Rumors and Fake News — Effects of Message Credibility on Human Behavior during the COVID-19 Pandemic тема диссертации и автореферата по ВАК РФ 00.00.00, кандидат наук Кемпкенс Оливер Харальд

• Кемпкенс Оливер Харальд
• кандидат наук
• 2024

Оглавление диссертации кандидат наук Кемпкенс Оливер Харальд

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES

LIST OF TABLES

INTRODUCTION

1 Theoretical framework for the research

1.1 Introduction into Credibility

1.2 Appearance on Social Media

1.3 Examples in the Context of the Corona Pandemic

1.4 International Mitigation Measures

1.5 Human Behavior

1.6 State of Research

1.7 Hypotheses on Factors Influencing Belief in Rumors and Fake News on Social Media135

2 Methods and Emirical Findings

2.1 Calculation of the Sample

2.2 Development of the Questionnaire

2.3 Conducting the Survey

2.4 Methods of Data Analysis

2.5 Empirical findings

2.6 Descriptive Data Analysis

2.7 Sociodemographic Data

2.8 Evaluating Corona Statements

2.9 Evaluating Corona Mitigation Measures

2.10 Personal Attitudes

2.11 Inferential Statistics: Investigation of the Postulated Hypotheses

2.12 Discussion

3 Conclusions

Bibliography

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. People's Attitude as a Function of Argument Quality and Source Credibility.

Figure 2. Three Main Dimensions of Source Credibility in the Context of Marketing

Communication

Figure 3. The Web's Credibility Compared to other Professions

Figure 4. Credibility Factors for Online News Media

Figure 5. Influencing Factors on Credibility of Information Spread on Social Media

Figure 6. Factors Affecting Media Credibility

Figure 7. Social Network User Worldwide in Billions from 2017 to

Figure 8. System Architecture of RumorLens

Figure 9. Real-time Rumor Detection

Figure 10. Rumor Retransmission Model

Figure 11. Results of Rumor Transmission Model

Figure 12. Rumors, Conspiracy Theories and Stigma Worldwide

Figure 13. The Spread of Rumors and Fake News on Social Media

Figure 14. The Beginning of the Corona Pandemic

Figure 15. Pandemics since the Spanish Flu in

Figure 16. SARS-CoV-2 Mutations in Europe

Figure 17. The SARS-CoV-2 Lifecycle

Figure 18. Number of COVID-19 Deaths Worldwide

Figure 19. COVID-19 Deaths in Germany by Gender and Age

Figure 20. Developing a Somatic Symptom Disorder

Figure 21. All-Cause Mortality Sweden

Figure 22. Government Response Stringency Index

Figure 23. Change in R for Different Corona Mitigation Measures

Figure 24. Number of Fully Vaccinated People in Other Countries

Figure 25. Global Vaccine Timeline

Figure 26. Social Distancing Scenarios

Figure 27. Acceptance of Corona Mitigation Measures in Germany

Figure 28. Corona Vaccination in Germany

Figure 29. COVID-19 Effects on Acute and Chronic Malnutrition

Figure 30. Types of Behavior

Figure 31. Perceived Causes of Supply and Food Shortage

Figure 32. Global Data Collection to Stuy Human Behavior

Figure 33. Topics of Behavioral and Social Science in the Context of a the COVID-19

Pandemic

Figure 34. Connection between People's Attitudes and their Behavioral Intentions

Figure 35. Changing People's Attitude Through Messages

Figure 36. Factors Affecting Health Behavior

Figure 37. The Health Belief Model and its Components and Linkages

Figure 38. Measuring Human Behavior Change Through Fake News on Social Media

Figure 39. Age and Gender Structure of the Population in Germany

Figure 40. Age Distribution

Figure 41. Histogram Age Distribution

Figure 42. Participants' Gender

Figure 43. Children Under the Age of Twelve

Figure 44. Highest Educational Achievement

Figure 45. Occupational Group

Figure 46. Family Status

Figure 47. Risk Group

Figure 48. Place of Residence

Figure 49. Participants' Income

Figure 50: Results "The Origin of the Virus"

Figure 51: Results "Compulsory Vaccination"

Figure 52: Results "Planned Pandemic"

Figure 53: Results "Natural Process"

Figure 54: Results "Total Control"

Figure 55: Results "Adverse Reactions"

Figure 56: Results "Vaccination Deaths"

Figure 57: Results "HIV Similarities"

Figure 58: Attitude towards Corona Vaccination

Figure 59: Influence through Rumors and Fake News on Social Media

Figure 60: Development of a Critical Attitude Towards Corona Mitigation Measures.

Figure 61: The Use of the Media to led the Corona Pandemic Appear More Dangerous.

Figure 62: Loop Diagram of the Main Forces of the Ebola Epidemic

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Fake News Typology

Table 2. Credibility Items in the Context of Marketing Communication

Table 3. Variants of Concern in Europe

Table 4. Possible Corona Mitigation Measures

Table 5 Aspects Social Media Users Consider When Assessing an Information's

Truthfulness

Table 6. Results Evaluation of Mitigation Measures

Table 7. Results Message's Credibility

Table 8. Credibility of Information Sources

Table 9. Cross Table Q1 and Q36. Source

Table 10. Chi-square Test Q1 and Q36

Table 11. Cross Table Q34 and Q1

Table 12. Chi-square Test Q1 and Q34

Table 13. Correlation Q16 and Q19

Table 14. Correlation Analysis Belief in Rumors and Specific Characteristics

Table 15. A Message's Credibility

Table 16. Correlation Analysis Q16, Q27 and Q17

Table 17. T-Test Q35 and Q16

Table 18. T-Test Significance Q35 and Q16

Table 19. Correlation Analysis Q19 and Q30

Table 20. Correlation Analysis Q30 and Q18

Table 21. Correlation Analysis Q8 and Q16

Table 22. Correlation Analysis Q16 and Q14, Q15, Q20, Q22, Q31

Table 23. Correlation Analysis Q16 and Q13

Table 24. Consequences of Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions on Human Behavior Research

Введение диссертации (часть автореферата) на тему «Rumors and Fake News — Effects of Message Credibility on Human Behavior during the COVID-19 Pandemic»

INTRODUCTION

Relevance of the topic. The outbreak of the Corona virus (COVID-19) has reached from China to more than one hundred other countries in only two months. Media daily reported actual news regarding the number of infected people, the number of recovered people and finally the number of deceased.1

On March 11th, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the outbreak as a pandemic. Countries reacted with different measures in order to prevent a further spread of the virus. At least, there was no reliable vaccine against COVID-19 from the beginning of the pandemic up to spring 2021. Even nowadays, COVID-19 vaccines cannot provide one hundred percent protection.

Hence, the Federal Republic of Germany ordered the lockdown on March 16th, 2020, and the public life has been shut down: shops had to close immediately, events had been forbidden, aircrafts had to remain on the ground and the population had been instructed not to leave their houses except of emergency cases such as essential purchases or visits of the doctor. Social distancing soon has become one of the most used terms in the media.

Regarding the media, there hardly was any space for other topics. Especially on social media, controversial and heated discussions and debates on the virus' danger have spread quickly. News have been dominated by virologists and up to date, there is no consensus among experts, whether the ordered measures of the German government can be called reasonable and justified or not. Additionally, there is no consensus whether and to what extent these measures are proportional to the threat of the Corona virus.

Even at the pandemic's beginning, the establishment of specific groups or rather resistance movements against the imposed measures could be observed. There were not only demonstrations, but on social media one could find a flood of statements, calculations, statistics, videos and calls for participations in demonstration events. The media daily reported on broken regulations from the repertoire of mitigation measures.

1 De Ceukelaire, W., Bodini, C. We Need Strong Public Health Care to Contain the Global Corona Pandemic / W. De Ceukelaire, C. Bodini // International Journal of Health Services, 2020. - 50. - P. 276.

The research topic explores the profound impact of the Corona crisis on various facets of societal life, highlighting the shifts in social dynamics, perception of government institutions, and the spread of misinformation via social media. With the pandemic reshaping everyday existence and challenging established norms, understanding these changes is crucial for navigating current and future challenges.

The degree of development of the topic. Scholars such as Kühne et al., Engels, and Eastin et al. have delved into the multifaceted aspects of the topic, investigating the societal response to the crisis, the role of social media in disseminating information, and the credibility of messages amidst a surge in fake news. Additionally, studies by Appelman and Sundar, as well as Oh and Lee, contribute to understanding how individuals perceive and respond to information credibility, particularly in the context of public health crises. Furthermore, recent developments, such as protests against mitigation measures and the association between conspiracy theories and political behavior, underscore the evolving nature of the issue.

The object of study encompasses the societal repercussions of the Corona crisis, including changes in social cohesion, government legitimacy, and information dissemination. Meanwhile, the subject of study focuses on various dimensions such as the credibility of information, behavioral responses to rumors, and the intersection of conspiracy beliefs with political attitudes. By examining these aspects, researchers aim to elucidate the complex interplay between the pandemic and societal dynamics, offering insights into effective crisis management and resilience-building strategies. Regarding the above-explained background, the present dissertation's major aim is to analyze the rumors and fake news as a subject and their effects on human behavior during the Corona pandemic as an object of the research.

The purpose and objectives. In this context, the following specific and research questions have to be answered:

Specific questions to give an overview on the theoretical background:

• How are rumors and fake news defined by the theoretical literature and how can these both terms be differentiated from each other?

• How did rumors and fake news develop on social media?

• What kind of concrete examples can be given for rumors and fake news during the Corona pandemic?

In order to give a short and general account on the situation with the corona pandemic around the world and particularly in Germany, the following questions are used:

• How has the Corona pandemic developed worldwide and especially in the Federal Republic of Germany?

• What medical consequences can be identified if people are infected with COVID-19, regarding the actual state of knowledge?

• Which measures did countries take in order to contain the spread of the Corona virus?

Research questions in combination with data collection:

• How is the state of research regarding the influence of people's behavior through rumors and fake news on the Corona issue?

• To what extent can theories and models of human behavior explain the influence of human beings through rumors and fake news?

• To what extent can a message's credibility influence human behavior?

• Which role do social media play regarding the spread of rumors and fake news on the Corona pandemic?

• Do individuals have to possess specific characteristics, attitudes or even group memberships to be more susceptible for rumors and fake news on Corona?

• Do people follow lockdown rules and mitigation measures such as wearing a mouth/nose protection, keeping quarantine or the prohibition to meet friends more seldom, if they have been influenced by rumors and fake news on social media?

• Does group homogeneity promote information throughput regarding conspiracy theories?

• Are there any groups that usually do not believe rumors, but believe the rumors on Corona?

The present thesis' research tasks are divided into theory-based tasks and empirical tasks. Theory-based tasks will be to give an overview on the literature that deals with defining rumors and fake news, their development on social media and specific examples in connection with the corona pandemic. Also, literature research is done to give an overview on the development of the corona pandemic worldwide and especially in the Federal Republic of Germany.

Regarding the present thesis' empirical research tasks, the main objective is to investigate to what extent human behavior is affected by the spread of rumors and fake news on social media during crises situations such as the corona pandemic. By means of statistical data analyses, relationships and correlations between particular variables will be identified in order to explain group behavior during crises situations.

The purpose and objectives are implied throughout the text, as the researchers aim to understand the societal impact of the Corona crisis, the role of social media in disseminating information, the credibility of messages, and the behavioral responses to misinformation.

The scientific novelty lies in the exploration of how the Corona crisis has reshaped societal dynamics, particularly in terms of social cohesion, government legitimacy, and the spread of misinformation via social media. Additionally, the studies mentioned contribute to understanding the credibility of information and behavioral responses in the context of public health crises.

Заключение диссертации по теме «Другие cпециальности», Кемпкенс Оливер Харальд

3 Conclusions

The present chapter's aim is to give a brief overview on the present dissertation's results, particularly with regard to the pre-defined hypotheses. Subsequently, the present dissertation's limitations will be explained and a critical evaluation of the methodology will be conducted. The chapter concludes with an outlook on future developments and trends, which includes future research potential.

As explained in chapter 1, the present dissertation's major aim is to analyze the effects of rumors and fake news spread on social media on human behavior during the corona pandemic. By means of a systematic literature research as well as a quantitative data collection in the Federal Republic of Germany, the research questions pre-defined in section 1.2 and the research hypothesis pre-defined in chapter 3 could be answered or rather checked.

In the following, the research questions of the paper will be answered in detail.

• How can rumors and fake news be defined and how can these both terms be differentiated from each other?

Following the results of the systematic literature research from section 1, it can be summarized that the main difference between rumors and fake news on the topic of the current corona pandemic spread on social media is the following:

A rumor must not necessarily be false - at the beginning, it is unclear whether or to what extent a specific rumor is true or not. After some time, a rumor can be identified as being true or false. In the context of the present dissertation's topic, this is for instance the case when scientists were able to give empirical evidence on a specific rumor: then, the rumor is no longer a rumor, but an accurate information.

• How did rumors and fake news develop on social media?

As the sections 1.2 and 1.3 could show, with the upcoming of the internet and the world wide web, rumors and fake news found a new way to be spread around the world in a very short time. This is due to the fact that people are able to use social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram to reach millions of others with their posts.

Section 1.3 could also show that especially in times of global crises such as the actual corona pandemic, people use the internet to gather information. Due to the enormous flood of information, many people are overwhelmed and have problems to differentiate between true and false information.

• What kind of concrete examples can be given for rumors and fake news during the corona pandemic?

The list of rumors and fake news on the topic of the corona pandemic is quite long and thus, not all types of misinformation could be presented in the present dissertation. However, some examples that can be found on social media could be given in section 1.3 This is for instance

1. Drinking chlorine dioxide kills the virus

2. Interval-fasting helps against the virus

3. Influenza is more dangerous than Corona

4. Wearing an oronasal mask encourages the accumulation of moisture in the lungs, which allows dangerous germ to multiply

5. The consumption of antiseptics kills the virus

6. The influenza vaccination increases the risk to suffer from COVID-19

7. Masks are dangerous because of the accumulation of CO2

8. Nicotine protects against COVID-19

9. Vitamin C in high doses kills the virus

10. The consumption of ibuprofen exacerbates COVID-19

11. The Corona virus is not new and has always existed.

At this point it should be mentioned that some of the rumors given as an example in section 1.3 might be checked in the meantime or in future. Thus, some of them might be even true to an other point of time.

• How has the Corona pandemic developed worldwide and especially in the Federal Republic of Germany?

Section 1.3 could give an introduction into the development of the corona pandemic. In this context, it can be summarized that the origin of the virus can be traced to Wuhan in China, since this was the location where the first people suffering from the new disease called COVID-19 could be observed. Due to the global infrastructure and especially the international air travel, COVID-19 could rapidly reach other continents and countries. Within a few weeks, the new disease has reached the whole world.

• What medical consequences can be identified if people are infected with COVID-19, regarding the actual state of knowledge?

As explained in section 1.3, many other human corona viruses such as HCoV-NL63, HCoV-229E, HCoV-HKU1 and HCoV-OC43 in general cause mild and self-limiting upper respiratory tract infections. In contrast, the variants SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 can cause the severe acute respiratory syndrome and result in a life-threatening disease. People who are infected with SARS-CoV-2 must not show any symptoms, but might suffer from

• Fever or chills

• Cough

• Shortness of breath or difficulty breathing

• Fatigue

• Muscle or body aches

• Headache

• New loss of taste or smell

• Sore throat

• Congestion or runny nose

• Nausea or vomiting

• Diarrhea.

Additionally, even severe symptoms such as trouble with breathing, persistent pain or pressure in the chest, new confusion, inability to wake or stay awake as well as pale, grey, or blue-colored skin, lips, or nail beds, depending on skin tone.

• Which measures did countries take in order to contain the spread of the Corona virus?

As the sections 1.3 could show, the different countries' corona mitigation measures significantly differ from each other. However, some measures such as wearing a mouth-nose-protection, social distancing and lockdowns accompanied by the closure of specific institutions such as schools, universities or public buildings can be found in nearly all countries.

In addition to the above-answered research questions based on the systematic literature search, some research questions could only be answered by conducting a quantitative data collection in the Federal Republic of Germany in combination with the findings of the literature search. In this context, the following research questions can be answered:

• How is the state of research regarding the influence of people's behavior through rumors and fake news on the corona issue?

• To what extent can theories and models of human behavior explain the influence of human beings through rumors and fake news?

As section 1.5 could show, human behavior in crises situations such as the current corona pandemic is hard to predict or to model, since there is a huge variety of different influencing factors. Some scientists focused on the development of human behavior prediction models, but these models have their limitations and thus, must be taken with caution.

• To what extent can a message's credibility influence human behavior?

• Which role do social media play regarding the spread of rumors and fake news on the Corona pandemic?

• Do individuals have to possess specific characteristics, attitudes or even group memberships to be more susceptible for rumors and fake news on Corona?

• Do people follow lockdown rules and mitigation measures such as wearing a mouth/nose protection, keeping quarantine or the prohibition to meet friends more seldom, if they have been influenced by rumors and fake news on social media?

• Does group homogeneity promote information throughput regarding conspiracy theories?

• Are there any groups that usually do not believe rumors, but believe the rumors on Corona?

Additionally, the following summary of the results of the hypotheses checking can be given:

• H1: People with children under the age of 12 in the same household do more

frequently believe in rumors and fake news as childless people

Hypothesis 1 must be rejected, since there is no significant relationship between the number of children under the age of twelve and the participants' belief in rumors and fake news. However, there is one single exception:

People with one or more children under the age of twelve do more frequently believe that the COVID-19 vaccination changes the genetic material than childless people do. Although the number of participants with more than two children is relatively small, the results show an important tendency and should be checked under consideration of a greater sample.

• H2: During the corona pandemic, younger people are more prone to rumors

and fake news on social media

All rumors and fake news of Q1 have been investigated regarding any significant differences depending on people's age, but there was no significant relationship between people's age and their susceptibility for rumors and fake news on social media. Thus, H2 is be rejected.

• H3: People follow lockdown rules and mitigation measures more seldom, if

they believe in rumors and fake news spread on social media

The correlation is referred to be significant on a 0.01 significance level. In other words, there is a positive relationship between both variables: The more people believe in the truth of rumors and fake news spread on social media, the more seldom they follow the corona mitigation measures. Thus, H3 was accepted on a 0.01 significance level.

• H4: People are more susceptible for rumors and fake news on Corona, if they possess specific characteristics, attitudes or even group memberships

The standardized questionnaire collected several different characteristics and attitudes, but only the correlation between Q16 and Q29 could be identified as being highly significant on a 0.01 significance level. In summary, this leads to the following results:

> People who rate themselves as being a risk-seeking person show a higher tendency to believe in rumors and fake news spread on social media.

> The more likely people are convinced that the economic and social consequences of the mitigation measures are significantly more fatal than their benefits, the stronger they believe in rumors and fake news spread on social media.

> The stronger people believe that the corona mitigation measures are in interference with civil rights and liberty and thus are unconstitutional, the more likely they believe in rumors and fake news spread on social media.

> The stronger people are convinced that virologists and specialists with a critical attitude against Corona measures can only use social media as information channel and are quickly called a conspiracy theorist, the more likely they believe in rumors and fake news spread on social media.

In summary, specific characteristics and attitudes have an influence on the extent to which people believe in rumors and fake news spread on social media.

• H5: Whether people perceive an information as credible or not is strongly

depending on the information's accurateness or richness of detail

The highest ratings that could be collected were a person's expertise or knowledge, a person's trustworthiness and an information's accurateness or richness of detail. Thus, H5 can partly be accepted, but has to be extended by the influencing factors "a person's trustworthiness" and "a person's expertise or knowledge".

• H6: The more people fear the corona virus, the more they believe in rumors

and fake news

According to the results, the following conclusions can be summarized:

> The stronger people believe the corona virus is not more dangerous than a conventional influenza, the stronger they believe in rumors and fake news spread on social media.

> The stronger people are convinced that the virus is very dangerous and the stronger the virus frightens them, the less they believe in rumors and fake news spread on social media.

Thus, H6 can be accepted on a 0.01 significance level.

• H7: Women are more susceptible for rumors and fake news on social media

than men

There is no significant difference between both genders regarding their belief in rumors and fake news and thus, H7 must be rejected.

• H8: The more people describe themselves as a critical person, the lower the risk they change their behavior during the pandemic

Regarding the hypothesis checking, the following results can be summarized:

> The higher people rate themselves as being critical, the less they started to change their behavior during the pandemic in terms of rejecting mitigation measures.

> The higher people rate themselves as a critical person, the more likely they follow corona mitigation measures.

Hence, the hypothesis H8 can be accepted.

H9: The less people trust in politicians and the government, the more they believe in fake news and rumors spread on social media

Checking of H9 included the consideration of several variables. Due to this, the following results can be summarized:

> The stronger people believe in rumors and fake news spread on social media, the less they trust in information that is coming from politicians.

> The stronger people believe in rumors and fake news, the less they trust in information given by federal authorities.

> The stronger people belief in rumors and fake news, the more they are convinced that the government lets the pandemic appear more dangerous than it actually is.

> The stronger people believe in rumors and fakes news, the more they have the impression that political decisions are becoming more and more incomprehensible.

> The stronger people believe in rumors and fake news, the more they are convinced that the government is hiding facts when sharing information with the public.

> The stronger people believe in rumors and fake news, the more they are convinced that the reporting on corona topics is too biased and dictated by the government.

> The stronger people believe in rumors and fake news, the more they are convinced that information, which is released by the government, does not meet the truth to 100 percent.

In summary, it can be stated that people who believe in rumors and fake news evaluate the government's handling with information as hardly trustworthy.

Additionally, due to the spreading of rumor and fake news on social media, people have become a more critical attitude towards corona mitigation measures.

• H10: People, who believe that there is some truth in rumors andfake news spread on social media, have developed a more critical attitude towards corona mitigation measures during the pandemic

In connection with the checking of H10, the following result can be summarized:

> The stronger people believe in rumors and fake news, the more likely these people developed a critical attitude towards corona mitigation measures.

Thus, H10 can be accepted on a 0.01 significance level.

Limitations and Critical Reflection

By means of the present dissertation's data collection in the form of a quantitative survey, a precise definition of what shall be measured has been given prior to the data collection. In this context, chapter 2 presented all theoretical principles that are relevant to the topic on one hand as well as previous results regarding the influence of people due to rumors and fake news spread on social media on the other hand.

Following the principles of the empirical research, data comparability has been ensured by using a fully standardized questionnaire. In this context, considering the three quality criteria objectivity, reliability and validity specific plays an important role.

The better the standardization of the specific study content, the examination procedure and the examination situation, the better these quality criteria will be met. In the following, the meeting of the three quality criteria objectivity, reliability, and validity with regard to the present dissertation's methodology will be discussed. This also includes points of criticism and suggestions for improvement.

Objectivity

A data collection's objectivity is ensured if the results are not influenced by the investigator. This includes the implementation of the survey, the subsequent data evaluation as well as the interpretation of the results. Hence, several independent investigators should come to the same results.

In the present dissertation, a fully standardized questionnaire has been used and due to the online survey, there was no personal contact between the investigator and the participants. Hence, it can be summarized that there was no chance for the investigator to influence participants. The present dissertation's results' objectivity thus is relatively high.

Reliability

A survey is said to be reliable, if a repetition of the data collection under identical conditions and on the same objects would lead to identical results compared to the initial survey. By means of a so-called re-test, it could be checked whether the present survey's results are reliable, since both surveys' results could be correlated.

The reliability coefficient, which lies in between zero and one, thus could give information on the reliability of the present survey's results. However, the present study did not include open questions, so it can be assumed that a repeated study would lead to identical results. In this context it should be mentioned that a re-test would only lead to identical results, if it is conducted timely, since as time goes by, participants might change their opinions and attitudes.

• Validity

The quality criteria validity evaluates the empirical data collection with regard to its objective. A survey can be seen as valid if the generated results submit appropriate figures to answer the pre-defined research questions. Thus, the question is if the obtained results answer the research questions or the survey's objectives.

The empirical survey of the present dissertation used a fully standardized questionnaire to answer the pre-defined research questions and hypothesis of chapter 3. Some of the single statements of the survey were based on previous studies and thus, have been used

by former researchers to investigate the subject. For this reason, it can be summarized that the present dissertation's validity is quite high. Additionally, the participants stayed in their usual environment when they filled out the questionnaire. Hence, an influencing of the obtained results due to unfamiliar surroundings can be fully excluded.

In terms of limitations, it must also be mentioned that the present study only focused on examining rumors and fake news spread on social media platform. However, there are many conspiracy theories on the corona topic, which are spread through other online and offline channels. Further research thus can concentrate on other channels.

Additionally, the present dissertation only considered rumors and fake news in English and German language. Beside these languages, there are many other rumors and fake news in languages the present dissertation did not consider. As the results are based on an investigation in the Federal Republic of Germany, it must be taken into consideration that the results obtained cannot be transferred to other countries' population. The impacts of rumors and fake news spread on social media on human behavior thus might differ depending on the specific country.

Another issue that limits the present dissertation's results is that some COVID-19 rumors, which have been used for the confrontation with the participants, might have been classified as accurate information as time passed by.

Representativity

One of the most limiting aspects might be the fact that the online survey cannot be seen as representative for the entire German population, which can be derived from the sample characteristics section. For instance, the sociodemographic data section shows that most of the participants (34.67 percent) are between 26 and 35 years old, whereas only few participants are in the group up to the age of 25 and in the group over 65. Also, most of the participants do not have any children under the age of twelve in their household (62.65 percent) and most of the participants (79,63 percent) have a university degree. There are only few people with the German Abitur (high school) or a secondary school certificate. Hence, comparing groups with different sociodemographic characteristics is impeded by

the limited number of participants in specific groups, which also impedes statistical analyses. However, the present online survey is helpful in visualizing the theoretical aspects of the work. Also, it can be used for comparing the estimations, attitudes and opinions of active internet users with the results of other sociologic surveys.

Potential for improvement with regard to the above-discussed quality criteria lies in using a greater and more representative sample. In the present paper, section 2.1 calculated the sample size. The survey was available for three months; nevertheless, it was quite hard to reach the calculated necessary number of participants. It can be assumed that a larger sample size would be able to make results more reliable.

Another potential for improvement would be to extend the questionnaire. In this context, additional characteristics and group memberships could be identified from previous studies and/or additional statements could be added to the existing items.

In summary, the COVID-19 pandemic is not only affecting people's behavior, but also the way how scientists study behavior. In future, researchers probably will conduct bigger studies to produce findings that are widely applicable. The study of Van Bavel et al. (2020) already made the first step towards such international collaborations to study one and the same topic but in several countries. In this context, the COVID-19 pandemic has probably made researchers more willing to share information and to collaborate. Instead of running small experiments, mega-studies can be conducted by means of large groups of scientists. Additionally, bigger sample sizes can be gathered due to new social distancing practices - in future, experiments mainly work online. This can be seen as an important improvement of the scientific methodology. In this context, the COVID-19 pandemic can also be seen as chance for researchers to rethink the fundamentals of science, since the way people communicate significantly changed as well as the engagement with collaborators.

Outlook and Potential for Research

The present dissertation could show that the corona pandemic must be seen as a serious health crisis - it has caused major global disruption and up to now, there is no end in sight.

As could be seen from section 1.3, most governmental and globally deployed mitigation measures and interventions to stop the spread of the virus a non-pharmaceutical such as wearing face masks, social distancing and hand washing. It is not clear yet, whether these non-pharmaceutical interventions will continue to be mandated in the long term, although a COVID-19 vaccine has already been found. Thus, it can be assumed that public health recommendations in future will also play in important role in people's individual lifestyle. The present dissertation's results could show that not everybody agrees with the governmental mitigation measures and for some people, the negative side-effects especially with regard to children's health predominate the positive effects of the mitigation measures. Hence, in future, there will be a huge variety of different interesting approaches for scientists in the field of human behavior, since people's ongoing behavior can be observed.

In this context, scientists such as Kissler et al. concentrated on an investigation of the future of SARS-CoV-2.437 The authors state that a clear understanding of the virus' future transmission is absolutely urgent. By estimates of immunity and seasonality and using data from the US, Kissler et al. developed a model to predict the transmission of SARS-CoV-2.438 According to the authors, the success of the mitigation measure social distancing depends on whether there is an exceedance of critical capacities. This is why the authors suggest social distancing until 2022, whereas other interventions such as expanding critical care capacities as well as an effective therapeutic must be added. SARS-CoV-2 might play a role until 2024.

However, estimations such as the one of Kissler et al. must be seen in the context of human behavior.439 Many people are stressed due to the corona pandemic and especially

437 Kissler, S. M., Tedijanto, C., Goldstein, E., Grad, Y. H., Lipsitch, M. Projecting the transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 through the postpandemic period / S. M. Kissler // Science. - 2020. - 368.

438 Ibid

439 Ibid

the global governmental mitigation measure of social distancing affects people regarding their psychological condition. Hence, it can be assumed that human behavior during the future time of the pandemic runs in a very different direction - this again leads to a huge variety of research approaches.

Other scientists such as Cristea and Naudet also emphasize that research on human behavior will significantly be impacted by the corona pandemic - but these authors see the impacts from an other point of view.440 Due to the governmental mitigation measure of strict lockdowns, often research laboratories had to close, too. According to the authors, disruptions like this provide important opportunities for structural reforms.

Human behavior research is strongly associated with specific data collection methods such as experiments, observations or personal interactions between researchers and participants. In their article on opportunities and challenges for future human behavior research in the context of the corona pandemic, Gentili and Cristea discussed the following three aspects:441

1. Unavoidable and extensive data collection changes as well as following untoward consequences

2. Possibilities of shifting research priorities in fields relevant to the corona pandemic

3. Recommendations to deal with the disruptions caused by the corona pandemic.

In this context, Gentili and Cristea postulate that data collection will probably not return to the conventional normality due to the corona pandemic.442 To give an example in the field of human behavior research, the authors state that in general, neuroimaging studies require placing the participants directly in a confined space of magnetic resonance imaging scanners. Studies like this for instance measure electroencephalography, stress

440 Cristea, I. A., Naudet, F. Increase value and reduce waste in research on psychological therapies [Electronic resource]. - 2019. - DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/ps7x2.

441 Gentili C., Cristea I. A. Challenges and Opportunities for Human Behavior Research in the Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Pandemic / C. Gentili // Frontiers in Psychology. — 2020. — 11. — DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01786.

442 Ibid

hormones, psychophysiology and/or even require the placing of electrodes, the collection of salvia or blood samples.

It becomes clear that often, there is a close contact between researchers and participants required. Research in behavioral science is based on an interaction and in this context, materials and various surfaces are touched. Gentili and Cristea suggest that experiments could be conducted in a "socially distant" way, which for instance means making both research personnel as well as participants wear masks and/or keeping a safe distance.443 Although this way of studying human behavior would be similar to the conventional pre-COVID way, the following table shows some unintended consequences.

Facemasks/shields Gloves and disinfection practices Safety distance (e.g., 1 m, 2 m}

Changes Facial features Haptic perception Social interaction

Breathing patterns Pain processing Subjective experience of the experiment

Olfaction

Examples of research topics Autistic spectrum Proprioception Emotion processing

affected Imitation Placebo analgesia Dyadic interaction

Attachment Interpersonal relation Social stress

Emotion processing Social touch

Face mimicry Pain

Dyadic interaction Tactile discrimination

Social stress

Meditation

Relaxation

Interoceptive exposure

Olfactory discrimination

Partner select tori

Olfactive chemo

signaling

Disgust processing

Unintended consequences Fear of contamination and increased Reluctance and increased anxiety about

anxiety that disinfection was being in an indoor, confined space (e.g.,

insufficiently performed, particularly magnetic resonance imaging scanner)

with re-usable equipment (e.g., EEG

electrodes, earphones, keyboards)

Increased anxiety or reluctance to Increased preparation time, risk of errors due

touch items in the experimental to omissions, or in complex procedures due

setting, particularly food, or drinks to reducing presence in the laboratory (e.g.,

(e.g., outcomes like the Taste test) only one experimenter)

Table 24: Consequences of Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions on Human Behavior

Research444.

According to the consequences listed in the table above, the corona pandemic results in augmented costs in term of training of the personnel, resources and time to prepare human behavior experiments. Thus, it can be assumed that these costs might impede researchers

443 Ibid

444 Ibid

or laboratories with scare resources to conduct experiments, which again might result in a decrease of academic publications, too.

Another important aspect is that even with the use of face masks and/or keeping a safety distance, some participants are likely to be anxious or reluctant regarding their exposure to a physical interaction. Additionally, especially participants with specific vulnerabilities such as social anxiety, neuroticism or obsessive-compulsive traits are likely to find the trade-off between gains and risks unacceptable.

Under the absence of traditional experimental paradigms, some behavioral science research topics such as imitation, face processing, dyadic interaction and emotional expression cannot be studied without limitations. Indeed, new research paradigms that fit the current situation can be developed, but nevertheless, these ones have to be assessed firstly in terms of validity and reliability - this again will take some time.

In summary, the COVID-19 pandemic presents many opportunities for scientists to study human behavior during global health crises, since it includes all countries, socioeconomic groups and cultures. Everybody, independent from his or her individual attitude, characteristics or group membership is somehow affected by similar threats to his or her livelihood and health. However, people respond completely differently to these threats. People's behavior before and after policy changes can be compared by scientists and additionally, the flow of rumors and misinformation can be studies easily.

As could be shows in the present dissertation's literature review, the COVID-19 pandemic has brought groups from all over the world together and the presence of similar interests has led to many studies. Due to the pandemic, many scientists were faced with the issue that experiments and in-person interviews were more or less impossible. This might result in a permanent change in the academic field. For instance, international teams can be built more easily with the technology that could have been tested during the pandemic. Scientists could not only gather experience in this new field, but also the infrastructure changed.

Finally, the COVID-19 pandemic is referred to be the most decisive event and the biggest challenge in the present. It changes both, people's attitudes as well as people's behavior. Additionally, it forces organizations to react and to take measures whose effects stands the test of time. This is because most of the changes will stay, even though the immediate threat of the virus decreases with ongoing time.

Imagining the everyday life is back and people meet friends, can do their journeys without any restrictions and panic buying is history - however, many things have changed. Since COVID-19, people think about what it means to be a customer, an employee, a citizen or a fellow human being. This new way of thinking is accompanied by changes of behavior, which will persist for a considerable time.

Global crises situations such as the actual corona pandemic thus result in questions such as:

• How will our thinking change?

• What new demands and needs will come up in future and

• How will people satisfy them?

The answers to those questions strongly depend on how people deal with the actual crisis and how they manage their everyday life as an individual, a family member or a part of social communities.

It is essential to understand the potential effects of COVID-19 on human behavior, otherwise governments, health agencies and other institutions and organizations cannot react in an appropriate way. The potential effects on human behavior are manifold and cannot be predicted precisely. However, some assumptions can be made, which represent target points for further research.

In this context, it can be assumed that trust will be an important cost factor, since COVID-19 gives the impression that other people and/or locations might represent an invisible threat. The future is uncertain and life planning is associated with fear. This especially regards important decisions such as a change of home and workplace or larger purchases.

In general, it can be assumed that people will be less risk-seeking and in contrast, stronger focus on what is familiar.

Crises such as the current corona pandemic are associated with a loss in trust - this might be especially true for institutions, products and markets. Therefore, it is essential to regain lost trust by means of effective measures.

Another big change as a result of the current corona pandemic is the virtual century: During the pandemic, people's everyday life such as the fundamental areas of life work, shopping and social contacts has drifted more or less completely into the virtual world of the internet. This again will probably be accompanied by massive changes regarding the way how people learn and work, how they get on with everyday things, how they will shop in future and how they consume.

It might also be possible that the corona crisis changes people's health behavior, since nowadays, many people experience that they cannot solely rely on the existing health structures. Thus, they seek for support to stay healthy and the topic healthiness will probably develop to be an important factor.

During the actual corona pandemic, people are concerned about their healthiness - it can be assumed that these concerns will survive the crisis and in future, stay a determining issue. Due to these developments, a health economy might develop and people can participate directly through their consumption, which also will affect their future purchase decisions.

As could be shown in the present dissertation, during the corona pandemic, people have been instructed to stay at home and to isolate themselves. In this context, it must be stated that surely not all people did and currently to follow these advices from government and/or public authorities. The present dissertation's results show that there are some people, who do not follow the rules, even though it is only a small share. However, self-isolating results in many consequences and people's home have become a new center of life and of experiences. Nowadays and in the recent months, it could be observed that people spent more time at home - it can be assumed that this trend will last in future.

Hence, people's behavior will change in a way they spend more leisure time at home -some call this cocooning.

To solve the actual issues, people are dependent from scientists and clear governmental instructions. These governmental instructions and advices are subsequently supported and followed by the public. As the present dissertation could show, especially the government and public authorities and institutions have lost the support of the population in the recent months since the beginning of the pandemic. Hence, the government and public authorities need a new image to gain the public's support in future. It can be assumed that governments and public authorities will further lose the public's support, if they cannot manage the crisis.

In the context of human behavior, the return to the everyday life after all lockdowns, all contact bans and travel warnings will probably be the most sensitive issue. On one hand, it can be assumed that people will develop a greater understanding for the social role of governments and/or institution and organizations and thus, will understand the importance of cohesion. However, this is depending on the further development of the crisis and especially, how governments and public authorities manage it. On the other hand, it is also possible that over time, more and more people develop a critical attitude towards the government and public authorities. Only the future can show the way things are going.

Список литературы диссертационного исследования кандидат наук Кемпкенс Оливер Харальд, 2024 год

Bibliography

Monographs

1. Aaronovitch, D. Voodoo Histories: The Role of the Conspiracy Theory in Shaping Modern History / D. Aaronovitch. - London: Jonathan Cape, 2009.

2. Eastin, M. S. Digital Media, Youth and Credibility / M. S. Eastin, B. Hilligoss, S. Y. Rieh. - London: MIT Press, 2008.

3. Georgeou, N. State Responses to COVID-19: a global snapshot at 1 June 2020 / N. Georgeou, C. Hawksley. - Sydney: HADRI / Western Sydney University, 2020.

4. Honigsbaum, M. A history of the great influenza pandemics: death, panic and hysteria, 1830-1920 / M. Honigsbaum. - London: I. B. Tauris, 2013.

5. Van den Hoven, J. Information technology and moral philosophy / J. Van den Hoven, J. Weckert. - Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

Articles

6. Abu-Akel, A. The effect of spokesperson attribution on public health message sharing during the COVID-19 pandemic / A. Abu-Akel, A. Spitz, R. West // PLoS ONE, 2021.

7. Akseer, N. COVID-19 pandemic and mitigation strategies: implications for maternal and child health and nutrition / N. Akseer, G. Kandru, E. C. Keats, Z. A. Bhutta // American Journal for Clinical Nutrition, 2020.

8. Alexander, J. E. How to Evaluate and Create Information Quality on the Web / J. E. Alexander, M. A. Tate // New York. L. Erlbaum Associates Inc, 1999.

9. Allport, G. W. The psychology of rumour / G. W. Allport, L. Postman // New York: Henry Holt & Co, 1947.

10.Appelman, A. Measuring Message Credibility: Construction and Validation of an Exclusive Scale / A. Appelman, S. S. Sundar // Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 2016.

11.Arafat, S. Psychological underpinning of panic buying during pandemic (COVID-19) / S. Arafat, S. Kar, M. Marthoenis // Psychiatry Research, 2020.

12.Baek, Y. M. Fake News Should Be Regulated Because It Influences Both "Others" and "Me": How and Why the Influence of Presumed Influence Model Should Be Extended / Y. M. Baek, H. Kang, S. Kim // Mass Communication and Society, 2019.

13.Bakir, V. A. Fake news and the economy of emotions: problems, causes, solutions / V. Bakir, A. McStay // Digital Journalism, 2017.

14.Baral, S. Leveraging epidemiological principles to evaluate Sweden's COVID-19 response / S. Baral, R. Chandler, R. G. Prieto, S. Gupta, S. Mishra, M. Kulldorff // Annual Epidemiology, 2021.

15.Basol, M. Good news about bad news: gamified inoculation boosts confidence and cognitive immunity against fake news / M. Basol, J. Roozenbeek, S. van der Linden // Journal of Cognition, 2020.

16.Bastick, Z. Would you notice if fake news changed your behavior? An experiment on the unconscious effects of disinformation / Z. Bastick // Computers in Human Behavior, 2021.

17.Bateman, C. Paying the price for AIDS denialism / C. Bateman // South African Medical Journal, 2007.

18.Bergmann, J. R. Discreet indiscretions: The social organization of gossip / J. R. Bergmann // New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1993.

19.Bish, A. Demographic and attitudinal determinants of protective behaviours during a pandemic: A review / A. Bish, S. Michie // Health Psychology, 2010.

20.Champion, V. L. The Health Belief Model / V. L. Champion, C. S. Skinner, K. Glanz, B. K. Rimer, K. Viswanath // Health Behavior and Health Education, 4th edition. - San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2008.

21.Cherian, V. Assessment of timely immunization in an urbanized agglomeration of East Delhi, India / V. Cherian, N. K. Saini, A. K. Sharma // International Journal of Community Medical Public Health, 2019.

22.Cinelli, M. The COVID-19 social media infodemic / M. Cinelli, W. Quattrociocchi, A. Galeazzi, C. M. Valensise, E. Brugnoli, A. L. Schmidt, P. Zola, F. Zollo, A. Scala // Scientific Reports, 2020.

23.Clayton, K. Real solutions for fake news? Measuring the effectiveness of general warnings and fact-check tags in reducing belief in false stories on social media [Electronic resource] / K. Clayton // Political Behavior. - 2019.

24.Clinton, J. Partisan pandemic: How partisanship and public health concerns affect individuals' social mobility during COVID-19 / J. Clinton, J. Cohen, J. Lapinski, M. Trussler // Science Advances, 2021.

25.Colizzi, M. Medically unexplained symptoms in the times of COVID-19 pandemic: A case-report / M. Colizzi, R. Bortoletto, M. Silvestri, F. Mondini, E. Puttini, C. Cainelli, R. Gaudino, M. Ruggeri, L. Zoccante // Brain, Behavior, & Immunity, 2020.

26.Cristea, I. A. Increase value and reduce waste in research on psychological therapies / I. A. Cristea, F. Naudet. - 2019.

27.Dahlgren, G. What can we do about inequalities in health? / G. Dahlgren, M. Whitehead // Lancet, 1991. 338.

28.De Ceukelaire, W. We Need Strong Public Health Care to Contain the Global Corona Pandemic / W. De Ceukelaire, C. Bodini // International Journal of Health Services, 2020.

29.Dentith, M. R. X. The problem of fake news / M. R. X. Dentith // Public Reason, 2017.

30.Difonzo, N. Reining in Rumors / N. Difonzo, P. Bordia, R. L. Rosnow // Organizational Dynamics, 1994.

31.Douglas, K. M. The psychology of conspiracy theories / K. M. Douglas, R. M. Sutton, A. Cichocka // Current Directions in Psychology Science, 2017.

32.Ebrahim, S. H. Covid-19 and community mitigation strategies in a pandemic / S. H. Ebrahim, Q. A. Ahmed, E. Gozzer, P. Schlagenhauf, Z. A. Memish // BMJ, 2020.

33.Eisend, M. Source Credibility Dimensions in Marketing Communication - A Generalized Solution / M. Eisend // Journal of Empirical Generalisations in Marketing, 2006.

34.Foy, J. E. Would a madman have been so wise as this? The effects of source credibility and message credibility on validation / J. E. Foy, P. C. LoCasto, S. W. Briner, S. Dyar // Memory & Cognition, 2017.

35.Goldman, A. The social epistemology of blogging / A. Goldman, 2008.

36.Graeupner, D. The dark side of meaning-making: how social exclusion leads to superstitious thinking / D. Graeupner, A. Coman // Journal of Experimental Social Psychology // 2017.

37.Greyling, C. Lessons from the faith-driven response to the West Africa Ebola epidemic. Revue of Faith International Affairs / C. Greyling // 2016.

38.Haug, N. Ranking the effectiveness of worldwide COVID-19 government interventions. Nature Human Behaviour / N. Haug, L. Geyrhofer, A. Londei, E. Dervic, A. Desvars-Larrive, V. Loreto, B. Pinior, S. Thurner, P. Klimek // 2020.

39.Hodgson, D. The Consequences of Human Behavior. Humanities / D. Hodgson // 2012.

40.Huang, T. S. Human Computing / T. S. Huang // Berlin Heidelberg: Springer, 2007.

41.Iacob, C. I. COVID-19 Pandemic Worry and Vaccination Intention: The Mediating Role of the Health Belief Model Components / C. I. Iacob, D. Ionescu, E. Avram, & D. Cojocaru // Front. Psychol., Sec. Health Psychology, 2021.

42.Islam, M. S. COVID-19-Related Infodemic and Its Impact on Public Health: A Global Social Media Analysis / M. S. Islam, T. Sarkar, S. H. Khan, A. M. Kamal, S. M. Hasan, A. Kabir, D. Yeasmin, M. A. Islam, K. I. A. Chowdhury, K. S. Anwar, A. A. Chughtai, & H. Seale // The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 2020.

43.James, P. B. An assessment of Ebola-related stigma and its association with informal healthcare utilisation among Ebola survivors in Sierra Leone: a cross-

sectional study / P. B. James, J. Wardle, A. Steel, & J. Adams // BMC Public Health, 2020.

44.Johansen, N. Surgical Strategy for Contralateral Groin Management in Patients Scheduled for Unilateral Inguinal Hernia Repair: An International Web-Based Surveymonkey® Questionnaire / N. Johansen, M. Miserez, A. de Beaux, A. Montgomery, J. Macario Faylona, A. Carbonell, & T. Bisgaard // Scandinavian Journal of Surgery, 2020.

45.Jolley, D. Prevention is better than cure: addressing anti-vaccine conspiracy theories / D. Jolley & K. M. Douglas // Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2017.

46.Jolley, D. The effects of anti-vaccine conspiracy theories on vaccination intentions / D. Jolley & K. M. Douglas // PLoS One, 2014.

47. Jones, M. Why fakes? In Fake: The art of deception / M. Jones // London: The British Museum, 1990.

48. Jose, R. Public perception and preparedness for the pandemic COVID 19: A Health Belief Model approach / R. Jose, M. Narendran, A. Bindu, N. Beevi, L. Manju, & P. V. Benny // Clinical Epidemiology and Global Health, 2021.

49.Kamplean A. Influence of emotion on fake news sharing behavior: The case study from Thailand // ITS Online Event. - 14-17 June 2020. - International Telecommunications Society (ITS), Calgary. - URL: https: //www. econstor. eu/bitstream/10419/224861/1/Kamplean. pdf.

50.Kang, H. Source Cues in Online News: Is The Proximate Source More Powerful than Distal Sources? / H. Kang, K. Bae, S. Zhang, & S. S. Sundar // Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 2011.

51.Kaplan, R. M. Influence of a COVID-19 vaccine's effectiveness and safety profile on vaccination acceptance / R. M. Kaplan & A. Milstein // PNAS, 2021.

52.Karlsson, M. You ain't seen nothing yet: Transparency's (lack of) Effect on Source and Message Credibility / M. Karlsson, C. Clerwall, & L. Nord // Journalism Studies, 2014.

53.Kassa, S. M. Analysis of the mitigation strategies for COVID-19: From mathematical modelling perspective / S. M. Kassa, J. B. H. Njagarah, & Y. Terefe // Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 2020.

54.Kempkens O.H. Children in Times of a Pandemic - Do Parents More Frequently Believe in Rumors and Fake News on Social Media? / O.H. Kempkens // Communicology. - 2023. - Vol. 11. - No. 1. - Pp. 47-60.

55.Кемпкенс О.Х. Критическое отношение и его влияние на изменение поведения с точки зрения формирования негативной позиции к правительственным мерам по смягчению последствий во время пандемии / О.Х. Кемпкенс // Вестник университета. - 2023. - № 7. - С. 220-232.

56.Kempkens O.H. Rumours and Fake News - Effects of Message Credibility on Human Behaviour during the Corona Pandemic / O.H. Kempkens // Bulletin of Kemerovo State University. Series: Political, Sociological and Economic Sciences. - 2022. - Vol. 7. - No. 2(24). - Pp. 162-170.

57.Kempkens O.H. On the Development of Resistance Against the Corona Policy of the German Government // Global Journal of Human-Social Science: F Political Science. - 2023. - Vol. 23 - No 5. - Pp. 15-23.

58.Lunn, P. D. Using behavioural science to help fight the coronavirus / P. D. Lunn, C. Timmons, A. Julienne, C. Belton, R. Lavin, C. McGowan, & L. Robertson // Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, 2020.

59.MacKuen, M. B. Ambivalence, political competition, and public opinion / M. B. MacKuen, R. Y. Shapiro, & W. A. Zaller // American Journal of Political Science, 1988.

60.Maier, S. In the eye of the beholder: A double-edged view of salience / S. Maier, J. Rathmell, C. E. Kubicek, & E. Fredin // Journalism Practice, 2018.

61.Majid, A. How culture influences the way we think / A. Majid & S. Levinson // Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2010.

62.Mayer, R. E. Fifteen research-based principles for designing multimedia instruction / R. E. Mayer // Perspectives on Medical Education, 2012.

63.Mazarr, M. J. Strategic Competition and Resistance in the 21st Century / M. J. Mazarr, A. A. Feldman, & R. S. Bauer // RAND Corporation, 2019.

64.McCroskey, J. C. An introduction to rhetorical communication / J. C. McCroskey // London: Allyn and Bacon, 1997.

65.McGuire, W. J. The effectiveness of supportive and refutational defenses in immunizing and restoring beliefs against persuasion / W. J. McGuire // Sociometry, 1961.

66.Menni, C. Quantifying additional COVID-19 symptoms will save lives / C. Menni, C. H. Sudre, C. J. Steves, S. Ourselin, & T. D. Spector // Correspondence, 2020.

67.Metzger, M. Credibility for the 21st Century: Integrating Perspectives on Source, Message, and Media Credibility in the Contemporary Media Environment / M. Metzger, A. J. Flanagin, K. Eyal, D. R. Lemus, & R. M. McCann // Communication Yearbook, 2003.

68.Milkman, K. L. Rotman School of Management [Electronic resource] / K. L. Milkman // 2021.

69.Miller, S. M. Monitoring and blunting: Validation of a questionnaire to assess styles of information seeking under threat / S. M. Miller // Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1987.

70.MIT Media Lab. The Spread of True and False Information Online [Electronic resource] 2021. - URL: https://www.media.mit.edu/projects/the-spread-of-false-and-true-info-online/frequently-asked-questions/#faq-what-does-this-research-tell-us-about-human-behavior (retrieved on 15.07.2021).

71.Moser, D. A. Years of life lost due to the psychosocial consequences of COVID-19 mitigation strategies based on Swiss data. European Psychiatry / D. A. Moser, J. Glaus, S. Frangou, & D. S. Schechter // 2020.

72.Liu F., Burton-Jones A., Xu D. Rumors on Social Media in Disasters: Extending Transmission to Retransmission // Proceedings of the Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS). — 2014.

73.National Institutes of Health (NIH). Social and Behavioral Theories [Electronic resource] 2016. - URL:

https://%3A%2F%2Fobssr.od.nih.gov%2Fsites%2Fobssr%2Ffiles%2FSocial-and-Behavioral-

Theories.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2Ittguew3qt0po6IEx2CYM&opi=89978449 (retrieved on 04.03.2024). 74.Odriozola-Chene, J. Towards quality journalism in Ecuador: perspectives of journalists and media consumers / J. Odriozola-Chene & I. Mendizabal // Cuadernos.info, 2017. 75.Oh, H. J. When Do People Verify and Share Health Rumors on Social Media? The Effects of Message Importance, Health Anxiety, and Health Literacy / H. J. Oh & H. Lee // Journal of Health Communication International Perspectives, 2019. 76. Oh, O. Community intelligence and social media services: A rumor theoretic analysis of tweets during social crises / O. Oh, M. Agrawal, & H. R. Rao // MIS Quarterly, 2013.

77.Oremus, W. Stop calling everything fake news [Electronic resource] / W. Oremus // 2016. - URL:

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2016/12/stop_calling_ever ything_fake_news.html (retrieved on 15.10.2020). 78.Oyeyemi, S. O. Twitter, and misinformation: a dangerous combination? / S. O. Oyeyemi, E. Gabarron, & R. Wynn // BMJ, 2014.

79.Pentland A., Liu A. Modeling and Prediction of Human Behavior // Neural Comput, 1999.

80.Pentland, A. Modeling and Prediction of Human Behavior. Neural Computation / A. Pentland & A. Liu // 1999.

81. Person, B. Fear and stigma: the epidemic within the SARS outbreak. Emerging Infectious Diseases / B. Person, F. Sy, K. Holton, B. Govert, & A. Liang // SCOT. National Center for Infectious Diseases, 2004.

82.Plotnick, L. Real or Fake? User Behavior and Attitudes Related to Determining the Veracity of Social Media Posts / L. Plotnick, S. R. Hiltz, S. Grandhi, & J. Dugdale // Proceedings of the ISCRAM Asia-Pacific Conference 2018, 2019.

83.Skinner, B. F. Science and Human Behavior / B. F. Skinner // The B. F. Skinner Foundation, 1965.

84.Understanding Judgment of Information Quality and Cognitive Authority in the WWW / S. Y. Rieh & N. J. Belkin // Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 1998.

85.Rieh, S. Y. Credibility - A Multidisciplinary Framework. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology / S. Y. Rieh & D. R. Danielson // 2007.

86. Rini, R. Fake news and partisan epistemology / R. Rini // Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 2017.

87.Robinson, S. Anyone Can Know': Citizen Journalism and The Interpretive Community of The Mainstream Press / S. Robinson & C. DeShano // Journalism, 2011.

88.Rosas, O. Public Engagement with, and Trust / O. Rosas // Online News Media in French-Speaking Belgium, 2013.

89.Rosenblueth, A. Behavior, Purpose and Teleology / A. Rosenblueth, N. Wiener, & J. Bigelow // Philosophy of Science, 1943.

90. Rosenthal, P. I. Specificity, verifiability, and message credibility / P. I. Rosenthal // Quarterly Journal of Speech, 1971.

91. Rucker, D. Consumer conviction and commitment: an appraisal-based framework for attitude certainty / D. Rucker, Z. L. Tormala, R. E. Petty, & P. Brinol // Journal of Consumption Psychology, 2014.

92.Schweiger, W. Media Credibility — Experience or Image? A Survey on the Credibility of the World Wide Web in Germany in Comparison to Other Media / W. Schweiger // European Journal of Communication, 2000.

93.Sharareh, N. The Ebola Crisis and the Corresponding Public Behavior: A System Dynamics Approach [Electronic resource] / N. Sharareh, N. S. Sabounchi, H. Sayama, & R. MacDonald // PLoS currents, 2016.

94. Short, S. E. Social Determinants and Health Behaviors: Conceptual Frames and Empirical Advances / S. E. Short & S. Mollborn // Current Opinion on Psychology, 2015.

95.Sternisko, A. The dark side of social movements: Social identity, non-conformity, and the lure of conspiracy theories / A. Sternisko, A. Cichocka, & J. J. Van Bavel // Current Opinion in Psychology, 2020.

96.Tandoc, E. C. Defining "Fake News" [Electronic resource] / E. C. Tandoc, Z. W. Lim, & R. Ling // Digital Journalism, 2017. - URL: DOI:10.1080/21670811.2017.1360143.

97.Tandoc, E. The Journalist is Marketing the News: Social Media in The Gatekeeping Process / E. Tandoc & T. P. Vos // Journalism Practice, 2016.

98.Tasnim, S. Impact of Rumors and Misinformation on COVID-19 in Social Media / S. Tasnim, M. M. Hossain, & H. Mazumder // Journal of Preventive Medicine & Public Health, 2020.

99. Teven, J. An Examination of Perceived Credibility of the 2008 Presidential Candidates: Relationships with Believability, Likeability and Deceptiveness / J. Teven // Human Communications, 2008.

100. Thorburn, B. S. Birth control conspiracy beliefs, perceived discrimination, and contraception among African Americans: an exploratory study / B. S. Thorburn & L. M. Bogart // Journal of Health Psychology, 2003.

101. Thorson, E. Changing Patterns of News Consumption and Participation. Information, Communication and Society / Thorson, E // 2008.

102. Tormala, Z. L. When credibility attacks: The reverse impact of source credibility on persuasion / Z. L. Tormala, P. Brinol, & R. E. Petty // Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2006.

103. Tseng, H. The Elements of Computer Credibility / H. Tseng & B. J. Fogg // 1999.

104. Wall, M. Citizen Journalism: A Retrospective On What We Know, An Agenda for What We Don't / M. Wall // Digital Journalism, 2015.

105. Wiener, J. L. Source Credibility: on the Independent Effects of Trust and Expertise. NA - Advances in Consumer Research / J. L. Wiener & J. C. Mowen // 1986.

106. Wu, K. False Rumors Detection on Sina Weibo by Propagation Structures. 2015 IEEE 31st International Conference on Data Engineering / K. Wu, S. Yang, & K. Q. Zhu // 2015.

107. Zannettou, S. The Web of False Information: Rumors, Fake News, Hoaxes, Clickbait, and Various Other Shenanigans [Electronic resource] / S. Zannettou, M. Sirivianos, J. Blackburn, & N. Kourtellis // Journal of Data and Information Quality, 2019.

108. Zhao, Z. Enquiring Minds: Early Detection of Rumors in Social Media from Enquiry Posts / Z. Zhao, P. Resnick, & Q. Mei // WWW '15. Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web, 2015.

Electronic Resources

109. Ärzteblatt (ed.). Wir sehen, dass die Kinder mit zunehmender Länge des Lockdowns immer mehr, am Rad drehen [Electronic resource] 2021. — URL: https://www. aerzteblatt. de/nachrichten/120837/Wir-sehen-dass-die-Kinder-mit-zunehmender-Laenge-des-Lockdowns-immer-mehr-am-Rad-drehen (retrieved on 09.07.2021).

110. Brotherton, R. Measuring belief in conspiracy theories: the generic conspiracist beliefs scale [Electronic resource] / R. Brotherton, C. C. French, A. D. Pickering // Frontiers of Psychology. 2013. - URL: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00279 (retrieved on 31.07.2021).

111. Bryanov, K. Determinants of individuals' belief in fake news: A scoping review determinants of belief in fake news [Electronic resource] / K. Bryanov, V. Vziatysheva // PLoS ONE 16, 2021. - URL: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253717 (retrieved on 31.07.2021).

112. Buchanan, T. Why do people spread false information online? The effects of message and viewer characteristics on self-reported likelihood of sharing social media disinformation [Electronic resource] / T. Buchanan // PLOS ONE, 2020. - URL: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239666 (retrieved on 31.07.2021).

113. Buchholz, K. Global Vaccine Timeline Stretches to 2023 [Electronic resource] / K. Buchholz, 2021. - URL: https://www.statista.com/chart/24064/covid-19-vaccination-timeline-global/ (retrieved on 09.07.2021)

114. Bundesregierung (ed.). Coronavirus: Wo stehen wir in der Pandemie und wie handeln wir? [Electronic resource] 2021. - URL: https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/themen/coronavirus (retrieved on 07.07.2021).

115. Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung (ed.). Zum gesellschaftlichen Umgang mit der Corona-Pandemie. Ergebnisse der Mannheimer Corona-Studie [Electronic resource] 2020. - URL: https://m.bpb.de/apuz/314345/zum-gesellschaftlichen-umgang-mit-der-corona-pandemie (retrieved on 09.07.2021)

116. CDC (ed.). SARS-CoV-2 Variant Classifications and Definitions [Electronic resource] 2021. - URL: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/variants/variant-info.html (retrieved on 21.06.2021).

117. CDC (ed.). Implementation of Mitigation Strategies for Communities with Local COVID-19 Transmission [Electronic resource] 2021. - URL: https: //www. cdc. gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/community-mitigation.html (retrieved on 08.07.2021).

118. Cement, J. Number of global social network users 2017-2025 [Electronic resource] / J. Cement // 2020. - URL: https://www.statista.com/statistics/278414/number-of-worldwide-social-network-users/ (retrieved on 15.10.2020).

119. Center for Preparedness and Response. Responding to Rumors and Misinformation -Emergency Preparedness and Response [Electronic resource] -2020. Atlanta, GA: Center for Disease Control and Prevention. - URL: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/pmc/articles/PMC7853571/pdf/20-3139.pdf (retrieved on 15.10.2020).

120. Dai, H. Behavioral Nudges Increase COVID-19 Vaccinations, Preprint at SSRN [Electronic resource] / H. Dai // 2021. - URL: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3817832 (retrieved on 19.07.2021).

121. DESTATIS (ed.). Bevölkerungsstand [Electronic resource] 2020. - URL: https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Gesellschaft-

Umwelt/Bevoelkerung/Bevoelkerungsstand/_inhalt.html (retrieved on 20.10.2020).

122. Dias, N. Emphasizing publishers does not effectively reduce susceptibility to misinformation on social media [Electronic resource] / N. Dias, G. Pennycook, D. G. Rand // Harvard Kennedy Sch. Misinformation Revue, 2020. - URL: https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-001 (retrieved on 13.07.2021).

123. Ellis, E. G. The coronavirus outbreak is a petri dish for conspiracy theories [Electronic resource] / E. G. Ellis. 2020. - URL: https://www.wired.com/story/coronavirus-conspiracy-theories/ (retrieved on 13.07.2021).

124. Engels, B. IW-Kurzbericht 23/2020 - Corona: Stresstest für die Digitalisierung in Deutschland [Electronic resource] / B. Engels // Institut der Deutschen Wirtschaft: o. V. 2020. - URL: https://www.iwkoeln.de/fileadmin/user upload/Studien/Kurzberichte/PDF/202 0/IW-Kurzbericht 2020 Corona Stresstest Digitalisierung.pdf (retrieved on 15.07.2021).

125. ECDC (ed.). Infographic: Mutation of SARS-CoV-2 - current variants of concern. - 2021. - URL: https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/covid- 19-infographic-mutations-current-variants-concern (retrieved on 21.04.2021).

126. Financial Times (ed.). Lockdowns compared: tracking governments' coronavirus responses [Electronic resource] 2021. - URL: https://ig.ft.com/coronavirus-lockdowns/ (retrieved on 08.07.2021).

127. Frenkel, S. Surge of virus misinformation stumps Facebook and Twitter [Electronic resource] / S. Frenkel, D. Alba, R. Zhong // The New York Times, 2020. - URL: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/08/technology/coronavirus-misinformation-social-media.html (retrieved on 13.07.2021).

128. Gelfert, A. Fake News - A Definition. Informal Logic [Electronic resource] / A. Gelfert // 2018. 38. - URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2013.835062 (retrieved on 31.01.2018).

129. Gottfried, J. News Use Across Social Media Platforms [Electronic resource] / J. Gottfried, E. Shearer // Pew Research Center, 2016. - URL: http://www.journalism.org/2016/05/26/news-use-across-social-media-platforms-2016/ (retrieved on 20.10.2020).

130. Greene, C. M. Quantifying the effects of fake news on behaviour: Evidence from a study of COVID-19 misinformation [Electronic resource] / C. M. Greene, G. Murphy // 2021. - URL: https://psyarxiv.com/qfnm3/download (retrieved on 15.07.2021).

131. Guess, A. Does counter-attitudinal information cause backlash? Results from three large survey experiments [Electronic resource] / A. Guess, A. Coppock // British Journal of Political Science, 2018. - URL: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123418000327 (retrieved on 15.07.2021).

132. Gupta, M. Evaluating Event Credibility on Twitter [Electronic resource] / M. Gupta, P. Zhao, J. Han // University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign. 2012. - URL: https://hanj.cs.illinois.edu/pdf/sdm 12 mgupta.pdf (retrieved on 15.07.2021).

133. Klaus, J. Internationale Studie - Wie Fakenews über Corona den Menschen schaden [Electronic resource] / J. Klaus // 2020. - URL: https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/digitales/coronavirus-fakenews-studie-infodemie-100.html (retrieved on 06.07.2021).

134. Macmillan Dictionary (ed.). Credibility [Electronic resource] 2021. - URL: https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/credibility (retrieved on 21.06.2021).

135. Menczer, F. Information Overload Helps Fake News Spread, and Social Media Knows It [Electronic resource] / F. Menczer & T. Hills // 2020. - URL: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/information-overload-helps-fake-news-spread-and-social-media-knows-it/ (retrieved on 15.07.2021).

136. Resnick, P. RumorLens: A System for Analyzing the Impact of Rumors and Corrections in Social Media [Electronic resource] / P. Resnick, S. Carton, S. Park, Y. Shen, & N. Zeffer // 2017. - URL: http://scarton.people.si.umich.edu/files/papers/Resnick%20et%20al.%20-%202014%20-

%20RumorLens%20A%20System%20for%20Analyzing%20the%20Impact%2 0of%20Ru.pdf (retrieved on 03.07.2021).

137. Roozenbeek, J. Prebunking interventions based on "inoculation" theory can reduce susceptibility to misinformation across cultures [Electronic resource] / J. Roozenbeek, S. van der Linden, & T. Nygren // Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Rev. 2020. - URL: https://doi.org/10.37016//mr-2020-008 (retrieved on 02.08.2021)

138. Statista (ed.). Number of novel coronavirus (COVID-19) deaths worldwide as of July 5, 2021, by country [Electronic resource] 2021. - URL: https://www. statista. com/statistics/1093256/novel-coronavirus-2019ncov-deaths-worldwide-by-country/ (retrieved on 07.07.2021).

139. Statista (ed.). Number of coronavirus (COVID-19) deaths in Germany in 2021, by gender and age [Electronic resource] 2021. - URL: https://www. statista. com/statistics/1105512/coronavirus-covid- 19-deaths-by-gender-germany/ (retrieved on 07.07.2021).

140. Statista (ed.). Most likely perceived cause of food and supply shortages in local grocery stores due to coronavirus (COVID-19) in the United States as of March 15, 2020 [Electronic resource] 2021. - URL: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1105594/coronavirus-cause-grocery-store-food-and-supply-shortages-us/ (retrieved on 11.07.2021).

141. Statista (ed.). Fühlen Sie sich durch die Corona-Maßnahmen persönlich stark eingeschränkt? (Zustimmung nach Parteianhängerschaft) [Electronic resource] 2020. - URL: https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/! 140101/umfrage/corona-krise-einschraenkungen-durch-massnahmen/ (retrieved on 24.09.2020).

142. Statista (ed.). Number of social network users worldwide from 2017 to 2025. -2020 [Electronic resource] - URL: https://www.statista.com/statistics/278414/number-of-worldwide-social-network-users/ (retrieved on 15.10.2020).

143. Statista (ed.). Age and Gender Structure in Germany [Electronic resource] 2021.

- URL: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1086197/men-and-women-by-age-group-germany/ (retrieved on 29.12.2021).

144. Tagesschau (ed.). Corona-Demo in Berlin - Welche Bedingungen gelten für ein Verbot? [Electronic resource] 2020. - URL: https://www.tagesschau. de/inland/faq-demonstration-verbot- 101.html (retrieved on 28.08.2020).

145. Van Bavel, J. National identity predicts public health support during a global pandemic: Results from 67 nations [Electronic resource] / L. Van Bavel // 2020.

- URL: https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/ydt95 (retrieved on 13.07.2021).

146. Walker, P. G. T. Report 12: The Global Impact of COVID-19 and Strategies for Mitigation and Suppression [Electronic resource] / P. G. T. Walker // Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team. 2020. - DOI: https://doi.org/10.25561/77735 (retrieved on 13.07.2021).

147. WHO (ed.). Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Situation Report [Electronic resource] 2020. - URL: https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200710-covid-19-sitrep-172.pdf. (retrieved on 13.07.2021).

148. WHO (ed.). Home Care for Patients with COVID-19 Presenting with Mild Symptoms and Management of Their Contacts [Electronic resource] 2020. -URL: https://www.who.int/publications-detail/home-care-for-patients-with-suspected-novel-coronavirus-(ncov)-infection-presenting-with-mild-symptoms-and-management-of-contacts (retrieved on 16.07.2021).

149. WHO. Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Advice for the Public: Mythbusters. [Electronic resource] 2020. - URL:

https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/myth-busters (retrieved on 16.07.2021).

150. WHO (ed.). Ebola Virus Disease - Democratic Republic of the Congo [Electronic resource] 2019. - URL: https://www.who.int/csr/don/28-november-2019-ebola-drc/en/. (retrieved on 06.07.2021).

151. World Economic Forum (ed.). Key milestones in the spread of the coronavirus pandemic [Electronic resource] 2020. - URL: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/coronavirus-spread-covid19-pandemic-timeline-milestones/ (retrieved on 15.12.2021).

152. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy People 2020 Framework. [Electronic resource] - URL: https://wayback.archive-it.org/5774/20220413182850/https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/ (retrieved on 09.12.2020)