Abstract and keywords
Abstract (English):
Recessionary situations such as the current Corona pandemic affect people’s behaviour, since most people react to them with fear. Nowadays, social media is used by many people all over the world, thus, people as well as public and private organizations and groups share, post and comment messages on social media. This way, many people can be reached in a very short time. However, not all posts on social media can be defined trustworthy. Instead, a lot of people, groups and organizations make use of social media to spread rumours, fake news and conspiracy theories. There are three main motivations increasing people’s beliefs in these types of news: desire to feel security for themselves as well as the groups they belong to; making sense of their specific environment and /or striving for safety and control in times of severe recessionary situations. Among the current demonstrators against the Corona policy of the German government, one can often identify supporters of specific groups that share their beliefs. However, it is not easy to differentiate between true and fake news or rumours. The present paper uses the quantitative data collection method to investigate the reasons why people may change their behaviour in recessionary situations and why some people are more prone to believing rumours and fake news on social media than others. In this context, message credibility plays an important role. The results show that rumours, fake news and conspiracy theories are able to decrease people’s trust in health agencies and / or governments.

Corona pandemic, recessionary situation, conspiracy theories, rumours, fake news, human behaviour
Publication text (PDF): Read Download

1. De Ceukelaire W., Bodini C. We need strong public health care to contain the global Corona pandemic. International Journal of Health Services, 2020, 50(3): 276–277.

2. Liu Y.-C., Kuo R.-L., Shih S.-R. COVID-19: The first documented coronavirus pandemic in history. Biomedical Journal, 2020, 43(4): 328–333.

3. Honigsbaum M. A history of the great influenza pandemics: death, panic and hysteria, 1830–1920. London: I. B. Tauris, 2013, 313.

4. Walker P. G., Whittaker C., Watson O., Baguelin M., Ainslie K., Bhatia S. et al. The impact of COVID-19 and strategies for mit-igation and suppression in low- and middle-income countries. Science, 2020, 368(6502): 413–422.

5. Moser D. A., Glaus J., Frangou S., Schechter D. S. Years of life lost due to the psychosocial consequences of COVID-19 mitigation strategies based on Swiss data. European Psychiatry, 2020, 63(1).

6. Akseer N., Kandru G., Keats E. C., Bhutta Z. A. COVID-19 pandemic and mitigation strategies: implications for maternal and child health and nutrition. American Journal for Clinical Nutrition, 2020, 112(2): 251–256.

7. Alkhodair S. A., Ding S. H. H., Fung B. C. M., Liu J. Detecting breaking news rumors of emerging topics in social media, Infor-mation Processing & Management, 2020, 57(2).

8. Tandoc E. C., Lim Z. W., Ling R. Defining “Fake News”. Digital Journalism, 2018, 6(2): 137–153.

9. Robinson S., DeShano C. ‘Anyone can know’: Citizen journalism and the interpretive community of the mainstream press. Journalism, 2011, 12(8): 963–982.

10. Wall M. Citizen Journalism: A retrospective on what we know, an agenda for what we don’t. Digital Journalism, 2015, 3(6): 797–813.

11. Kühne S., Kroh M., Liebig S., Rees J., Zick A., Entringer T. M. et al. Gesellschaftlicher Zusammenhalt in Zeiten von Corona: Eine Chance in der Krise? SOEP papers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research. Berlin: Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW), 2020, vol. 1091.

12. Engels B. Corona: Stresstest für die Digitalisierung in Deutschland. IW-Kurzbericht 23/2020. Institut der Deutschen Wirtschaft. Köln, 2020.

13. Levy N. The bad news about fake news. Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective, 2017, 6(8): 20–36.

14. Rini R. Fake news and partisan epistemology. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 2017, 27(2).

15. Liu F., Burton-Jones A., Xu D. Rumors on Social Media in Disasters – extending transmission to retransmission. PACIS Pro-ceedings, 2014, 49. URL: (accessed 10 Jan 2022).

16. Tseng H., Fogg B. J. The elements of computer credibility. Papers CHI 99, 15–20 May 1999, 80–87.

17. Eastin M. S., Eysenbach G., Hilligoss B., Harris F. J., Lankes R. D., Rieh S. Y., Sundar S. S., Weingarten F. W. Digital media, youth and credibility. London: MIT Press, 2008.

18. Appelman A., Sundar S. S. Measuring message credibility: construction and validation of an exclusive scale. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 2016, 93(1).

19. Oh H. J., Lee H. When do people verify and share health rumors on social media? The effects of message importance, health anxi-ety, and health literacy. Journal of Health Communication, 2019, 24(11): 837–847.

20. Sternisko A., Cichocka A., Van Bavel J. J. The dark side of social movements: Social identity, non-conformity, and the lure of conspiracy theories. Current opinion in psychology, 2020, 35: 1–6.

21. Milkman K. L., Patel M. S., Gandhi L., Graci H. N., Gromet D. M., Ho H. et al. A mega-study of text-based nudges encouraging patients to get vaccinated at an upcoming doctor’s appointment. Rotman School of Management Working Paper, 2021, 118(20).

22. Marchlewska M., Cichocka A., Łozowski F., Górska P., Winiewski M. In search of an imaginary enemy: Catholic collective nar-cissism and the endorsement of gender conspiracy beliefs. The Journal of Social Psychology, 2019, 159(6): 766–779.

23. Van Bavel J. J., Cichocka A., Capraro V., Sjåstad H., Nezlek J. B., Alfano M. et al. National identity predicts public health sup-port during a global pandemic. PsyArXiv. 2020.

24. Umeogu B. Source credibility: A philosophical analysis. Open Journal of Philosophy, 2012, 2(2): 112–115.

25. Eisend M. Source credibility dimensions in marketing communication – a generalized solution. Journal of Empirical Generalisations in Marketing, 2006, 10: 1–33.

26. Miller S. M. Monitoring and blunting: Validation of a questionnaire to assess styles of information seeking under threat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1987, 52(2): 345–353.

27. Lazarus J. V., Ratzan S. C., Palayew A., Gostin L. O., Larson H. J., Rabin K., Kimball S., El-Mohandes A. A global survey of po-tential acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine. Natural Medicine, 2021, 27(2): 225–228.

28. Johansen N., Miserez M., de Beaux A., Montgomery A., Macario Faylona J., Carbonell A., Bisgaard T. Surgical strategy for con-tralateral groin management in patients scheduled for Unilateral Inguinal Hernia Repair: An International Web-based Survey-monkey® Questionnaire: Strategy for Contralateral Groin Management during Inguinal Hernia Repair. Scandinavian Journal of Surgery, 2020, 110(3): 368–372.

29. Kissler S. M., Tedijanto C., Goldstein E., Grad Y. H., Lipsitch M. Projecting the transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 through the postpandemic period. Science, 2020, 368(6493): 860–868.

30. Cristea I. A., Naudet F. Increase value and reduce waste in research on psychological therapies. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 2019, 123.

31. Gentili C., Cristea I. A. Challenges and opportunities for human behavior research in the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Frontiers in Psychology, 2020, 11.

Login or Create
* Forgot password?