Views on Covid-19 information

Abstract

This article is licensed under the terms of the CC BY-NC-SA 4.0-license

Human information behavior during the Covid-19 health crisis. A literature review

“…The preceding non-systematic bibliographic review contributes to an incipient base of knowledge about HIB during health crisis, while at the same time pointing to new challenging themes for research. During the first year of the pandemic, the availability of massive datasets under circumstances of social distancing has encouraged the application of quantitative research methodologies in HIB research, instead of qualitative, direct and closer research methodologies focused on individuals or small communities, and many of the reviewed works analyze HIB through very large sample surveys or datasets from different social media platforms and search engines, confirming previous informal reviews (Eriksson-Backa, 2020). In this sense, it is possible to perceive a difference from the dominant methodological patterns outlined by Julien and O'Brien (2014), who pointed to interviews as the most used methods in information behavior research during the period 2009-2013.…”

“…If certain information practices may produce negative emotions and result in inconsistent behaviors, other practices such as sharing information with other people appear to regulate the emotional response to information about the crisis (Chivers et al, 2020;Tandoc & Lee, 2020). Second, aligning with studies on HIB in the context of illness, the corpus of works analyzed here make emotions dependent on, and produced by, the situation in all its dimensions more than the search process itself, and many authors stress the entangled nature of emotions during information practices (Chivers et al, 2020;Eriksson-Backa, 2020;Ke et al, 2021;Rak, 2020;Sen & Spring, 2013;Song et al, 2021;Wong et al, 2021). The fact that, in real situations, emotions coexist and combine makes it a bit more difficult to understand them in connection to HIB, which leads to a third important implication.…”

“…Besides uncertainty, other negative emotions discussed in the literature include confusion, concern, worry, sadness, guilt, and anxiety. Indeed, in studies reported earlier, emotions are usually predefined by researchers; the studies reported in Table 6 are designed to detect shades in the emotional environment that surrounded information seeking about the pandemic and often highlights individual emotions as well as bundles of intertwined emotions (Chivers et al, 2020;Eriksson-Backa, 2020;Rak, 2020;Song, Yao, & Wen, 2021;Wong et al, 2021). Anxiety, a relatively easy to measure construct, results often from conflicting information or overexposure to information and social media (Singh, Cumberland, Ugarte, Bruckner, & Young, 2020; Soroya, Farooq, Mahmood, Isoaho, & Zara, 2021; Wong et al, 2021).…”

“…As previously mentioned, some studies centre on different emotions entangling and occurring at the same time (Chivers et al, 2020;Eriksson-Backa, 2020;Rak, 2020;Song et al, 2021;Wong et al, 2021). The sentiment analysis of threads related to Covid-19 in a mothering online support forum pointed to mostly negative content with fear, anger, joy, and sadness as dominating emotions, whilst, by interacting in the forum, women found an appropriate way of getting informed and supported, avoiding fear-provoking mainstream news sources (Chivers et al, 2020).…”

“…Despite the existence of an important tradition of research on emotions in HIB, the reviewed research poses new questions in this sense also. The health crisis has been marked by uncertainty, but, in general, the literature reviewed has highlighted all kinds of emotions from confusion, perception of threat, anxiety, concern, and worry, to anger, hate, indifference, guilt, or confidence, and, in some cases, research has underscored conflicting or entangled emotions (Eriksson-Backa, 2020;Rak, 2020;Wang, 2020). Emotions are not new in HIB research and they have been conceived as feelings accompanying decision processes at different search stages; as an "affective load" during the search process; as predictors of online search actions; and as promoters of online health searching (Fourie & Julien, 2014;Kuhlthau, 1991;Kuhlthau, 2005;Lopatovska, 2014;Myrick & Willoughby, 2019;Nahl, 2004;Nahl, 2005).…”