Citizen journalism reduces the credibility deficit of authoritarian government in risk communication amid COVID-19 outbreaks

The efficacy of health experts' communication in inducing support for COVID-19 measures and effect on trustworthiness: A survey in Hong Kong

To control the spread of COVID-19, governments may implement freedoms-infringing health measures. Therefore, citizens' support for these measures is important. This study investigates: (1) whether health experts' communication induces support for COVID-19 measures, and (2) whether health experts' agreeing or disagreeing with government directives affects their trustworthiness. A cross-sectional online questionnaire was completed by 1072 adults in the Hong Kong general population between May 26 and June 3, 2021. Three COVID-19 measures were examined: contact-tracing mobile application, restriction-testing, and ban of public assembly. For each, participants were randomly assigned to three groups to view, respectively: vignettes with a neutral government announcement only; vignettes with a government announcement and a health expert's quote supporting the government's decision; and vignettes with a government announcement and a health expert's quote disagreeing with the government's decision. The result shows that positive health experts' communication increased the support for banning public assembly; no effects were found for the support for contact-tracing mobile applications and restriction testing. Participants who only viewed health experts disagreeing with the government had higher trust in health experts relative to participants who viewed health experts agreeing with the government at least once. The results render doubtful the strategy that health experts can be involved for garnering support for unpopular health measures without jeopardizing public trust in them.

WHO approves? Relative trust, the WHO, and China's COVID-19 vaccines

This paper aims to answer a general question: whether an international organization (IO) is able to shape public opinion in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Since the pandemic took hold in early 2020, countries across the globe have switched gear from prevention to vaccination. Most had to not only secure a sufficient supply of vaccines, but also to curb vaccine hesitancy among their populations. Can endorsement by an international organization like the World Health Organization (WHO) enhance a vaccine's acceptability? Based on a survey experiment conducted in Taiwan, our study leverages the special relationship between China and Taiwan to show that WHO endorsement can induce acceptance of Chinese vaccines among Taiwanese people. However, the effect is found to be contextual in the sense that it only works when people's trust in the WHO is higher than their trust in the vaccine's country of origin. Our study not only contributes to the literature of IO legitimacy by empirically showing IOs' causal effects on public opinion, but also sheds light on how a vaccine's credibility can be enhanced to promote vaccination uptake.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11558-022-09481-1.

Ambiguity and self-protection: evidence from social distancing under the COVID-19 pandemic

This paper studies how people make decisions over preventive behaviors under ambiguity (i.e., Knightian uncertainty) where they do not even know the probability of a loss. In the context of the current COVID-19 pandemic, scientific uncertainty makes it hard to evaluate not only whether one will be infected, but also probabilities such as the infection rate. We constructed a simple model and demonstrated how its effect was heterogeneous depending on ambiguity-attitudes. Motivated by the model, we further conducted a survey experiment in Japan where we manipulated the information regarding scientific uncertainty on COVID-19. We found that higher ambiguity induced by scientific uncertainty increased the level of social distancing among ambiguity-loving people, but such evidence was nonexistent for ambiguity-averse counterparts.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s42973-022-00120-3.

Political attitudes and efficacy of health expert communication on the support for COVID-19 vaccination program: Findings from a survey in Hong Kong

Despite evidence suggesting that vaccines offer protection against COVID-19, the uptake rates of COVID-19 vaccines have been low in some high-income regions. Support for vaccination program is important to fight the pandemic. This study aimed at exploring two research questions: first, to what extent political attitudes are associated with support for COVID-19 vaccination program; and second, whether health expert communication is effective in increasing the support. An online survey was undertaken by 1079 Hong Kong residents aged 18–77 years from May 26 to June 3, 2021. The survey found higher support in pro-government respondents, and lower support in political opposition. A strategy of positive communication by health experts could increase support in the opposition and politically attentive respondents. Other variables that were positively related to program support were quarantine experience, trust in government, preference for pandemic control over freedom, political attentiveness, and disagreement with China’s influence on Hong Kong’s COVID-19 policymaking. This study contributes to understanding the relationship between political attitudes and support for vaccination program and provides empirical evidence of the efficacy of health expert communication strategy in improving support for vaccination program for people with certain political attitudes.