Skip to main content
NCBI home page
SAGE - PMC COVID-19 Collection logoLink to SAGE - PMC COVID-19 Collection
. 2023 Apr 20:00027642231164051. doi: 10.1177/00027642231164051

How Motivation to Reduce Uncertainty Predicts COVID-19 Behavioral Responses: Strategic Health Communication Insights for Managing an Ongoing Pandemic

Sungsu Kim 1,✉, Sung In Choi 2, Chiara Valentini 3, Mark Badham 4, Yan Jin 2
PMCID: PMC10119663

Abstract

During highly uncertain times such as the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, it is vital to understand and predict individuals’ responses to governments’ crisis and risk communication. This study draws on the Orientation-Stimulus-Orientation-Response (O-S-O-R) model to examine (1) whether uncertainty reduction motivation (a pre-orientation factor) drove Americans to turn to traditional news media and/or social media (stimuli) to obtain COVID-19 information; (2) if these media preferences shaped their COVID-19 knowledge, cognitive information vetting, and trust in government communication (post-orientation factors); and finally (3) whether these factors contributed to their intended and actual behaviors (responses), such as getting vaccinated. Thus, this study explores how multiple communicative and cognitive mechanisms contribute to public compliance with government health recommendations during a pandemic. Mediation analyses showed positive indirect effects between uncertainty reduction motivation and behavioral outcomes via use of social media (in relation to traditional news media) and COVID-19 knowledge and cognitive information vetting. This study discusses theoretical and practical health communication implications of these findings.

Keywords: uncertainty reduction motivation, COVID-19 pandemic, O-S-O-R model, social media use, health communication

Effective pandemic management relies in part on the ability of authorities to persuade a large number of people to comply with government recommendations about preventive behaviors (Jin et al., 2014). During public crisis events such as a global pandemic, people seek information from various channels, which can be triggered by the motivation to reduce their uncertainty about the crisis situation (Moreno et al., 2020; So et al., 2019). Knowledge of various factors that trigger people’s intentions to follow government guidelines is thus paramount to effective health crisis management (Chon & Kim, 2022). Likewise, knowledge of the role of communication in influencing pandemic attitudes and behaviors is useful. Authorities’ communication of pandemic messages through social media and traditional news media affects how individuals cognitively receive and process essential coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) information, which can ultimately influence their compliance with government recommendations (Jin et al., 2014; Y. Lee & Li, 2021).

This study adopts the Orientation-Stimulus-Orientation-Response (O-S-O-R) model to explicate individuals’ social cognition processes to result in individuals’ behavioral outcomes (Markus & Zajonc, 1985, Tsang et al., 2021). The O-S-O-R model challenges the assumption of universal and direct media effects and instead advocates for conditional effects in the process in which individuals seek information from various channels such as social media and traditional news media (herewith referred to as media use), focusing on attention on how motivational and contextual factors shape individuals’ reactions to their information environment (Markus & Zajonc, 1985; Shah et al., 2009). The O-S-O-R model highlights the roles of two separate orientations: pre-orientation (O1), which denotes “the set of structural, cultural, cognitive, and motivational characteristics the audience brings to the reception situation that affects the impact of messages (S),” and post-orientation (O2), which refers to “various ways audiences may deal with media messages and indicates which is likely to happen between the reception of messages and the subsequent response (R) or outcome” (McLeod et al., 2009, p. 238). Preexisting motives (O1) are assumed to determine individuals’ extent of media attention and consumption (S) (Markus & Zajonc, 1985; Paek, 2008). Post-orientation (O2), such as knowledge and trust in information conveyed through media channels, reveals the influencing link between messages acquired by individuals through media (S) and final behavioral outcomes (R) through cognitive interpretation of the messages (Brossard & Nisbet, 2007; Paek, 2008).

The first factor this study examines in the cognition process is uncertainty reduction motivation (So et al., 2019). Limited public knowledge about the COVID-19 disease can cause high levels of uncertainty in individuals. Thus, individuals seek information via public channels to reduce feelings of uncertainty, which leads to the second factor examined in this study: media use. In this information-seeking process, understanding individuals’ media use to seek and consume COVID-19 information is of high relevance to health crisis management (Austin et al., 2012; Betsch, 2020). Besides traditional news media channels (i.e., television, radio, and newspapers), a large volume of health and risk information is posted and shared on social media. Accordingly, this study examines information seeking via social media (relative to traditional news media). We postulate that uncertainty reduction motivation (O1)—that is, an individual’s drive to gain confidence in how to deal with a disease—affects individuals’ choices over which type of media (S) they turn to for information. These choices of media as information channels are then expected to influence the third group of factors in this study: post-orientation cognitive factors (O2) of COVID-19 knowledge acquisition, information vetting (i.e., the process in which individuals critically examine information to cope with uncertainty), and trust in government communication. These post-orientation components then determine the final factors examined in this study: individuals’ intended and actual behavioral responses (R) to government-recommended behaviors (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Conceptual model of O1-S-O2-R: how multiple communication and cognitive mechanisms predict individuals’ behavioral responses in a government-managed health communication environment.

Effect of Uncertainty Reduction Motivation on Media Use

Uncertainty reduction motivation, the pre-orientation factor originated from uncertainty reduction theory, posits that people experience uncertainty when situations are unpredictable or cannot be adequately understood (Berger & Calabrese, 1975; Kramer, 1999). Uncertainty reduction motivation occurs when individuals seek to minimize negative effects on them from an uncertain and unpredictable situation by seeking relevant information (Afifi & Weiner, 2004; Deci, 1975). According to previous research efforts to explore information management behaviors (e.g., media use), one’s subjective evaluation of the gap between desired and existing uncertainty levels regarding a particular issue serves as a motivator for media use (Afifi & Weiner, 2004, 2006). As such, we posit that the motivation to manage uncertainty is a predisposed variable that leads to greater information-seeking behaviors through the use of media channels. Early studies support this assumption and show that individuals engage with different types of media outlets and messages to seek information, such as news media with different political stances (Tsang et al., 2021), newspaper and national TV news (Brossard & Nisbet, 2007), reality weight-loss TV shows (Yoo, 2013), and different anti-smoking campaigns (Paek, 2008).

When an individual feels uncertainty, which likely brings about less confidence in one’s ability to assess certain outcomes (Penrod, 2001), media use is a vital step in gaining information that alleviates one’s uncertainty (Kozman et al., 2021). Scholars have discussed whether seeking information via social media enables individuals to reduce uncertainty (Vosoughi et al., 2018; Wani et al., 2021). Unlike traditional news media which filters information through gatekeepers in an information verification process (Melki et al., 2022), social media users are more likely to be exposed to misinformation and information overload (Bode & Vraga, 2021) and information anxiety during the pandemic (Soroya et al., 2021). Previous research has pointed out that the abundance of information in the social media environment entails higher levels of uncertainty (Van Aelst et al., 2021). For these reasons, individuals with uncertainty reduction motivation will likely be discouraged from utilizing social media for information-seeking purposes compared to traditional news media. Therefore, we hypothesize:

  • H1: Uncertainty reduction motivation will be negatively associated with social media use (relative to traditional news media) when seeking COVID-19 information.

Effect of Media Use on Three Post-Orientation Factors

People’s dependence on social media (relative to traditional news media) to help them make sense of highly contentious information also leads them to adopt cognitive outcomes (i.e., post-orientation factors). This study proposes three post-orientation factors (i.e., COVID-19 factual knowledge, cognitive information vetting, and trust in government communication) that may be affected by individuals’ use of different types of media. The factors may also act as preexisting variables; however, as post-orientations address “reception activity orientation such as message interpretation and cognitive processes” (Paek, 2008, p. 86), it is likely that exposure to stimuli shapes the three post-orientation factors (Schäfer, 2020; Xiang & Hmielowski, 2017; Zhu et al., 2020).

Effect of Media Use on COVID-19 Knowledge

Studies have highlighted the positive influences of traditional news media consumption on people’s factual knowledge about multiple health-related topics such as the H1N1 outbreak (Ho et al., 2013) and cancer risks (Stryker et al., 2008). However, literature has also documented negative associations between social media use and factual knowledge (Cacciatore et al., 2018). Reliance on certain information from social media does not contribute to adequate factual knowledge and indeed even limits knowledge (Cacciatore et al., 2018; Gerosa et al., 2021; S. Lee et al., 2022; Schäfer, 2020). Ironically, those who are exposed to information on social media are likely to feel knowledgeable about an issue (i.e., perceived or subjective knowledge); indeed, information acquired from social media channels can lead to overconfidence in one’s level of self-knowledge (S. Lee et al., 2022; Schäfer, 2020; Yamamoto et al., 2018). One possible reason for these findings may be that informational items (e.g., news posts) on social media are presented mainly in the form of previews, headlines, and teasers; subsequently, users do not seek more information due to information overload (S. Lee et al., 2022; Schäfer, 2020; Van Erkel & Van Aelst, 2021). In sum, although the public maintained a heavy reliance on both social media and traditional news media for COVID-19 information during the recent pandemic, social media contributes to questionable levels of knowledge while news media is a more reliable conveyer of factual knowledge (Beckers et al., 2021). Consequently, we posit that:

  • H2: Use of social media (relative to traditional news media) to seek COVID-19 information will be negatively associated with factual COVID-19 knowledge.

Effect of Media Use on Cognitive Information Vetting

Information vetting, a novel construct, is defined as a method of cognitively processing information and assessing its quality; it contains multiple psychological processes involved with cognitive, affective, and behavioral indicators. During a crisis, citizens become media users alongside key players such as crisis information creators and amplifiers (Lu, Vijaykumar, et al., 2022; Lu & Jin, 2020). The process of vetting information found on social media is based on interactions with other social media users and occurs in real time (Mergel, 2012), leading to instant judgments about whether the information is true or false, further affecting an individual’s decision to pursue certain health behaviors. These studies suggest that the level and patterns of health-related information vetting occurring in social media are different from those involving information acquired through traditional news media (Van der Linden et al., 2020).

However, few studies have explored which type of media (social media versus traditional news media) motivates users to be more engaged in information vetting. Previous studies examining the credibility of each media type as channels and sources of reliable information may hint at how media users conduct information vetting when engaging in information obtained via social media and news media (Malecki et al., 2021; Utz et al., 2013). Social media use has been associated with increased exposure to misinformation and disinformation, compared with traditional news media (Utz et al., 2013; Van der Linden et al., 2020). Thus, as media users discern these variations in source and channel credibility, people may be willing to take more time in vetting information from social media compared to traditional news media. Despite this valid assumption, there is a lack of research comparing cognitive information-vetting practices in both types of media. Thus, this study poses the following research question:

  • RQ1: Is use of social media (vs. traditional news media) positively associated with cognitive information vetting?

Effect of Media Use on Trust in Government Communication

In this study, we postulate that individuals’ use of media for information-seeking purposes can influence their trust in government communication (i.e., as a post-orientation) in quite different ways. Literature about health and risk management offers us the general understanding that infectious diseases and emergencies are largely government matters (Kim & Jin, 2020), and thus government is considered the key source of information in this context (Quinn et al., 2013). People likely seek information provided by the government because they view the government as a credible information source during uncertain crisis situations (Chon & Park, 2021; Eisenman et al., 2007). Much of the government communication is conducted through the news media and social media, and each of these types of media mediates and refracts government-disseminated information in various ways.

Although in times of great national upheaval (e.g., during wars and pandemics) news media may adopt a collaborative or conduit role (Badham, 2019) alongside governments, publishing or broadcasting government-supplied information with very little editorial push-back, journalists also consider themselves very much as autonomous agents working quite independently from external influences (Gandy, 1982), even adopting adversarial reporting stances (Glasser & Ettema, 1989) evidenced in investigative and watchdog journalism (Protess et al., 1992). When adopting a monitorial (Christians et al., 2009) or mediator role (Badham, 2019), news media draw on experts’ opinions to analyze and critique government messages such as health guidelines. Journalists’ professional identity, norms, and routines induce them to offer factual and balanced accounts of events (Deephouse, 2000). In doing so, news media coverage of governments’ health messages can influence public attitudes about and evaluation of governments’ communication efforts (i.e., trust in government communication).

Social media may have a quite different influence on the formation of trust in government communication. Because of social media’s tendency to attract audience attention and engagement through emotional content, “content diffused on social media is often emotionally charged” and as a result “emotional responses increase the likelihood that this content will be diffused and influence judgments” about organizations (Etter et al., 2019, p. 34). Further, social media users “are a multitude of actors, whose motivations, sources of information, and constraints are comparatively more diverse” than that of news media and thus “multiple evaluations” of organizations “coexist in the public domain” (Etter et al., 2019, p. 34). In sum, the greater diversity of information, opinions, and voices (i.e., sources) and the questionable credibility of content creators and disseminators on social media suggests that individuals who predominantly turn to social media for health information will have less trust in government communication than those who mostly use news media for health information. As a result, it is plausible to expect different levels of public trust in government communication based on individuals’ choices of media. Although prior literature demonstrates that information obtained through social media may relate to a positive judgment of a government’s ability to handle a crisis (Warren et al., 2014; Zhu et al., 2020), research has not yet addressed whether people’s trust in government health communications changes depending on the type of media they turn to for information. Accordingly, we pose the following research question:

  • RQ2: Is use of social media (in comparison to traditional news media) positively associated with trust in government communication?

Effect of Post-Orientation Factors on Behavioral Responses

Effect of COVID-19 Knowledge on Behavioral Responses

COVID-19 knowledge acquisition is an important factor in health crisis management because it plays a key role in determining responsive behaviors (Clements, 2020). Empirical evidence from the pandemic shows that people’s level of factual knowledge influenced their preventive behaviors (Clements, 2020; Ho et al., 2013). A study by Shafiq et al. (2021) showed that a higher level of COVID-19 factual knowledge was associated with greater adherence to recommended behaviors such as wearing a face mask, covering coughs, and physical distancing. Thus, this study examines how individuals’ acquisition of factual knowledge shaped their behaviors. Accordingly, we postulate that:

  • H3a: COVID-19 factual knowledge will be positively associated with behaviors that adhere to recommendations.

  • H3b: COVID-19 factual knowledge will be positively associated with intentions to follow recommended behaviors.

Effect of COVID-19 Information Vetting on Behavioral Responses

To our knowledge, research has not yet explored how cognitive information vetting may affect individuals’ behavioral responses to government-disseminated health recommendations, particularly during a major health crisis. Accordingly, this study explores the link between individuals’ information vetting and their decision to engage in compliance behaviors. Thus, this study poses the following research questions:

  • RQ3a: Is cognitive information vetting positively associated with behaviors that adhere to recommendations?

  • RQ3b: Is cognitive information vetting positively associated with intentions to follow recommended behaviors?

Effect of Trust in Government Communication on Behavioral Responses

Early studies showed that trust in government communication can affect behavioral responses in individuals, such as engaging in preventive measures (Lim et al., 2021; Quinn et al., 2013; Siegrist & Zingg, 2014). More recently in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, it was found that protective behavior adoption is positively related to trust in government communication (Lim et al., 2021). A review of studies on trust during the pandemic demonstrated a consistent tendency that those with a higher level of trust in government communication were more likely to become vaccinated (Siegrist & Zingg, 2014). Similarly, trust in government communication impacted citizens’ attitudes toward government recommendations (Moreno et al., 2020). Accordingly, this study attempts to contribute to this body of research by hypothesizing that

  • H4a: Trust in government communication will be positively associated with behaviors that adhere to recommendations.

  • H4b: Trust in government communication will be positively associated with intentions to follow recommended behaviors.

Mediating Mechanisms Between Media Use and Behavioral Responses

The O-S-O-R model helps us to explore the process in which people’s behavioral responses (R) to government health guidelines are shaped by cognitive factors (O2) of knowledge, information vetting, and trust in government communication, which in turn are shaped by their use of media communication channels (S) when seeking information for reducing their uncertainty levels (O1). As demonstrated in Figure 1, we draw on the O-S-O-R model to guide our exploration of the three-step process in which communication mechanisms (S) shape cognitive mechanisms (O2) which subsequently shape behavioral outcomes (R).

COVID-19 Knowledge as Mediator

In the context of a pandemic, as people seek and process information about a novel virus through media channels, they acquire a range of quality of knowledge (e.g., between accurate and inaccurate) that may determine what they do next as a response to that new knowledge. In this study, we explore how COVID-19 factual knowledge may act as a post-orientation variable that mediates the stimulus and behavioral responses. Previous studies demonstrated that factual knowledge served as a mediator for behavioral engagement with preventive measures (Fridman et al., 2020; Melki et al., 2022). Thus, we posit the following hypothesis:

  • H5: COVID-19 knowledge will play a mediating role between the use of social media (vs. traditional news media) to seek COVID-19 information and actual and intended behavioral responses.

Information Vetting as Mediator

Likewise, the information vetting process, in which individuals cognitively assess the quality of information acquired through various communication channels, is likely to influence how people respond to government guidelines. Like information vetting, information verification mediated the effects of habitual use of media channels and sources on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy (Zhao et al., 2022). It was found that people who tended to use television and official sources of COVID-19 information, as opposed to COVID-19 information found in social media, reported less engagement with information verification than other groups of people who relied on more diverse digital sources and who subsequently experienced increased lack of confidence in vaccines (Zhao et al., 2022). We thus pose the following question:

  • RQ4: Does cognitive information vetting play a mediating role between individuals’ use of social media (vs. traditional news media) and actual and intended behavioral responses?

Trust in Government Communication as Mediator

Earlier we argued that (1) individuals’ media use might affect their trust in government communication and that (2) the trust in government communication will likely affect their responses to government pandemic guidelines. We are also interested in the mediating role of people’s trust in government communication on the effect of (1) their media use and (2) their resulting intended and actual behaviors, arguing that a heavy reliance on social media (as opposed to traditional news media) may shape their level of trust in unique ways and this will then influence their behaviors to follow the guidelines. Thus, we posit the following hypothesis:

  • H6: Trust in government communication will play a mediating role between the use of social media (vs. traditional news media) to seek COVID-19 information and actual and intended behavioral responses.

Method

Data Collection

The subset used for this study was a portion of the large dataset collected as an effort to grasp the public’s cognitive, affective, and behavioral responses toward COVID-19 in different continents over the world, other parts of which were present in other publications (Choi et al., 2022; Colleoni et al., 2022). We conducted an online survey of U.S. adults from October through November 2020. Data was collected by Dynata, a panel supplier specializing in online surveys with a global panel. For the data used in this study, the survey was sent to a representative sample of the U.S. population, stratified by age, gender, race/ethnicity, and region. The questionnaire was delivered online using a web interface, and the survey was conducted using computer-assisted web interviewing methodology. A total of 500 people participated in the survey and the final sample’s characteristics are reported in Table 1.

Table 1.

Sample Characteristics (N = 500).

N %
Education
 Less than high school 5 1.0
 High school graduation 100 20.0
 Some college/university 126 25.2
 Bachelor’s degree 147 29.4
 Master’s degree 85 17.0
 Professional degree/certificate 26 5.2
 Doctorate 11 2.2
Gender
 Male 246 49.2
 Female 254 50.8
Race/Ethnicity
 White 328 65.6
 Black 65 13.0
 Hispanic 56 11.2
 Asian 30 6.0
 Other 21 4.2
Age M = 47.10 SD = 17.02
Open in a new tab

SD = Standard Deviation.

Measures

Unless otherwise noted, participants’ responses were recorded on a 7-point Likert scale of strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7) and averaged together to create an index for each of the following variables.

Uncertainty Reduction Motivation

Three items (e.g., “I know less than I would like to know about ways to prevent COVID-19 infection”) adapted from an existing scale (So et al., 2019) were used to measure uncertainty reduction motivation (Cronbach’s α = .83, M = 4.25, SD = 1.59).

Social Media Relative to Traditional News Media Use for COVID-19 Information

We first assessed the use of social media and traditional news media by using an adapted scale from previous studies (Y.-I. Lee & Jin, 2019; Moreno et al., 2020; Vijaykumar et al., 2015). For social media use, we asked participants to report the frequency of information acquisition from the following six sources: (a) Twitter, (b) Instagram, (c) WhatsApp, (d) Facebook, (e) Snapchat, and (f) YouTube (Cronbach’s α = .94, M = 2.90, SD = 2.03). For traditional news media use, participants were asked to report how frequently they received COVID-19-related information from the following four sources: (a) newspapers, (b) magazines, (c) television, and (d) radio (Cronbach’s α = .76, M = 4.00, SD = 1.62). Responses, captured on a 7-point scale, ranged from never (1) to all the time (7), and were averaged together. Then, the index of social media relative to traditional news media for COVID-19 information was created by dividing social media by traditional news media, which was guided by previous literature (Tsang et al., 2021).

COVID-19 Factual Knowledge

COVID-19 knowledge was measured by using 11 items (e.g., “Eating or contact with wild animals would result in infection by the COVID-19 virus”) adapted from an existing scale (Clements, 2020). The responses were reported on a dichotomous scale (true = 1, false = 0) and we added up the number of correct answers to create an 11-point knowledge measure (M = 8.92, SD = 2.30).

Cognitive Information Vetting

Five items adapted from an existing scale (Lu & Jin, 2020) were used to measure cognitive information vetting (e.g., “The information is from a source I trust”; Cronbach’s α = .92, M = 4.74, SD = 1.33).

Trust in Government Communication

Three items adapted from an existing scale (Moreno et al., 2020) were used (e.g., “Government communication has always been clear and sufficient”; Cronbach’s α = .90, M = 3.91, SD = 1.75).

Actual Behavioral Engagement

Actual behavioral engagement was assessed by asking how often respondents performed the three recommended behaviors (e.g., “regularly and thoroughly clean your hands with an alcohol-based hand rub or wash them with soap and water”) (Lin et al., 2020). Responses, captured on a 7-point scale, ranged from never (1) to all the time (7), and were averaged together (Cronbach’s α = .87, M = 5.70, SD = 1.34).

Behavioral Intentions

Three items adapted from an existing scale (Lin et al., 2020) were used to measure behavioral intentions (e.g., “In the coming week, I am willing to perform preventive COVID-19 behaviors every day”; Cronbach’s α = .94, M = 5.52, SD = 1.52).

Covariates

We controlled for age, gender (female = 1, male = 0), education (median = Bachelor’s degree), and race/ethnicity (White = 1, non-White = 0). In addition to the demographic variables, we included the use of interpersonal sources for COVID-19 information and trust in social media as covariates as different information sources and trust in social media were found to influence the outcomes of our interest (Li & Sun, 2021; Xiang & Hmielowski, 2017). Interpersonal source use was measured by asking participants the frequency of using four channels (a) face-to-face, (b) phone conversation, (c) e-mails from the people they know, and (d) SMS text from the people they know (Cronbach’s α = .89, M = 3.51, SD = 1.89) and social media trust was captured by three semantic differential items (e.g., very unbelievable–very believable; Cronbach’s α = .97, M = 3.79, SD = 1.93).

Statistical Analyses

We conducted multiple ordinary least square regression analyses to identify the relationship among the factors drawn from the O-S-O-R model. To examine mediation effects, we used the PROCESS macro (Hayes, 2018). The mediation effects (i.e., indirect effects) were declared statistically significant when the upper and lower 95% confidence intervals, generated by using 5,000 bootstrap samples, did not include a zero value. Six exogenous variables—age, gender, education, race/ethnicity, use of interpersonal sources, and trust in social media—were included as covariates in all tested models, as these variables were found to affect the O-S-O-R components (Tsang et al., 2021; Xiang & Hmielowski, 2017; Yamamoto & Morey, 2019).

Results

Mediation analyses indicated a significant, positive indirect effect of uncertainty reduction motivation (O1) on behavioral responses (R) through the use of social media compared to traditional news media (S) and COVID-19 knowledge (O2; Table 2). Greater uncertainty reduction motivation was associated with a lower level of social media use (vs. traditional news media), which contributed to a lower level of COVID-19 knowledge. Then, levels of COVID-19 knowledge positively predicted both intended and actual behaviors (Table 3 and Figure 2). Thus, H1, H2, H3a, H3b, and H5 were supported. There was a significant, positive indirect effect of uncertainty reduction motivation on behavioral responses via social media use compared to traditional news media use and cognitive information vetting. The level of use of social media (vs. traditional news media) negatively predicted cognitive information vetting, which in turn was positively related to the two behavioral responses. The indirect effects on both intended and actual behaviors through use of social media (vs. traditional news media) and trust in government communication lacked significance (Table 2) and the paths from social media use to behavioral intentions through trust in government did not receive significance (Table 3 and Figure 2). Hence, H4b and H6 were not supported. Despite overall non-significant indirect effects, the influences of trust in government communication on actual behavioral engagement was found significant, confirming H4a.

Table 2.

Indirect Effects Showing the Mediation of O1-S-O2-R.

Point estimate Bootstrap SE Bootstrap 95% CI
Lower Upper
Uncertainty reduction motivation → social media (vs. traditional news media) use → COVID-19 factual knowledge → actual behavioral engagement 0.004* 0.003 0.0002 0.0105
Uncertainty reduction motivation → social media (vs. traditional news media) use → cognitive information vetting → actual behavioral engagement 0.004* 0.003 0.0002 0.0104
Uncertainty reduction motivation → social media (vs. traditional news media) use → trust in government communication → actual behavioral engagement −0.001 0.001 −0.0022 0.0001
Uncertainty reduction motivation → social media (vs. traditional news media) use → COVID-19 factual knowledge → behavioral intentions 0.004* 0.003 0.0001 .0092
Uncertainty reduction motivation → social media (vs. traditional news media) use → cognitive information vetting → behavioral intentions 0.007* 0.004 0.0004 0.0165
Uncertainty reduction motivation → social media (vs. traditional news media) use → trust in government communication → behavioral intentions <0.001 <0.001 −0.0007 0.0009
Open in a new tab

Note. N = 500. Bootstrap resampling = 5,000. SE = standard error; CI = confidence interval.

*

Indicates that the point estimate is statistically significant based on the upper and lower boundaries of confidence intervals that did not straddle zero.

Table 3.

Regression Model Using the O1-S-O2-R Framework.

Stimulus (S) Post-orientation (O2) Response (R)
Social media (vs. traditional news media) use COVID-19 knowledge Cognitive information vetting Trust in government communication Actual behaviors Behavioral intentions
Control variables
 Age −0.011 (0.001)*** 0.029 (0.007)*** 0.004 (0.004) −0.006 (0.005) 0.003 (0.004) 0.010 (0.004)*
 Gender (female = high) 0.002 (.028) 0.091 (0.180) −0.099 (0.098) −0.105 (0.128) 0.469 (0.094)*** 0.283 (0.101)**
 Race/ethnicity (White = high) −0.019 (0.033) −0.083 (0.209) 0.175 (0.113) 0.370 (0.148)* 0.202 (0.109) −0.053 (0.117)
 Education −0.004 (0.011) −0.052 (0.072) 0.034 (0.039) 0.039 (0.051) 0.020 (0.037) 0.107 (0.040)**
 Use of interpersonal sources 0.035 (0.010)*** −0.220 (0.062)*** 0.094 (0.034)** 0.108 (0.044)* 0.071 (0.033)* −0.001 (0.036)
 Trust in social media 0.039 (0.010)*** −0.143 (0.063)* 0.236 (0.034)*** 0.352 (0.044)*** −0.046 (0.036) 0.039 (0.039)
Pre-orientation (O1)
 Uncertainty reduction motivation −0.024 (0.010)* −0.059 (0.067) 0.266 (0.037)*** 0.164 (0.048)*** 0.146 (0.037)*** 0.179 (0.040)***
Stimulus (S)
 Social (vs. traditional) media use — −0.852 (0.290)** −0.514 (0.157)** 0.320 (0.205) −0.495 (0.153)** −0.526 (0.164)**
Post-orientation (O2)
 COVID-19 factual knowledge — — — — 0.217 (0.024)*** 0.191 (0.026)***
 Cognitive information vetting — — — — 0.333 (0.045)*** 0.541 (0.048)***
 Trust in government communication — — — — 0.088 (0.034)** −0.002 (0.036)
Total R2 (%) 42.26*** 28.06*** 36.60*** 37.46*** 43.21*** 49.22***
Open in a new tab

Note. N = 500. Upon-entry unstandardized regression coefficients reported with standard errors in parentheses.

*

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

Model depicting the mediating role of social media (vs. traditional news media) use for COVID-19 information, COVID-19 knowledge, cognitive information vetting, and trust in government communication on the relationship between the uncertainty reduction motivation and behavioral responses.

Note. Coefficients are unstandardized regression coefficients. Dotted lines denote non-significant paths.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Discussion

This study applied the O-S-O-R model to the COVID-19 pandemic context to explore communicative, cognitive, and behavioral dynamics within a government-managed health communication environment. The serial mediation mechanism presented in this study draws a comprehensive picture of how uncertainty reduction motivation prompts intended and actual behaviors via three cognitive mechanisms which are in turn determined by choices of media channels for information-seeking purposes. Findings from this study are consistent with prior findings of the O-S-O-R model in the health communication discipline (Paek, 2008; Tsang et al., 2021; Yoo, 2013). This study demonstrates how those who engage in motivated media use seek and process health-related information from different types of media channels (Markus & Zajonc, 1985) resulting in post-orientation cognitive factors of COVID-knowledge, information vetting, and trust in government communication. Collectively, these findings provide significant implications for health and risk communication research and practice.

Limited COVID-19 Factual Knowledge Through Social Media Use

One interesting finding of this study was that the more people use social media compared to traditional news media to acquire COVID-19 information, the less factual knowledge they receive. This finding confirmed our H2 that use of social media (relative to traditional news media) will be negatively associated with factual COVID-19 knowledge. This may be explained by a common perception of social media as a channel providing questionable content due to the widespread understanding that social media offers limited gatekeeping and other quality control measures over the content (Malecki et al., 2021). Health communicators should be aware that disseminating health information via social media will likely result in the public’s lack of confidence in health information they receive via social media. In other words, health communicators should be wary of social media’s effect as a channel for health messages during a health crisis such as a pandemic.

Strong Effect of Social Media Use on Cognitive Information Vetting

Considering compliance with recommendations guided by the government is essential to inhibiting the spread of an infectious disease (Chon & Kim, 2022), we attempted to grasp how individuals’ information vetting through social media (vs. news media) shaped their behaviors, if at all. We found that the cognitive component of information vetting, a new communication concept recently developed (Lu, Lee, et al., 2022; Lu & Jin, 2020), acted as a significant serial mediator between (1) participants’ use of social media (vs. traditional news media) for COVID-19 information and (2) both their intended and reported behaviors. The empirical findings of cognitive information vetting extend the empirical foundation of understanding of information vetting beyond the emotional domain (Lu, Vijaykumar, et al., 2022). Together with emerging literature, our findings highlight the important role that information vetting plays in today’s complex and competitive media environment, especially during major health crises.

Furthermore, participants’ use of social media (vs. traditional news media) to seek COVID-19 information negatively predicted their varied cognitive information vetting, which shed further light on what guides this important predictor of health behavioral intentions and actual behaviors. Alarmingly, our results found that participants who used social media more than traditional news media for COVID-19 information were less likely to engage themselves in cognitive information vetting. The use of social media (vs. traditional news media) for COVID-19 information appears to inhibit U.S. adults’ evaluation and verification of the quality (e.g., accuracy) of this information. Our findings, in the U.S. context, also imply the practical value of health organizations proactively and consistently disseminating timely and accurate health information on social media in order to improve people’s perceptions over time of social media as a reliable channel for factual government information. The more health organizations use social media as a communication channel of accurate information, the more this will limit the spread of inaccurate information on social media.

Limited Effect of Social Media Use on Trust in Government Communication

The results of this study show that social media (vs. traditional news media) use did not statistically exert direct effects on trust in government communication. In other words, the type of media did not influence public trust in government health communication, despite our initial assumption about the difference in credibility and accuracy across media (Mourão et al., 2018) and their different impact on COVID-19 knowledge. A possible explanation could be related to the U.S. Government’s active use of social media in its pandemic communication. Chepurnaya’s (2021) study of the way the Trump Administration actively communicated about its decisions during the first year of the pandemic found increased politicization of COVID-19 pandemic messages aimed at legitimizing the administration’s public health management (Chepurnaya, 2021). It is possible that this administration’s heavy reliance on social media, combined with its intense opposition to traditional news media, in its communication strategy contributed to less reliance by the public on both traditional news media and social media as reliable channels of accurate and trusted health information supplied by the government.

Similarly, trust in government communication did not exert any statistically significant effect on behavioral outcomes. In this study, we did not differentiate between institutional and individual levels of government sources as in Choi et al.’s (2022) study. In their study, it was found that people put more trust in health authorities as a source of health communication than in their national political leaders (i.e., presidents and prime ministers) during the pandemic. Since we considered the government at an aggregated level, it is quite likely that different effects would have been visible if varying levels of government sources (e.g., individual and administrative, institutional and political) were included in the study. Furthermore, individuals’ attitudes and beliefs about the pandemic likely extended to individuals’ behavioral intentions to follow or ignore government recommendations. Optimistic attitudes toward COVID-19 have been found to negatively relate to risk perception, and low-risk perception correlates with low behavioral intentions to follow preventive behaviors (Park et al., 2021).

Limitations and Future Directions

This study has limitations that could be addressed in future research. First, this study used cross-sectional data, which may not be ideal for establishing causality between the variables. Thus, future research may adopt different study designs (e.g., experimental or multi-wave panel design) that are better known for examining causality. In addition, this study focused on the scope of the U.S. for a theoretical explication, but future research may consider cultural differences between countries as an additional factor. The findings of this study may be generalized to other cultural contexts, and the implications can be extended.

Conclusion

This study aimed at empirically investigating multiple communicative and cognitive mechanisms leading to public compliance with government recommendations. The results show that the choice of types of media to gain COVID-19 knowledge, intrigued by the motivation to reduce uncertainty, can greatly influence individuals’ factual knowledge and cognitive information vetting processes, which in turn affects their compliance with government-recommended health behaviors. Understanding these dynamics is critical for public health authorities planning communication strategies to persuade the public to comply with health experts’ recommendations.

Author Biographies

Sungsu Kim, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor of Advertising and Public Relations in the School of Communication at Kookmin University, Seoul, South Korea. His research areas include public relations, crisis communication, strategic health communication, campaign message effects, and social media interaction. His research has appeared in various referred journals such as Health Communication, Public Relations Review, and The Social Science Journal.

Sung In Choi is a Ph.D. candidate of the Grady College of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Georgia (UGA), USA. She is a member of the Crisis Insights & Analytics Lab and a lab manager of BBAM (Brain, Body, and Media) lab at UGA. Her research areas include environmental communication, strategic health communication, public interest communication, and sustainability. She recently focuses on exploring the role of psychological distances in determining how publics perceive and respond to environmental risk to promote positive social outcomes.

Chiara Valentini, Ph.D., is Professor and Head of Corporate Communication Discipline, at Jyväskylä University School of Business and Economics (JSBE), Finland. She also holds an Adjunct Professorship in Strategic Communication at IULM University, Milan, Italy. Dr. Valentini is the author of numerous peer-reviewed publications and books in strategic public relations, public and government communication, and crisis communication in the digital environment. Her work has appeared in several international peer-reviewed journals, and has authored and co-authored over hundreds of scholarly works. Dr. Valentini serves as a reviewer of several international peer-review journals and is member of the editorial boards of leading international communication journals. She has worked for and consulted organizations and public institutions of several countries, including the Italian Representation of the European Commission in Rome, Italy, and the European Movement International Secretariat in Brussels, Belgium, and is active with several professional organizations.

Mark Badham, Ph.D., is Senior Lecturer in Public Relations at Leeds Business School, Leeds Beckett University (UK). His research is focused on news media roles in mass communication processes, digital corporate communication, strategic communication in digital media-arenas and crisis arena crossovers, organizational relationship management orientations and strategies (including organization-stakeholder love), and organizational legitimation strategies. He is co-host of the podcast ‘Digital Corporate Communication’ and co-editor of the Handbook on Digital Corporate Communication. Mark has taught corporate communication and public relations courses at Leeds Business School (UK), Aalto University School of Business (Finland), Jyvaskyla School of Business & Economics (Finland), University of Helsinki (Finland), Estonian Business School (Estonia), LCC International University (Lithuania), ISM University of Management and Economics (Lithuania), Pforzheim University (Germany), and Bond University (Australia). Prior to joining academia, Mark worked as a public relations practitioner for governments, politicians, corporations and NFPs in Australia.

Yan Jin, Ph.D., is a professor of public relations and the C. Richard Yarbrough Professor in Crisis Communication Leadership at Grady College of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Georgia (UGA). She is director and co-founder of the Crisis Communication Think Tank (CCTT) and associate director of the Center for Health & Risk Communication at UGA.

Footnotes

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding: The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study is part of the project “COVID-19 Voices in Finnish News Media in the Global Context” (project number: 202000087) and has received financial support by Helsingin Sanomat Foundation.

ORCID iD: Chiara Valentini Inline graphichttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-0752-9639

References

  1. Afifi W. A., Weiner J. L. (2004). Toward a theory of motivated information management. Communication Theory, 14(2), 167–190. 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2004.tb00310.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Afifi W. A., Weiner J. L. (2006). Seeking information about sexual health: Applying the theory of motivated information management. Human Communication Research, 32(1), 35–57. 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2006.00002.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Austin L., Fisher Liu B., Jin Y. (2012). How audiences seek out crisis information: Exploring the social-mediated crisis communication model. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 40(2), 188–207. 10.1080/00909882.2012.654498 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Badham M. (2019). Four news media roles shaping agenda-building processes. In Frandsen F., Johansen W., Tench R., Romenti S. (Eds.), Big ideas in public relations research and practice (Vol. 4, pp. 163–176). Emerald Publishing Limited. [Google Scholar]
  5. Beckers K., Van Aelst P., Verhoest P., d’Haenens L. (2021). What do people learn from following the news? A diary study on the influence of media use on knowledge of current news stories. European Journal of Communication, 36(3), 254–269. 10.1177/0267323120978724 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Berger C. R., Calabrese R. J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1(2), 99–112. 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1975.tb00258.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Betsch C. (2020). How behavioural science data helps mitigate the COVID-19 crisis. Nature Human Behaviour, 4, 438. 10.1038/s41562-020-0866-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Bode L., Vraga E. K. (2021). Correction experiences on social media during COVID-19. Social Media + Society, 7(2), 1–11. 10.1177/20563051211008829 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Brossard D., Nisbet M. C. (2007). Deference to scientific authority among a low information public: Understanding U.S. opinion on agricultural biotechnology. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 19(1), 24–52. 10.1093/ijpor/edl003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Cacciatore M. A., Yeo S. K., Scheufele D. A., Xenos M. A., Brossard D., Corley E. A. (2018). Is Facebook making us dumber? Exploring social media use as a predictor of political knowledge. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 95(2), 404–424. 10.1177/1077699018770447 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Chepurnaya A. (2021). Modeling public perception in times of crisis: Discursive strategies in Trump’s COVID-19 discourse. Critical Discourse Studies, 20(1), 70–87. 10.1080/17405904.2021.1990780 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Choi S. I., Kim S., Jin Y., Valentini C., Badham M., Colleoni E., Romenti S. (2022). Effects of individuals’ cultural orientations and trust in government health communication sources on behavioral intentions during a pandemic: A cross-country study. Health Communication. Advance online publication. 10.1080/10410236.2022.2159975 [DOI] [PubMed]
  13. Chon M.-G., Kim S. (2022). Fostering compliance with COVID-19 guidelines: Insights for risk communication strategies during a pandemic. The Social Science Journal. Advance online publication. 10.1080/03623319.2022.2049555 [DOI]
  14. Chon M.-G., Park H. (2021). Predicting public support for government actions in a public health crisis: Testing fear, organization-public relationship, and behavioral intention in the framework of the situational theory of problem solving. Health Communication, 36(4), 476–486. 10.1080/10410236.2019.1700439 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Christians C., Glasser T., McQuail D., Nordenstreng K., White R. (2009). Normative theory of the press. Illinois University Press. [Google Scholar]
  16. Clements J. M. (2020). Knowledge and behaviors toward COVID-19 among US residents during the early days of the pandemic: Cross-sectional online questionnaire. JMIR Public Health and Surveillance, 6(2), e19161. 10.2196/19161 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Colleoni E., Romenti S., Valentini C., Badham M., Choi S. I., Kim S., Jin Y. (2022). Does culture matter? Measuring cross-country perceptions of CSR communication campaigns about COVID-19. Sustainability, 14, Article 889. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14020889 [Google Scholar]
  18. Deci E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. Springer. [Google Scholar]
  19. Deephouse D. L. (2000). Media reputation as a strategic resource: An integration of mass communication and resource- based theories. Journal of Management, 26, 1091–1112. [Google Scholar]
  20. Eisenman D. P., Cordasco K. M., Asch S., Golden J. F., Glik D. (2007). Disaster planning and risk communication with vulnerable communities: Lessons from hurricane Katrina. American Journal of Public Health, 97(Supplement_1), S109–S115. 10.2105/AJPH.2005.084335 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Etter M., Ravasi D., Colleoni E. (2019). Social media and the formation of reputation. Academy of Management Review, 44(1), 28–52. 10.5465/amr.2014.0280 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Fridman I., Lucas N., Henke D., Zigler C. K. (2020). Association between public knowledge about COVID-19, trust in information sources, and adherence to social distancing: Cross-sectional survey. JMIR Public Health and Surveillance, 6(3), e22060. 10.2196/22060 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Gandy O. H. (1982). Beyond agenda setting: Information subsidies and public policy. Ablex Publishing Company. [Google Scholar]
  24. Gerosa T., Gui M., Hargittai E., Nguyen M. H. (2021). (Mis)informed during COVID-19: How education level and information sources contribute to knowledge gaps. International Journal of Communication, 15, 2196–2217. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/16438/3438 [Google Scholar]
  25. Glasser T. L., Ettema J. S. (1989). Investigative journalism and the moral order. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 6, 1–20. 10.1080/15295038909366728 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Hayes A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Publications, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  27. Ho S. S., Peh X., Soh V. W. L. (2013). The cognitive mediation model: Factors influencing public knowledge of the H1N1 pandemic and intention to take precautionary behaviors. Journal of Health Communication, 18(7), 773–794. 10.1080/10810730.2012.743624 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Jin Y., Liu B. F., Austin L. L. (2014). Examining the role of social media in effective crisis management: The effects of crisis origin, information form, and source on publics’ crisis responses. Communication Research, 41(1), 74–94. 10.1177/0093650211423918 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Kim S., Jin Y. (2020). Organizational threat appraisal by publics: The effects of perceived temporal distance on health crisis outcomes. International Journal of Communication, 14, 4075–4095. https://doi.org/1932–8036/20200005 [Google Scholar]
  30. Kozman C., Tabbara R., Melki J. (2021). The role of media and communication in reducing uncertainty during the Syria war. Media and Communication, 9(4), 297–308. 10.17645/mac.v9i4.4352 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Kramer M. W. (1999). Motivation to reduce uncertainty: A reconceptualization of uncertainty reduction theory. Management Communication Quarterly, 13(2), 305–316. 10.1177/0893318999132007 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Lee Y.-I., Jin Y. (2019). Crisis information seeking and sharing (CISS): Scale development for measuring publics’ communicative behavior in social-mediated public health crises. Journal of International Crisis and Risk Communication Research, 2(1), 13–38. 10.3316/INFORMIT.099680728667688 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Lee Y., Li J.-Y. Q. (2021). The role of communication transparency and organizational trust in publics’ perceptions, attitudes and social distancing behaviour: A case study of the COVID-19 outbreak. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 29(4), 368–384. 10.1111/1468-5973.12354 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Lee S., Yamamoto M., Tandoc E. C. (2022). Why people who know less think they know about COVID-19: Evidence from US and Singapore. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 99(1), 44–68. 10.1177/10776990211049460 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Li Z., Sun X. (2021). Analysis of the impact of media trust on the public’s motivation to receive future vaccinations for COVID-19 based on protection motivation theory. Vaccines, 9(12), 1401. 10.3390/vaccines9121401 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Lim V. W., Lim R. L., Tan Y. R., Soh A. S., Tan M. X., Othman N. B., Borame Dickens S., Thein T.-L., Lwin M. O., Ong R. T.-H., Leo Y.-S., Lee V. J., Chen M. I. (2021). Government trust, perceptions of COVID-19 and behaviour change: Cohort surveys, Singapore. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 99(2), 92–101. 10.2471/BLT.20.269142 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Lin C.-Y., Imani V., Majd N. R., Ghasemi Z., Griffiths M. D., Hamilton K., Hagger M. S., Pakpour A. H. (2020). Using an integrated social cognition model to predict COVID-19 preventive behaviours. British Journal of Health Psychology, 25(4), 981–1005. 10.1111/bjhp.12465 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Lu X., Jin Y. (2020). Information vetting as a key component in social-mediated crisis communication: An exploratory study to examine the initial conceptualization. Public Relations Review, 46(2), 101891. 10.1016/j.pubrev.2020.101891 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Lu X., Lee Y.-I., Jin Y., Austin L., Eaddy L. L. (2022). Crisis information vetting: Extending the social-mediated crisis communication model. In Jin Y., Austin L. (Eds.), Social media and crisis communication (2nd ed., pp. 142–154). Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  40. Lu X., Vijaykumar S., Jin Y., Rogerson D. (2022). Think before you share: Beliefs and emotions that shaped COVID-19 (mis)information vetting and sharing intentions among WhatsApp users in the United Kingdom. Telematics and Informatics, 67, 101750. 10.1016/j.tele.2021.101750 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Malecki K. M. C., Keating J. A., Safdar N. (2021). Crisis communication and public perception of COVID-19 risk in the era of social media. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 72(4), 697–702. 10.1093/cid/ciaa758 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Markus H., Zajonc R. B. (1985). The cognitive perspective in social psychology. In Lindzey G., Aronson E. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (3rd ed., pp. 137–230). Random House. [Google Scholar]
  43. McLeod D. M., Kosicki G. M., McLeod J. M. (2009). Political communication effects. In Bryant J., Oliver M. B. (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 228–251). Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  44. Melki J., Tamim H., Hadid D., Farhat S., Makki M., Ghandour L., Hitti E. (2022). Media exposure and health behavior during pandemics: The mediating effect of perceived knowledge and fear on compliance with COVID-19 prevention measures. Health Communication, 37(5), 586–596. 10.1080/10410236.2020.1858564 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Mergel I. (2012). The social media innovation challenge in the public sector. Information Polity, 17(3–4), 281–292. 10.3233/IP-2012-000281 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Moreno Á., Fuentes Lara C. M., Navarro C. (2020). Covid-19 communication management in Spain: Exploring the effect of information-seeking behavior and message reception in public’s evaluation. El Profesional de La Información, 29(4), e290402. 10.3145/epi.2020.jul.02 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Mourão R. R., Thorson E., Chen W., Tham S. M. (2018). Media repertoires and news trust during the early Trump administration. Journalism Studies, 19(13), 1945–1956. 10.1080/1461670X.2018.1500492 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Paek H.-J. (2008). Mechanisms through which adolescents attend and respond to antismoking media campaigns. Journal of Communication, 58(1), 84–105. 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2007.00375.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Park T., Ju I., Ohs J. E., Hinsley A. (2021). Optimistic bias and preventive behavioral engagement in the context of COVID-19. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 17(1), 1859–1866. 10.1016/j.sapharm.2020.06.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Penrod J. (2001). Refinement of the concept of uncertainty. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 34(2), 238–245. 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01750.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Protess D. L., Cook F. L., Doppelt J. C., Ettema J. S., Gordon M. T., Leff D. R. (1992). The journalism of outrage: Investigative reporting and agenda building in America. Guilford Press [Google Scholar]
  52. Quinn S. C., Parmer J., Freimuth V. S., Hilyard K. M., Musa D., Kim K. H. (2013). Exploring communication, trust in government, and vaccination intention later in the 2009 H1N1 pandemic: Results of a national survey. Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice, and Science, 11(2), 96–106. 10.1089/bsp.2012.0048 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Schäfer S. (2020). Illusion of knowledge through Facebook news? Effects of snack news in a news feed on perceived knowledge, attitude strength, and willingness for discussions. Computers in Human Behavior, 103, 1–12. 10.1016/j.chb.2019.08.031 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  54. Shafiq M., Elharake J. A., Malik A. A., McFadden S. M., Aguolu O. G., Omer S. B. (2021). COVID-19 sources of information, knowledge, and preventive behaviors among the US adult population. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 27(3), 278–284. 10.1097/PHH.0000000000001348 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Shah D. V., Rojas H., Cho J. (2009). Media and civic participation: On understanding and misunderstanding communication effects. In Bryant J., Oliver M. B. (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 207–227). Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  56. Siegrist M., Zingg A. (2014). The role of public trust during pandemics. European Psychologist, 19(1), 23–32. 10.1027/1016-9040/a000169 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  57. So J., Kuang K., Cho H. (2019). Information seeking upon exposure to risk messages: Predictors, outcomes, and mediating roles of health information seeking. Communication Research, 46(5), 663–687. 10.1177/0093650216679536 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  58. Soroya S. H., Farooq A., Mahmood K., Isoaho J., Zara S. (2021). From information seeking to information avoidance: Understanding the health information behavior during a global health crisis. Information Processing & Management, 58(2), 102440. 10.1016/j.ipm.2020.102440 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Stryker J. E., Moriarty C. M., Jensen J. D. (2008). Effects of newspaper coverage on public knowledge about modifiable cancer risks. Health Communication, 23(4), 380–390. 10.1080/10410230802229894 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Tsang S. J., Zhao X., Chen Y.-R. R. (2021). Assessing mechanisms underlying the sharing of official and unofficial information during a pandemic. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(24), 13298. 10.3390/ijerph182413298 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Utz S., Schultz F., Glocka S. (2013). Crisis communication online: How medium, crisis type and emotions affected public reactions in the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. Public Relations Review, 39(1), 40–46. 10.1016/j.pubrev.2012.09.010 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  62. Van Aelst P., Toth F., Castro L., Štětka V., Vreese C. de, Aalberg T., Cardenal A. S., Corbu N., Esser F., Hopmann D. N., Koc-Michalska K., Matthes J., Schemer C., Sheafer T., Splendore S., Stanyer J., Stępińska A., Strömbäck J., Theocharis Y. (2021). Does a crisis change news habits? A comparative study of the effects of COVID-19 on news media use in 17 European countries. Digital Journalism, 9(9), 1208–1238. 10.1080/21670811.2021.1943481 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  63. Van der Linden S., Roozenbeek J., Compton J. (2020). Inoculating against fake news about COVID-19. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 566790. 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.566790 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Van Erkel P. F. A., Van Aelst P. (2021). Why don’t we learn from social media? Studying effects of and mechanisms behind social media news use on general surveillance political knowledge. Political Communication, 38(4), 407–425. 10.1080/10584609.2020.1784328 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  65. Vijaykumar S., Jin Y., Nowak G. (2015). Social media and the virality of risk: The risk amplification through media spread (RAMS) model. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 12(3), 653–677. 10.1515/jhsem-2014-0072 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  66. Vosoughi S., Roy D., Aral S. (2018). The spread of true and false news online. Science, 359(6380), 1146–1151. 10.1126/science.aap9559 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Wani M. A., Agarwal N., Bours P. (2021). Impact of unreliable content on social media users during COVID-19 and stance detection system. Electronics, 10(1), 5. 10.3390/electronics10010005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  68. Warren A. M., Sulaiman A., Jaafar N. I. (2014). Social media effects on fostering online civic engagement and building citizen trust and trust in institutions. Government Information Quarterly, 31(2), 291–301. 10.1016/j.giq.2013.11.007 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  69. Xiang J., Hmielowski J. D. (2017). Alternative views and eroding support: The conditional indirect effects of foreign media and internet use on regime support in china. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 29(3), 406–425. 10.1093/ijpor/edw006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  70. Yamamoto M., Kushin M. J., Dalisay F. (2018). How informed are messaging app users about politics? A linkage of messaging app use and political knowledge and participation. Telematics and Informatics, 35(8), 2376–2386. 10.1016/j.tele.2018.10.008 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  71. Yamamoto M., Morey A. C. (2019). Incidental news exposure on social media: A campaign communication mediation approach. Social Media + Society, 5(2), 1–12. 10.1177/2056305119843619 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  72. Yoo J. H. (2013). No clear winner: Effects of the biggest loser on the stigmatization of obese persons. Health Communication, 28(3), 294–303. 10.1080/10410236.2012.684143 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  73. Zhao X., Ma Z., Xu S., Austin L. L. (2022). How information repertoire affects vaccine hesitancy: Processes of information verification and cognitive elaboration. Health Communication. Advance online publication. 10.1080/10410236.2022.2154017 [DOI] [PubMed]
  74. Zhu Z., Liu Y., Kapucu N., Peng Z. (2020). Online media and trust in government during crisis: The moderating role of sense of security. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 50, 101717. 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101717 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Articles from The American Behavioral Scientist are provided here courtesy of SAGE Publications

RESOURCES