This study examined how uncertainty affects information seeking and avoidance behaviors via information insufficiency in the COVID-19 vaccination context. It also investigated how trust in science, government, and society moderate the effects of information insufficiency. An online experiment with 131 Korean adults showed that uncertainty indirectly affects information seeking intentions via information insufficiency, which is moderated by science trust and governmental trust. It also showed that uncertainty indirectly affects information avoidance intentions via information insufficiency, which is moderated by social trust.
AchterbergPDe KosterWVan der WaalJ (2017) A science confidence gap: Education, trust in scientific methods, and trust in scientific institutions in the United States, 2014. Public Understanding of Science26(6): 704–720.
2.
AfifiTDAfifiWAAcevedo CallejasMShahnaziAWhiteANimahN (2019) The functionality of communal coping in chronic uncertainty environments: The context of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon. Health Communication34(13): 1585–1596.
3.
BrashersDE (2001) Communication and uncertainty management. Journal of Communication51(3): 477–497.
4.
BrashersDENeidigJLHaasSMDobbsLKCardilloLWRussellJA (2000) Communication in the management of uncertainty: The case of persons living with HIV or AIDS. Communication Monographs67: 63–84.
5.
CalhounGJ (2012) Seeking safety? Applying the risk information seeking and processing model to sexual aggression on a college campus. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI.
6.
CappellaJN (2002) Cynicism and social trust in the new media environment. Journal of Communication52(1): 229–241.
7.
ChenTDaiMXiaSZhouY (2022) Do messages matter? Investigating the combined effects of framing, outcome uncertainty, and number format on COVID-19 vaccination attitudes and intention. Health Communication37: 944–951.
8.
ColemanJS (1994) Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
9.
DhamaKSharunKTiwariRDhawanMEmranTBRabaanAA, et al. (2021) COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy–reasons and solutions to achieve a successful global vaccination campaign to tackle the ongoing pandemic. Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics17(10): 3495–3499.
10.
DixonGNClarkeCE (2012) Heightening uncertainty around certain science: Media coverage, false balance, and the autism-vaccine controversy. Science Communication35(3): 358–382.
11.
EaglyAHChaikenS (1993) The Psychology of Attitudes. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
12.
FakhouryRAubertB (2015) Citizenship, trust, and behavioural intentions to use public e-services: The case of Lebanon. International Journal of Information Management35(3): 346–351.
13.
FischhoffBDavisAL (2014) Communicating scientific uncertainty. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences111(4): 13664–13671.
14.
FukuyamaF (1995) Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. London: Hamish Hamilton.
15.
FungTKGriffinRJDunwoodyS (2018) Testing links among uncertainty, affect, and attitude toward a health behavior. Science Communication40(1): 33–62.
16.
FunkC (2017) Mixed messages about public trust in science. Issues in Science and Technology34(1): 86–88.
17.
GambettaD (1988) Can we trust trust? In: GambettaD (ed.) Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations. Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell, pp. 213–237.
18.
GauchatG (2011) The cultural authority of science: Public trust and acceptance of organized science. Public Understanding of Science20(6): 751–770.
19.
GolmanRHagmannDLoewensteinG (2017) Information avoidance. Journal of Economic Literature55(1): 96–135.
20.
GriffinRJDunwoodySNeuwirthK (1999) Proposed model of the relationship of risk information seeking and processing to the development of preventive behaviors. Environmental Research80(2): 230–245.
21.
GriffinRJNeuwirthKDunwoodySGieseJ (2004) Information sufficiency and risk communication. Media Psychology6(1): 23–61.
22.
GriffinRJDunwoodySYangZJ (2013) Linking risk messages to information seeking and processing. Annals of the International Communication Association36(1): 323–362.
23.
GustafsonARiceRE (2019) The effects of uncertainty frames in three science communication topics. Science Communication41(6): 679–706.
24.
HanPKJZikmund-FisherBJDuarteCWKnausMBlackASchererAM, et al. (2018) Communication of scientific uncertainty about a novel pandemic health threat: Ambiguity aversion and its mechanisms. Journal of Health Communication23(5): 435–444.
25.
HayesAF (2018) Partial, conditional, and moderated moderated mediation: Quantification, inference, and interpretation. Communication Monographs85(1): 4–40.
26.
HayesAFMontoyaAK (2017) A tutorial on testing, visualizing, and probing an interaction involving a multicategorical variable in linear regression analysis. Communication Methods and Measures11(1): 1–30.
27.
HetheringtonMJHusserJA (2012) How trust matters: The changing political relevance of political trust. American Journal of Political Science56(2): 312–325.
28.
HightowLBMillerWCLeonePAWohlDSmurzynskiMKaplanAH (2003) Failure to return for HIV posttest counseling in an SDT clinic population. AIDS Education and Prevention15(3): 282–290.
HoogheMMarienS (2013) A comparative analysis of the relation between political trust and forms of political participation in Europe. European Societies15(1): 131–152.
31.
HuangYYangC (2020) A metacognitive approach to reconsidering risk perceptions and uncertainty: Understand information seeking during COVID-19. Science Communication42(5): 616–642.
32.
JensenJDPokharelMScherrCLKingAJBrownNJonesC (2017) Communicating uncertain science to the public: How amount and source of uncertainty impact fatalism, backlash, and overload. Risk Analysis37(1): 40–51.
33.
JohnsonBBSlovicP (1995) Presenting uncertainty in health risk assessment: Initial studies of its effects on risk perception and trust. Risk Analysis15(4): 485–494.
34.
KahnemanDTverskyA (1982) Variants of uncertainty. Cognition11(2): 143–157.
35.
KarlssonNLoewensteinGSeppiD (2009) The ostrich effect: Selective attention to information. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty38(2): 95–115.
36.
KaspersonREGoldingDTulerS (1992) Social distrust as a factor in siting hazardous facilities and communicating risks. Journal of Social Issues48(4): 161–187.
37.
KelpNCWittJKSivakumarG (2022) To vaccinate or not? The role played by uncertainty communication on public understanding and behavior regarding COVID-19. Science Communication44: 223–239.
38.
KimJ (2019) Why people remain inactive during a crisis: Interpreting and dealing with a crisis within a broader social context. Health, Risk & Society21(1–2): 74–88.
39.
KimJLeeJHeoJBaekJ (2021) Message strategies and viewer responses: Content analysis of HPV vaccination videos on YouTube. Journal of Health Communication26(12): 818–827.
KuttschreuterM (2006) Psychological determinants of reactions to food risk messages. Risk Analysis26(4): 1045–1057.
42.
LazarusJVRatzanSCPalayewAGostinLOLarsonHJRabinK, et al. (2021) A global survey of potential acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine. Nature Medicine27(2): 225–228.
43.
LeeCScheufeleDALewensteinBV (2005) Public attitudes toward emerging technologies: Examining the interactive effects of cognitions and affect on public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Science Communication27: 240–267.
44.
LeeHKimJ (2021) Norm perceptions about rumor sharing on genetically modified foods: The interaction between Facebook likes and a refuting comment. Health Communication38: 1467–1476.
45.
LeviMStokerL (2000) Political trust and trustworthiness. Annual Review of Political Science3(1): 475–507.
46.
LewisADuchR (2021) Gender differences in perceived risk of COVID-19. Social Science Quarterly102(5): 2124–2133.
47.
LinkE (2021) Information avoidance during health crises: Predictors of avoiding information about the COVID-19 pandemic among German news consumers. Information Processing and Management58(6): 102714.
MatthesJ (2013) Do hostile opinion environments harm political participation? The moderating role of generalized social trust. International Journal of Public Opinion Research25(1): 23–42.
50.
MilesSFrewerLJ (2003) Public perception of scientific uncertainty in relation to food hazards. Journal of Risk Research6(3): 267–283.
51.
Montijn-DorgeloFNMiddenCJ (2008) The role of negative associations and trust in risk perception of new hydrogen systems. Journal of Risk Research11(5): 659–671.
52.
NabiRL (2003) Exploring the framing effects of emotion: Do discrete emotions differentially influence information accessibility, information seeking, and policy preference?Communication Research30(2): 224–247.
53.
NisbetMCScheufeleDAShanahanJMoyPBrossardDLewensteinBV (2002) Knowledge, reservations, or promise? A media effects model for public perceptions of science and technology. Communication Research29(5): 584–608.
54.
OromHShepperdJA (2015) Avoiding cancer risk information. Social Science & Medicine147: 113–120.
55.
ParkHLeeT (2018) Adoption of e-government applications for public health risk communication: Government trust and social media competence as primary drivers. Journal of Health Communication23(8): 712–723.
56.
ParkMJChoiHKimSKRhoJJ (2015) Trust in government’s social media service and citizen’s patronage behavior. Telematics and Informatics32(4): 629–641.
57.
PerryRWMankinLD (2007) Organizational trust, trust in the chief executive and work satisfaction. Public Personnel Management36(2): 165–179.
58.
PettyRECacioppoJT (1986) The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In: PettyRECacioppoJT (eds) Communication and Persuasion. New York, NY: Springer, pp. 1–24.
59.
PokrywczynskiJGriffinRJCalhounGJ (2019) Information seeking among women aged 18 to 25 about the risk of sexual aggression. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly96(1): 239–263.
60.
PriestSH (2001) Misplaced faith: Communication variables as predictors of encouragement for biotechnology development. Science Communication23(2): 97–110.
61.
PriestSHBonfadelliHRusananM (2003) The “trust gap” hypothesis: Predicting support for biotechnology across national cultures as a function of trust in actors. Risk Analysis23: 751–766.
62.
PutnamR (1993) Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
63.
RimalRNRealK (2003) Perceived risk and efficacy beliefs as motivators of change: Use of the risk perception attitude (RPA) framework to understand health behaviors. Human Communication Research29(3): 370–399.
64.
RousseauDMSitkinSBBurtRSCamererC (1998) Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review23(3): 393–404.
65.
SapienzaPZingalesL (2012) A trust crisis. International Review of Finance12(2): 123–131.
66.
SiebenhaarKUKötherAKAlpersGW (2020) Dealing with the COVID-19 infodemic: Distress by information, information avoidance, and compliance with preventive measures. Frontiers in Psychology11: 567905.
67.
SiegristM (2000) The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Analysis20(2): 195–204.
68.
SiegristMCvetkovichGRothC (2000) Salient value similarity, social trust, and risk/benefit perception. Risk Analysis20(3): 353–362.
69.
SlovicP (1987) Perception of risk. Science236: 280–285.
70.
SubbaraoK (2020) COVID-19 vaccines: Time to talk about the uncertainties. Nature586(7830): 475.
71.
SweenyKMelnykDMillerWShepperdJA (2010) Information avoidance: Who, what, when, and why. Review of General Psychology14: 340–353.
72.
TamKP (2020) Understanding the psychology X politics interaction behind environmental activism: The roles of governmental trust, density of environmental NGOs, and democracy. Journal of Environmental Psychology71: 101330.
73.
Ter HuurneEFGuttelingJM (2009) How to trust? The importance of self-efficacy and social trust in public responses to industrial risks. Journal of Risk Research12(6): 809–824.
74.
Ter HuurneETGuttelingJM (2008) Information needs and risk perception as predictors of risk information seeking. Journal of Risk Research11(7): 847–862.
World Health Organization (2022) WHO coronavirus (COVID-19) dashboard. Available at: https://covid19.who.int (accessed 20 September 2022).
77.
XuT (2021) Media, trust in government, and risk perception of COVID-19 in the early stage of epidemic: An analysis based on moderating effect. Healthcare9(11): 1597.
78.
YangZJAloeAMFeeleyTH (2014) Risk information seeking and processing model: A meta-analysis. Journal of Communication64(1): 20–41.
79.
YangZJKahlorL (2012) What, me worry? The role of affect in information seeking and avoidance. Science Communication35(2): 189–212.
80.
YangZJDongXLiuZ (2022) Systematic processing of COVID-19 information: Relevant channel beliefs and perceived information gathering capacity as moderators. Science Communication44(1): 60–85.
81.
ZarocostasJ (2020) How to fight an infodemic. The Lancet395(10225): 676.
82.
ZhouYAcevedo CallejasMLMacGeorgeEL (2020) Targeting perceptions of risk from injudicious antibiotic use: An application of the risk information seeking and processing model. Journal of Health Communication25(5): 345–352.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
