the shared information might influence an individual decision to be vaccinated is still limited. This study embarks on adopting the elaboration likelihood model (ELM) framework. We examined the function of central route factors (information completeness and information accuracy) as well as peripheral route factors (experience sharing and social pressure) in influencing attitudes towards vaccination and the intention to obtain the vaccine. We use a factorial design to create eight different scenarios in the form of Twitter posts to test the interaction and emulate the situation on social media. In total, 528 respondents were involved in this study. Findings from this study indicated that both the central route and peripheral route significantly influence individually perceived informativeness and perceived persuasiveness. Consequently, these two factors significantly influence attitude towards vaccination and intention to obtain the vaccine. According to the findings, it is suggested that, apart from evidence-based communication, the government or any interested parties can utilize both experience sharing and social pressure elements to increase engagement related to COVID-19 vaccines on social media, such as Twitter.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; Twitter; decision making; elaboration likelihood model; factorial design; social media; vaccine
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35206563 PMCID: PMC8872449 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19042378
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Conceptual framework of the study.
Figure 2Scenario 1 (high information completeness and high information accuracy).
Figure 3Scenario 2 (high information completeness and low information accuracy).
Demographic statistics of the respondents (n = 528).
| Category | Percentage (%) | |
|---|---|---|
|
| Male | 45.7 |
| Female | 54.3 | |
|
| 20–29 | 21.2 |
| 30–39 | 31.4 | |
| 40–49 | 32.5 | |
| 50 and above | 14.9 | |
|
| Primary education and below | 5.3 |
| High/secondary school education | 42.5 | |
| College diploma and above | 42.2 | |
|
| Pfizer | 32.3 |
| Astra Zeneca | 10.5 | |
| Sinovac | 3.8 | |
| No preference (any brand and type are accepted) | 45.4 | |
|
| Less than 1 h | 15.4 |
| 1–3 h | 38.6 | |
| 3–5 h | 31.2 | |
| More than 5 h | 14.8 | |
|
| Yes | 16.8 |
| No | 83.2 | |
Descriptive analysis for each construct and CFA.
| Description/Item | Mean Score | Standard Deviation | Factor Loading (CFA) |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
|
| 3.636 | 1.3759 | 0.968 |
|
| 3.617 | 1.3857 | 0.955 |
|
| 3.535 | 1.4167 | 0.961 |
|
| 3.208 | 1.4395 | 0.959 |
|
| 3.112 | 1.4807 | 0.948 |
|
| 3.320 | 1.4293 | 0.970 |
|
| |||
|
| 3.524 | 1.3797 | 0.972 |
|
| 3.435 | 1.3593 | 0.843 |
|
| 3.498 | 1.3443 | 0.973 |
|
| 3.513 | 1.3663 | 0.972 |
|
| 3.524 | 1.3302 | 0.959 |
|
| |||
|
| 3.572 | 1.3312 | 0.974 |
|
| 3.714 | 1.3577 | 0.954 |
|
| 3.468 | 1.3822 | 0.968 |
|
| 3.543 | 1.3547 | 0.960 |
|
| 3.625 | 1.3524 | 0.971 |
|
| 3.617 | 1.3224 | 0.978 |
|
| 3.480 | 1.3662 | 0.977 |
|
| |||
|
| 3.621 | 1.3389 | 0.976 |
|
| 3.643 | 1.3533 | 0.983 |
|
| 3.606 | 1.3290 | 0.973 |
|
| 3.595 | 1.3493 | 0.978 |
Results of one-way ANOVA of H1–H4.
| Dependent Variable | df | F-Value | Central Route | N | M | S.D | Scheffe’s Test | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 3 | 55.559 | HH (S1) | 68 | 4.294 | 0.888 | >HL ***, LH, LL *** | Supported |
| HL (S2) | 54 | 2.389 | 1.238 | >LL | ||||
| LH (S3) | 62 | 4.005 | 1.071 | >HL ***, LL *** | ||||
| LL (S4) | 76 | 2.377 | 1.196 | - | ||||
|
| 3 | 49.766 | HH (S1) | 68 | 4.229 | 0.865 | >HL ***, LH, LL *** | |
| HL (S2) | 54 | 2.482 | 1.299 | >LL | ||||
| LH (S3) | 62 | 3.723 | 1.038 | >HL ***, LL *** | ||||
| LL (S4) | 76 | 2.295 | 1.111 | - | ||||
|
| df | F-Value | Peripheral Route | N | M | S.D | Scheffe’s Test | Result |
|
| 3 | 14.836 | HH (S5) | 74 | 3.756 | 0.849 | >HL, LH, LL *** | Supported |
| HL (S6) | 68 | 3.711 | 0.873 | >LL *** | ||||
| LH (S7) | 62 | 3.755 | 1.092 | >HL, LL *** | ||||
| LL (S8) | 64 | 2.700 | 1.217 | - | ||||
|
| 3 | 16.837 | HH (S5) | 74 | 4.026 | 0.801 | >HL, LH, LL *** | |
| HL (S6) | 68 | 3.988 | 0.825 | >LL *** | ||||
| LH (S7) | 62 | 4.000 | 0.957 | >HL, LL *** | ||||
| LL (S8) | 64 | 2.987 | 1.116 | - |
Notes: *** p < 0.001. Symbol (>) indicate that the mean score of the respective scenario is higher than the other stated scenario.
Path analysis of H5–H7.
| Hypotheses | Standard Coefficient (r2) | Result | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Perceived Informativeness → Attitude towards Vaccine | 0.553 *** | 6.329 | Supported |
|
| Perceived Persuasiveness → Attitude towards Vaccine | 0.430 *** | 4.969 | Supported |
|
| Attitude towards Vaccine → Intention to obtain Vaccination | 0.754 *** | 30.894 | Supported |
Notes: *** p < 0.001; standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR) = 0.022 (model fit); normal fit index (NFI) = 0.908.
Figure 4Path analysis of the study.