ABSTRACT
Formation of accurate risk perceptions and adoption of protective measures play a key role in reducing transmission and stopping the spread of infectious diseases. Extant research, however, has shown that perceptions of risk are not necessarily correlated with the level of actual risk, including that of COVID-19. Informed by the social amplification of risk framework (SARF), we test whether having a parasocial relationship with a celebrity who has COVID-19 makes the risk of contracting the virus more real, thus amplifying the perceived susceptibility to the virus and reducing the biased sense of optimism that one is safe. Findings from Study 1, a national survey (N = 493), suggest that having a parasocial friend contract COVID-19, is related to increased perceived susceptibility, especially for those for whom it would otherwise seem and vague. Study 2 (N = 228) complements these findings by identifying a potential underlying mechanism for the observed relationship between PSR and perceived susceptibility – attenuation of the optimism bias. Findings are discussed in terms of their contribution to understanding the underlying mechanisms of the potential role played by celebrities in health and risk communication. [ FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Media Psychology 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
Social media poses a threat to public health by facilitating the spread of misinformation. At the same time, however, social media offers a promising avenue to stem the distribution of false claims - as evidenced by real-time corrections, crowdsourced fact-checking, and algorithmic tagging. Despite the growing attempts to correct misinformation on social media, there is still considerable ambiguity regarding the ability to effectively ameliorate the negative impact of false messages. To address this gap, the current study uses a meta-analysis to evaluate the relative impact of social media interventions designed to correct health-related misinformation (k = 24; N = 6,086). Additionally, the meta-analysis introduces theory-driven moderators that help delineate the effectiveness of social media interventions. The mean effect size of attempts to correct misinformation on social media was positive and significant (d = 0.40, 95% CI [0.25, 0.55], p =.0005) and a publication bias could not be excluded. Interventions were more effective in cases where participants were involved with the health topic, as well as when misinformation was distributed by news organizations (vs. peers) and debunked by experts (vs. non-experts). The findings of this meta-analysis can be used not only to depict the current state of the literature but also to prescribe specific recommendations to better address the proliferation of health misinformation on social media.