Emotional and Cognitive Responses to COVID-19 Information Overload under Lockdown Predict Media Attention and Risk Perceptions of COVID-19.

The present study examined positive and negative effects of health communication on the fight against the COVID-19 under lockdown, during the first wave of the pandemic in Greece. An online survey (N = 1,199) examined the relationships among media trust, emotional and cognitive reactions to COVID-19 information overload, media attention, and risk perceptions regarding COVID-19. Participants' media attention (exposure and attention combined) to information about the pandemic was positively related to their risk perceptions (perceived susceptibility and severity) about the disease. Media attention was dependent on participants' trust in the media as valid sources of information, but also on their cognitive and emotional reactions to COVID-19 information overload. In response to this overload, they produced negative thoughts and more negative (fear and anger) than positive (protection) emotions. These distinct reactions had differential effects on media attention and risk perceptions. Fear and protection were positively related to media attention and risk perceptions, while anger and negative thinking undermined attention and perceptions. Furthermore, all reactions depended on media trust, which mediated the effect on media attention. These findings highlighted desirable and some undesirable effects of health communication in the fight against COVID-19, which can be used to improve health communication in the future.

Group consensus in social influence: type of consensus information as a moderator of majority and minority influence.

Three experiments investigated the effect of consensus information on majority and minority influence. Experiment 1 examined the effect of consensus expressed by descriptive adjectives (large vs. small) on social influence. A large source resulted in more influence than a small source, irrespective of source status (majority vs. minority). Experiment 2 showed that large sources affected attitudes heuristically, whereas only a small minority instigated systematic processing of the message. Experiment 3 manipulated the type of consensus information, either in terms of descriptive adjectives (large, small) or percentages (82%, 18%, 52%, 48%). When consensus was expressed in terms of descriptive adjectives, the findings of Experiments 1 and 2 were replicated (large sources were more influential than small sources), but when consensus was expressed in terms of percentages, the majority was more influential than the minority, irrespective of group consensus.