The SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic devastated the world economy. Global infections and deaths altered the behaviors of generations. The Internet acted as an incredible vehicle for communication but was also a source of unfounded rumors. Unfortunately, this freedom of information sharing and fear of COVID-19 fostered unfounded claims about transmission (e.g., 5G networks spread the disease). With negligible enforcement to stop the spread of rumors and government officials spouting unfounded claims, falsities became ubiquitous. Organizations, public health officials, researchers, and businesses spent limited resources addressing rumors instead of implementing policies to overcome challenges (e.g., speaking to defiant mask wearers versus safe reopening actions). The researchers defined COVID-19 transmission misinformation as false beliefs about the spread and prevention of contracting the disease. Design and validation of the 12-item COVID-19 Transmission Misinformation Scale (CTMS) provides a measure to identify transmission misinformation believers. Indirect COVID-19 transmission misinformation beliefs with a fear of COVID-19 decreased wearing a mask in public intentions. Callousness exacerbated COVID-19 transmission misinformation beliefs as a moderator.
PurposeDuring the early SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic outbreak, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) stated masks “may not protect the wearer, but it may keep the wearer from spreading the virus to others”. Health officials revised mask guidelines to include both the wearer and others, but contradiction became a focal point for online debate and credibility. While revised policies eventually became adopted by the public, there was loss time and lives during this critical stage. This study investigates collectivist messaging on public policy support.Design/methodology/approachCOVID-19 public policy hypocrisy was defined as the gap between supporting community policies while rejecting policies more likely to impact the individual. United States participants (N = 1,605) completed questionnaires. Moderated mediation analysis was conducted using SPSS PROCESS.FindingsThose high on collectivism and high on global personal impact associated with lower COVID-19 public policy hypocrisy. These individuals indicated consistent support for community and individual policies, likely requiring personal sacrifices. Indirect conditional effects of lower conscientiousness associated with higher hypocrisy among those collectivistic.Originality/valueParticipants evaluated preference to original public safety ads, representative of basic societal and individual benefits. Those higher on collectivism preferred societal “we” versus individual “me” public safety ads. Implications discuss benefits of personal and communal public health messaging in an individualistic society so businesses can reopen. Entrepreneurs experienced major economic setbacks that effective public health policies could have mitigated.
Political marketing campaigns expend enormous effort each campaign season to influence voter turnout. This cyclical democratic process and nonstop news cycle foster an environment of media malaise. Voter pessimism undercuts participation through increased perceived alikeness among ballot options. Differentiation and consolidation theory describe the voting decision process as reconciling rational and irrational information. Voters seek out differences to decide among presented options. More politically interested voters are more likely to vote. Counterintuitively, higher political organizational avocational interest is related to higher perceived alikeness. Across three studies, higher perceived alikeness of parties, candidates, and issues was related to a lower likelihood to vote (LTV). Conditional voting ineffectual beliefs exacerbated these indirect effects on LTV. In a saturated marketing atmosphere with massive spending during each election cycle, we discuss implications to influence LTV based on results.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.