Public Health Communication Reduces COVID-19 Misinformation Sharing and Boosts Self-Efficacy

IF 3.2 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE

Journal of Experimental Political Science Pub Date : 2024-04-22 DOI:10.1017/xps.2024.2

Jesper Rasmussen, Lasse Lindekilde, Michael Bang Petersen

{"title":"Public Health Communication Reduces COVID-19 Misinformation Sharing and Boosts Self-Efficacy","authors":"Jesper Rasmussen, Lasse Lindekilde, Michael Bang Petersen","doi":"10.1017/xps.2024.2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n During health crises, misinformation may spread rapidly on social media, leading to hesitancy towards health authorities. The COVID-19 pandemic prompted significant research on how communication from health authorities can effectively facilitate compliance with health-related behavioral advice such as distancing and vaccination. Far fewer studies have assessed whether and how public health communication can help citizens avoid the harmful consequences of exposure to COVID-19 misinformation, including passing it on to others. In two experiments in Denmark during the pandemic, the effectiveness of a 3-minute and a 15-second intervention from the Danish Health Authorities on social media was assessed, along with an accuracy nudge. The findings showed that the 3-minute intervention providing competences through concrete and actionable advice decreased sharing of COVID-19-related misinformation and boosted their sense of self-efficacy. These findings suggest that authorities can effectively invest in building citizens’ competences in order to mitigate the spread of misinformation on social media.","PeriodicalId":37558,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Political Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Political Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/xps.2024.2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

During health crises, misinformation may spread rapidly on social media, leading to hesitancy towards health authorities. The COVID-19 pandemic prompted significant research on how communication from health authorities can effectively facilitate compliance with health-related behavioral advice such as distancing and vaccination. Far fewer studies have assessed whether and how public health communication can help citizens avoid the harmful consequences of exposure to COVID-19 misinformation, including passing it on to others. In two experiments in Denmark during the pandemic, the effectiveness of a 3-minute and a 15-second intervention from the Danish Health Authorities on social media was assessed, along with an accuracy nudge. The findings showed that the 3-minute intervention providing competences through concrete and actionable advice decreased sharing of COVID-19-related misinformation and boosted their sense of self-efficacy. These findings suggest that authorities can effectively invest in building citizens’ competences in order to mitigate the spread of misinformation on social media.

查看原文本刊更多论文

公共卫生传播可减少 COVID-19 误传并提高自我效能

在卫生危机期间，错误信息可能会在社交媒体上迅速传播，从而导致人们对卫生当局产生犹豫。COVID-19 大流行促使人们对卫生当局的传播如何有效促进人们遵守与健康相关的行为建议（如保持距离和接种疫苗）进行了大量研究。评估公共卫生传播是否以及如何帮助公民避免接触 COVID-19 错误信息所带来的有害后果（包括将其传递给他人）的研究要少得多。大流行期间，在丹麦进行的两项实验中，评估了丹麦卫生当局在社交媒体上进行 3 分钟和 15 秒干预的效果，以及准确性提示。结果表明，3 分钟的干预通过具体可行的建议提供了能力，减少了与 COVID-19 相关的错误信息的分享，提高了他们的自我效能感。这些研究结果表明，当局可以有效地投资于公民的能力建设，以减少社交媒体上错误信息的传播。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of Experimental Political Science Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science

CiteScore

5.10

自引率

8.30%

发文量

期刊介绍： The Journal of Experimental Political Science (JEPS) features cutting-edge research that utilizes experimental methods or experimental reasoning based on naturally occurring data. We define experimental methods broadly: research featuring random (or quasi-random) assignment of subjects to different treatments in an effort to isolate causal relationships in the sphere of politics. JEPS embraces all of the different types of experiments carried out as part of political science research, including survey experiments, laboratory experiments, field experiments, lab experiments in the field, natural and neurological experiments. We invite authors to submit concise articles (around 4000 words or fewer) that immediately address the subject of the research. We do not require lengthy explanations regarding and justifications of the experimental method. Nor do we expect extensive literature reviews of pros and cons of the methodological approaches involved in the experiment unless the goal of the article is to explore these methodological issues. We expect readers to be familiar with experimental methods and therefore to not need pages of literature reviews to be convinced that experimental methods are a legitimate methodological approach. We will consider longer articles in rare, but appropriate cases, as in the following examples: when a new experimental method or approach is being introduced and discussed or when novel theoretical results are being evaluated through experimentation. Finally, we strongly encourage authors to submit manuscripts that showcase informative null findings or inconsistent results from well-designed, executed, and analyzed experiments.

文献相关原料

公司名称	产品信息	采购帮参考价格