ABSTRACT
Contact tracing has emerged as one tool to communicate infection risks with the public during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study uses source credibility and the risk perception attitude framework to interpret how Americans responded to contact tracing messages from a technology company, employer, physician, or state government. Survey participants (n = 245) were generally positive towards a contact tracing message regardless of source. Participants with high risk perceptions and low efficacy beliefs responded more strongly to appeals from their company and their physician while the low risk-low efficacy group found the state government appeal more compelling. The results suggest that several sources delivering the same health message could engage people with different risk perceptions and efficacy beliefs. [ FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Journal of Applied Communication Research is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full . (Copyright applies to all s.)
ABSTRACT
Contact tracing has emerged as one tool to communicate infection risks with the public during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study uses source credibility and the risk perception attitude framework to interpret how Americans responded to contact tracing messages from a technology company, employer, physician, or state government. Survey participants (n = 245) were generally positive towards a contact tracing message regardless of source. Participants with high risk perceptions and low efficacy beliefs responded more strongly to appeals from their company and their physician while the low risk-low efficacy group found the state government appeal more compelling. The results suggest that several sources delivering the same health message could engage people with different risk perceptions and efficacy beliefs. [ FROM AUTHOR]
ABSTRACT
The COVID-19 infodemic is driven partially by Twitter bots. Flagging bot accounts and the misinformation they share could provide one strategy for preventing the spread of false information online. This article reports on an experiment (N = 299) conducted with participants in the USA to see whether flagging tweets as coming from bot accounts and as containing misinformation can lower participants' self-reported engagement and attitudes about the tweets. This experiment also showed participants tweets that aligned with their previously held beliefs to determine how flags affect their overall opinions. Results showed that flagging tweets lowered participants' attitudes about them, though this effect was less pronounced in participants who frequently used social media or consumed more news, especially from Facebook or Fox News. Some participants also changed their opinions after seeing the flagged tweets. The results suggest that social media companies can flag suspicious or inaccurate content as a way to fight misinformation. Flagging could be built into future automated fact-checking systems and other misinformation abatement strategies of the social network analysis and mining community.