CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 19Vaccine Coverage and HesitancyCommunication and COVID-19 ImpactMisinformation and Its Impacts

Mode and Frequency of Covid-19 Information Updates, Political Values, and Future Covid-19 Vaccine Attitudes

Open access
McAndrew, Siobhan, Allington, Daniel·2020
DOI 10.31234/osf.io/j7srx
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The effect of social media consumption on perceptions of the seriousness of the Covid-19 pandemic, attitudes to public health requirements, and intentions towards a future Covid-19 vaccine are of live public health interest. There are also public health and security concerns that the pandemic has been accompanied and arguably further amplified by an ‘infodemic’ spreading misinformation. Tests of the effect of social media consumption on future Covid-19 vaccine intentions using population samples have been relatively few to date. This study contributes to the evidence base by examining social media consumption and vaccine intentions using British and US population samples.Methods: Data were gathered on 1,663 GB adults and 1,198 US adults from an online panel on attitudes towards a future vaccine alongside self-reported social and legacy broadcast and print media consumption. Ordered and binomial logit models were used to assess reported intentions regarding a future Covid-19 vaccine, testing the effects of media consumption type. Respondents were categorised in terms of their media consumption using a fourfold typology, as less frequent social, less frequent legacy media consumers (low-low); high social, low legacy media consumers (high-low); low social, high legacy (low-high); and high social, high legacy (high-high).Results: In the British sample, regression results indicate that those who receive Covid-19 updates more frequently via legacy media (low-high), and those being updated more than daily via both online and legacy media consumers, tend to provide significantly less Covid-19 vaccine-hesitant responses than low-low consumers. There is no significant difference between high social, low legacy media consumers and low-low consumers. In the US sample, membership of the low-high group is associated with lower Covid-19 vaccine hesitancy compared with low-low consumers. However, respondents consuming both social and legacy media several times daily exhibit similar vaccine intentions on average to those consuming social media daily and legacy media less often, providing a contrast with the UK sample. We also identify differences in Covid-19 vaccine intentions relating to demographics and political values.Conclusions: Differences in vaccine attentions are associated with the extent and balance of consumption of news relating to Covid-19 and its source. Political values and ethnic identity also appear to structure attitudes to a future Covid-19 vaccine.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.31234/osf.io/j7srx

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Estimates of acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine in June 2020 suggest that 38% of the public surveyed in the UK and 34.2% of the public in the USA would accept a COVID-19 vaccine.

    “Estimates of acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine in June 2020 suggest that 38% of the public surveyed in the UK and 34.2% of the public in the USA would accept a COVID-19 vaccine (a further 31% and 25% were, respectively, unsure that they would accept vaccination against COVID-19) 25 .”

    From Measuring the impact of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation on vaccination intent in the UK and USA (2021) · cites this paper as [25]

    Table 1 (What this study adds) reports that 38.0% of UK respondents and 34.2% of US respondents said they would definitely get vaccinated. But the further 31.0% and 25.0% said they probably would get vaccinated, not that they were unsure; the Methods section reports 69% and 59%, respectively, as probably or definitely willing. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Higher intent to accept a COVID-19 vaccine in the UK than the USA has been reported recently.

    “Higher intent to accept a COVID-19 vaccine in the UK than the USA has been reported recently 25 .”

    From Measuring the impact of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation on vaccination intent in the UK and USA (2021) · cites this paper as [25]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
McAndrew, S., & Allington, D.
Affiliations
  • University of Bristol (GB)
  • University College London (GB)
ORCID
Publisher
Center for Open Science
Published
2020-08-14
DOI
10.31234/osf.io/j7srx
OpenAlex
W3160450913
Cited by
19
References
30
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Vaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Communication and COVID-19 Impact
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
Keywords
COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, vaccination intention, social media use, traditional media, infodemic, misinformation, political values, ethnic identity, public health attitudes

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review