Theoretical background

The new coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) has spread worldwide since the beginning of 2020, and measures connected with it have changed our everyday lives. As of 1.2.2021, more than 102 million infections had been confirmed globally (World Health Organization, 2020a), and these figures rise every day. As early as 30 January 2020, the crisis committee of the World Health Organization declared a state of global public health emergency in relation to the disease caused by the novel coronavirus (World Health Organization, 2020b). The media play an indispensable role in informing the public about the current situation caused by coronavirus. They enable fast dissemination of important information about the development of case numbers nationally and globally, symptoms, preventive options, and anti-epidemic measures that need to be followed. In addition to the informative function, the media also played an important role in ensuring distance education during school closures. For social media, they also provided a way to maintain social contacts, which was crucial particularly because of social distancing during the pandemic. They are also important for building supportive communities (Kumari, 2016). In this way, media can reduce isolation and provide emotional support (Pérez-Lugo, 2004).

Studies from different countries, however, also indicate significant negative effects of media and media information about coronavirus spread on readers', viewers', listeners', and users' mental health. In a Chinese study by Chao et al. (2020), a significant relationship was found between following news on websites or social networks and the experience of negative emotions and moods, depressive symptoms, anxiety, and stress among adult respondents. Following traditional media was not in a significant relationship with those psychological variables. Psychological distress was linked mainly to following stress-inducing news content and to the intensity of sharing, active searching for epidemic-related news, and the amount of time spent consuming media. However, following heroic acts, expert statements, and reporting of verified facts, as well as news about disease prevention, was associated with positive emotions and with reduced depressive symptoms (Chao et al., 2020). Data collected during the spread of MERS-CoV in South Korea showed that social media use was associated with feelings of fear and anger (Oh, Lee, & Han, 2020). A study from Iraq, where Facebook was the most used information source about Covid-19, indicated that fear and panic were mainly evoked by false information about coronavirus, while panic on social media was also caused by information about numbers of infected and dead people. Almost two thirds of respondents reported that sharing Covid-19 news on social media caused fear (Ahmad, & Murad, 2020). A Chinese study found that frequent watching of Covid-19 information on social media increased the likelihood of anxiety and combined anxiety and depression (Gao et al., 2020). Similarly, in the USA, research found a relationship between frequency of watching coronavirus news in major mass media and depressive symptoms, mediated by perceived susceptibility to infection (Olagoke, Olagoke, & Hughes, 2020). These studies suggest that media can play an important role in how a population experiences a pandemic situation, with the type of medium, the character of the content, and also the frequency of media use being key variables. Successful pandemic management therefore means not only fighting the virus itself but also the “infodemic,” the flood of information about coronavirus that can negatively affect mental health and quality of life. This is also shown in studies conducted during other crisis situations, such as war and terrorist attacks (Chao et al., 2020; Holmes et al., 2020).

Beyond the impact on mental state, media influence on population behavior during a pandemic and related willingness to comply with directives intended to prevent virus spread should also be considered. In a Chinese study, mass and social media had a positive effect on psychobehavioral responses related to virus spread; higher media exposure was linked to greater readiness to follow preventive measures, greater self-efficacy, and a stronger perceived severity of the situation, though these findings referred to a specific sample of medical school students (Lin et al., 2020). Similarly, Oh, Lee, and Han (2020) found that following pandemic-related news on social media was associated with higher perceived risk and, subsequently, higher frequency of preventive behaviors, such as wearing masks, avoiding closed public spaces, handwashing, and disinfection. Simonov et al. (2020) even reported a causal relationship between increased viewership of Fox News in the USA—criticized for doubting the quality of information provided about coronavirus—and a reduced willingness of viewers to stay home during the pandemic crisis. Available studies also suggest that willingness to comply with preventive measures and the level of agreement with adopted measures differ across countries and even between regions within a country (Barrios et al., 2020; Durante, Guiso, & Gulino, 2020). In Slovakia, the study Ako sa máte, Slovensko? found high adherence to recommended measures such as limiting social contacts and mask wearing; in March 2020, most respondents expressed agreement with the measures introduced. As much as 83.3% considered the measures appropriate and 37.4% considered them insufficient (MNFORCE, s.r.o.; Seesame, s.r.o.; Sociologický ústav SAV; Ústav výskumu sociálnej komunikácie SAV, 2020).

In such a global crisis situation as the one we have faced since 2020, emotional experiences and the willingness of society to behave in accordance with applicable recommendations and orders are decisive for successful management. Research findings on factors that can influence public psychobehavioral responses, including media reporting, can therefore be very useful in the current context.

Research methodology

Research objectives and research questions

The aim of the study was to determine emotional reactions of Slovak residents to media reporting about the coronavirus pandemic during the period of the so-called first wave, when strict anti-epidemic measures were in force. In this context, the research question was whether respondents felt fear, anger, sadness, worry, panic, frustration, and curiosity while following media reports, and whether the intensity of these emotions was associated with the frequency of watching the news. Given the changing situation and the gradual easing of measures during the observation period, reflected also in media communication, it was considered important to consider time as a variable. The study further investigated whether the intensity of emotions experienced while watching media news changed according to the phases of relaxing restrictive measures. Since available international research suggests that media also matter for compliance and attitudes toward measures that prevent virus spread, a research objective was to examine this relationship in a Slovak sample as well. In this context, the research question was whether frequency of following media news about coronavirus was related to agreement with the measures and to perceived restriction caused by the measures.

Research sample

The study processed data from 458 respondents, mainly women (N = 424), aged between 25 and 62 years (M = 40.7; SD = 5.94). Respondents in the sampling frame came from all Slovak regions, with the largest representation from the Bratislava region (for sample distribution by region, see Figure 1). The majority of respondents had completed higher education at level 1, 2, or 3 (up to 68.1%), while 30.3% had secondary education and just under 1% had only primary education. All respondents were parents of one to seven children.

Figure 1: Distribution of the research sample by Slovak region.

Methods

Data were collected through an online questionnaire with several parts. At the start, respondents were asked for informed consent to participate. After that, questionnaire items captured basic sociodemographic data (age, sex, education, region, etc.) and basic information about the respondent’s children (number of children, their age, presence of special educational needs). In other sections, a question assessed frequency of following coronavirus pandemic news: “Do you follow news that deals with coronavirus pandemic topics?” Respondents expressed frequency on a 3-point scale no, only a little – sometimes – often. The frequency with which respondents experienced selected primary and secondary emotions (fear, worry, anger, sadness, panic, frustration, curiosity) while watching pandemic news was measured on a 5-point scalenever – almost never – sometimes – fairly often – very often. Agreement with state anti-epidemic measures was assessed with the item “To what extent do you agree with the measures introduced by the state during the coronavirus pandemic?” using a 5-point scale with endpointsstrongly disagree – strongly agree. On the same 5-point scale, respondents also answered “To what extent do the measures introduced by the state during the coronavirus pandemic limit you?”, with endpointsdo not limit me at all and limit me very much.

Other sections of the questionnaire, which were not the subject of this paper, addressed respondents’ and their families’ current emotional experiences, distance education, its course in the home environment, and related worries and perceived shortcomings. At the end of the questionnaire, telephone and email contacts were provided where respondents could seek professional psychological help and support if needed.

Research procedure

Research data were collected via online questionnaire between 14.4. and 19.5.2020, during which anti-epidemic measures promoting social distancing were in force in Slovakia, including school closures, restrictions on shops, services, sports facilities, and regular reporting on Covid-19 in the media. The questionnaire was distributed online through web and Facebook pages and the newsletter of Výskumný ústav detskej psychológie a patopsychológie, posted in Facebook groups focused on educational issues, and emailed to parent associations of children with special needs. The questionnaire was available in two language versions, Slovak and Hungarian.

Statistical data processing

Data were processed using SPSS version 22 for Windows. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used (normality tests, comparative and correlational analyses). For inferential testing, normality was checked using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test (all items p < 0,05; Tomšik, 2017), and based on this, nonparametric tests were then used for the target analyses: the Kruskal–Wallis H test and Spearman’s correlation coefficient. Graphs were created using MS Excel and SPSS version 22 for Windows.

Results

The next section interprets descriptive and inferential results. In the first analysis we focused on news consumption frequency about the coronavirus pandemic with a three-point scale: I do not follow, or only rarely – I follow occasionally – I follow often. Out of the total (N = 457), only 3.06% (N = 14) reported they did not follow, or rarely followed, Covid-19 pandemic news. Approximately 47.82% (N = 219) said they followed such news occasionally, while 48.91% (N = 224) said they followed it often. One respondent did not answer this question (0.22%). We then assessed the degree of seven selected primary and secondary emotions (fear, worry, anger, sadness, panic, frustration, and curiosity) that respondents experienced while following coronavirus pandemic news. Following coronavirus news most strongly evoked curiosity (M = 3.31), while worry (M = 2.88) and sadness (M = 2.70) were less frequent. Panic or panic-like fear was reported least often (M = 1.68). Descriptive statistics are shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Descriptive statistics of key variables: emotional experiences when following news about the Covid-19 pandemic.

Differences in selected emotions by frequency of pandemic-news following were then examined using the Kruskal–Wallis H test. Statistically significant differences were found in the level of fear (H = 26.746; p <0,001), worry (H = 25.199; p <0,001), sadness (H = 15.264; p <0,001), and curiosity (H = 56.324; p <0,001) as a function of news-following frequency. Mean values in the three research groups (rarely/never, sometimes, often) show an increasing pattern. Specifically, more frequent news following is associated with higher levels of fear, worry, sadness, and curiosity. A similar trend appeared for anger and frustration, but differences between groups were not statistically significant. Likewise, comparable means were observed for panic. Looking at arithmetic means alone, the lowest scores were found for panic, frustration, and anger. Across all groups, regardless of viewing frequency, anger levels were similar. Worry was significantly lower in the non-following group, while curiosity was significantly lower in groups that did not follow news or followed it only occasionally. Inferential statistics are shown in Table 2 and displayed in Figure 2.

Table 2: Differences in selected emotional experiences by frequency of following news about the Covid-19 pandemic.

Figure 2: Differences in selected emotional experiences by frequency of following news about the Covid-19 pandemic.

We also focused on selected variables during each phase of easing restrictive measures. During the state of emergency before the first easing phase (until 21 April 2020), N = 141 questionnaire batteries were completed. During the first easing phase, N = 206 respondents answered (22 April 2020 to 5 May 2020), and during the second phase N = 111 answered (6 May to 19 May 2020). We then tested differences in the level of selected emotional experiences when following coronavirus news across individual phases of easing restrictive measures and the period before them using the Kruskal–Wallis H test. Analysis showed significant differences in worry (H = 7.575; p <0,023), sadness (H = 8.951; p <0,011), and frustration (H = 11.101; p <0,004) depending on the phases of easing. For all three variables, a decreasing trend was observed after each relaxation phase. Fear showed a similar pattern, though differences across phases were not statistically significant. In panic and curiosity, comparable scores were observed across all phases. A different trend was observed for anger: it rose during the first phase and then declined in the second phase, but not significantly. Inferential results are presented in Table 3 and illustrated in Figure 3.

Table 3: Differences in selected emotional experiences by phases of easing anti-epidemic measures.

Figure 3: Differences in selected emotional experiences while following Covid-19 pandemic news by phases of easing measures.

In the final part we examined the level of agreement with measures introduced during the coronavirus pandemic and the extent to which respondents perceived these measures as restrictive. To the first question, To what extent do you agree with the measures introduced by the state during the coronavirus pandemic?, respondents answered on a 5-point scale where 5 represented the highest agreement. This item was answered by N = 455 respondents, with an arithmetic mean of M = 3.98 (SD = 1.08). As many as 70.9% of respondents in our sample somewhat agreed with the measures (responses 4 and 5), while only 10.5% expressed disagreement (responses 1 and 2). On the second question,To what extent do the measures introduced by the state during the coronavirus pandemic restrict you?, respondents answered similarly on a 5-point scale where 5 represented the highest perceived restriction. The mean for this item was M = 3.02 (SD = 1.10). Most respondents (38.2%) chose the middle response, and responses declined toward both endpoints (Table 4). Nearly one-third (32.1%) rather did not feel restricted by the measures (responses 1 and 2), while 29% considered them restrictive (responses 4 and 5).

Table 4: Level of agreement with measures and level of subjectively perceived restriction.

The relationship between agreement with measures and perceived restriction, and frequency of following coronavirus media news was examined using Spearman correlation analysis. A weak positive correlation was found between frequency of news follow-up and degree of agreement with anti-epidemic measures (rs = 0.163; p <0,001). How restrictive respondents perceived the measures was not in a correlation relationship with frequency of media news (rs = 0.078; p = 0,096).

Discussion

In the presented study, we focused on emotional experiences of respondents in Slovakia in relation to the degree of media exposure during a period when Slovakia had restrictive measures in force to prevent spread of the novel coronavirus. A large majority of respondents were interested in coronavirus news; almost half followed it often (48.91%), while only 3.06% did not follow it at all or only rarely. A similar result on public interest in coronavirus information was found in another Slovak study, where respondents preferred information from television news (80.9%) and social networks (59.3%), and many also followed televised discussions with experts (64.2%). As in our study, a smaller part of respondents (14%) avoided coronavirus information (MNFORCE, s.r.o.; Seesame, s.r.o.; Sociologický ústav SAV; Ústav výskumu sociálnej komunikácie SAV, 2020). Comparable findings showing high daily interest in pandemic news appeared in foreign studies, where mass media and social media were the preferred information sources (Chao et al., 2020; Lin et al., 2020; Ahmad, & Murad, 2020).

We also mapped respondents’ experiences of selected primary and secondary emotions while following coronavirus news. The most represented emotions were curiosity, worry, and sadness, while panic was the least reported. A lower frequency of panic may be explained by the milder pandemic course in Slovakia during data collection, when the highest weekly moving median of infected persons was 65 and more than 100 positive tests per day was observed only twice—both very low compared with other countries (Ministerstvo investícií, regionálneho rozvoja a informatizácie Slovenskej republiky, 2020). Similarly, less frequent occurrence of threat-related emotions such as fear, frustration, or anger could also be interpreted this way. In countries such as China or Iraq, where the spread had a much more severe course than in Slovakia, selected studies found that media and social media reporting was dominated by negative emotions and moods among residents—feelings of threat, worry, anxiety, depressive symptoms (Chao et al., 2020), fear or panic (Ahmad, & Murad, 2020). In our study, curiosity dominated, which could also be explained by the phenomenon of so-called morbid curiosity, where people deliberately and voluntarily expose themselves to negative stimuli (Oosterwijk, 2017), here through media content; alternatively, higher curiosity may be explained by Litman and Jimerson’s curiosity theory, which defines curiosity as an emotionally motivational state necessary for acquiring further knowledge (Litman, 2010).

Data collection ran over a longer period, allowing us to track emotion changes in respondents in relation to news watching during the state of emergency with the strictest anti-epidemic measures and their gradual relaxation. Worry, sadness, and frustration significantly declined with the easing phases of restrictive measures, while panic and curiosity remained relatively stable across the whole data-collection period. Likewise, Sadiković et al. (2020) found that fear and worry among Serbian residents gradually declined over time, with both emotions predicted by frequency of watching pandemic news. The declining trend in worry, sadness, and frustration while following news is likely explained mainly by communication about relaxation and a perceived return to normal life. Reduced exposure to news during easing may also contribute. A similar trend was observed in Belgium, although authors there so far published only descriptive data without inferential analysis (De Coninck, d’Haenens, & Matthijs, 2020). In China, changes in overall emotional experience were also observed after the pandemic subsided compared with the peak crisis period, with a significant reduction in fear but increased depressive levels among studied adults (Duan et al., 2020). A similar tendency was shown in the Ako sa máte, Slovensko? study, where after one month there was a slight decline in the number of people feeling threatened by the epidemic status (SAV, 2020).

Interesting results emerged regarding differences in selected emotional experiences depending on how often pandemic news was followed. Specifically, among those who followed coronavirus news more frequently, significantly higher levels of fear, worry, sadness, and curiosity were found. In contrast to other emotions, anger was not associated with follow-up frequency. Many studies point to a significant impact of media on individual emotionality and mental health. A relationship was found between time spent following media news and negative emotions such as fear, sadness, anger, and stress (Kim & Cho, 2020), as well as distress among viewers (Chao et al., 2020), and anxiety and combined anxiety and depression (Gao et al., 2020). Frissen et al. (2020) also report that affective response to a pandemic is linked to frequency of media-content consumption. Media type (Chao et al., 2020) and the level of government communication to the public during crisis, which may influence the course of the crisis itself, may also affect negative emotional responses (Míka, 2004). In international studies, the content of reporting was also examined, and it was found that exposure to negative content such as Covid-19 death counts has a clearly negative impact on emotionality, while following heroic acts and expert communications supports positive emotions and lowers depressive symptoms (Chao et al., 2020).

Quality of life and an individual's mental state can also be influenced by the restrictive measures themselves, the experience of these restrictions, and coping with them. Our study showed that most respondents (70.9%) agreed with measures adopted during the first wave. Similar findings were reported in the Ako sa máte, Slovensko? study, where 83.3% of adults agreed that the measures were appropriate, and 37.4% even considered measures adopted in Slovakia insufficient (MNFORCE, s.r.o.; Seesame, s.r.o.; Sociologický ústav SAV; Ústav výskumu sociálnej komunikácie SAV, 2020). By contrast, in an Indian study, 76.5% of residents of Kashmir agreed that quarantine and lockdown were the only way to stop spread, and 59.5% agreed with government steps to control coronavirus spread (Bhat et al., 2020). Since respondents perceived the measures as restrictive during the first wave, interpretation is not entirely unambiguous. Almost a third of our respondents saw the measures as rather non-restrictive, while 29% found them rather restrictive. From a public-health perspective, it is also important to examine how attitudes toward implemented measures relate to media reporting about coronavirus. In our study, a weak correlation was found between frequency of following pandemic news and agreement with measures. Data from abroad also show that the amount and context of media communication can support certain public behaviors, such as perceived severity of the situation and adherence to measures (Chao et al., 2020; Lin et al., 2020).

Research limitations

The obtained results should be interpreted with respect to the study limitations. Convenience sampling does not guarantee representativeness, as reflected in the high proportion of women and respondents with higher education. Because of the focus of additional questionnaire items not analyzed in this paper, the sample consisted of respondents who are parents, which also needs to be considered. Comparing emotional experiences across phases of easing may also be biased by nonrandom sampling. We recognize that a repeated-measures design would be more informative. A further limitation is that questionnaire items were not pilot-tested, which is mainly related to the authors’ intention to respond quickly to the emerging pandemic. In addition, personality characteristics of respondents—which appear to be an important predictor of emotional responses to the pandemic (Sadiković et al., 2020)—were not assessed, and this may be a direction for future research in this area.

Conclusion

The new coronavirus pandemic brought life changes of unexpected magnitude. During the first wave in Slovakia, extensive restrictive measures were in force, educational institutions were closed, services and social contacts were limited, and this could have had a major impact on individuals’ emotional experiences. How media report on these events can influence how they are experienced. In our study, most respondents followed pandemic news frequently, with curiosity, worry, and sadness being the most frequent emotions while consuming media information, and panic being the least frequent. Respondents with higher media exposure also showed higher levels of fear, worry, sadness, and curiosity. As measures were gradually relaxed, respondents felt less worry, fear, and frustration. The majority of respondents agreed with the restrictive measures in force in Slovakia at the time of data collection. A weak positive relationship was also found between agreement with measures and frequency of following media news about coronavirus. As our data and international findings suggest, media communication about the coronavirus pandemic is related to how people experience this crisis situation and to some extent to how they behave and approach adopted measures. Media therefore can be one of the many tools for reducing negative impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic on people’s lives.

AUTHORS: PhDr. Petra Ferenčíková Mgr. Eva Rajčániová PaedDr. Robert Tomšik, PhD. PhDr. Alena Kopányiová, PhD. Výskumný ústav detskej psychológie a patopsychológie

Výskum bol realizovaný v rámci národného projektu NFP312011APV4 - Aktualizácia systému usmerňovania a rozvoja ďalších zložiek v systéme poradenstva a prevencie

List of bibliographic references

Ahmad, A. R., & Murad, H. R. (2020). The Impact of Social Media on Panic During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Iraqi Kurdistan: Online Questionnaire Study. Journal of medical Internet research, 22(5), e19556. https://doi.org/10.2196/19556

Barrios, J. M., Benmelech, E., Hochberg, Y. V., Sapienza, P. & Zingales, L. (2020). Civic Capital and Social Distancing during the Covid-19 Pandemic. NBER Working Paper. Available from https://www.nber.org/papers/w27320.pdf

Bhat, B. A., Khan, S., Manzoor, S., Niyaz, A., Tak, H. J., Muntaha Anees, S. U., . . . Ahmad, I. (2020). A Study on Impact of COVID-19 Lockdown on Psychological Health, Economy and Social Life of People in Kashmir. International Journal of Science and Healthcare Research, 5(2), 36-46. ISSN: 2455-7587 Available from https://ijshr.com/IJSHR_Vol.5_Issue.2_April2020/IJSHR005.pdf

De Coninck, D., d’Haenens, L., & Matthijs, K. (2020). Perceptions and opinions on the COVID-19 pandemic in Flanders, Belgium: Data from a three-wave longitudinal study. Data in Brief, 32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2020.106060

Duan, H., Yan, L., Ding, X., Gan, Y., Kohn, N., & Wu, J. (2020). Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health in the general Chinese population: Changes, predictors and psychosocial correlates. Psychiatry Research, 293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113396

Durante, R., Guiso, L., & Gulino, G. (2020, October 7). Civic capital and social distancing: evidence from Italians’ response to COVID-19. VoxEU.org. Available from https://voxeu.org/article/civic-capital-and-social-distancing

Frissen, T., De Coninck, D., Matthys, K., & d'Haenens, L. (2020). Longitudinal Evidence of How Media Audiences Differ in Public Health Perceptions and Behaviors During a Global Pandemic. Frontiers in public health, 8, 583408. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2020.583408

Gao, J., Zheng, P., Jia, Y., Chen, H., Mao, Y., Chen, S., . . . Dai, J. (2020). Mental health problems and social media exposure during COVID-19 outbreak. PLoS ONE 15(4), e0231924. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231924

Chao, M., Xue, D., Liu, T., Yang, H., & Hall, B. J. (2020). Media use and acute psychological outcomes during COVID-19 outbreak in China. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2020.102248

Kim, S., Cho, S. K., & LoCascio, S. P. (2020). The Role of Media Use and Emotions in Risk Perception and Preventive Behaviors Related to COVID-19 in South Korea. Asian Journal for Public Opinion Research, 8(3), 297–323. https://doi.org/10.15206/AJPOR.2020.8.3.297

Kumari, R. (2016). Positive and negative effects of social media on society. Raj Rajeshwari Journal of Psychological & Educational Research, 104-110. ISSN 2455-7900. Available from https://raj-rajeshwari.com/downloads/RRJPER%20APRIL,2020%20Issue.pdf#page=110

Lin, Y., Hu, Z., Alias, H., & Wong, L. P. (2020). Influence of Mass and Social Media on Psychobehavioral Responses Among Medical Students During the Downward Trend of COVID-19 in Fujian, China: Cross-Sectional Study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(7), e19982. https://doi.org/10.2196/19982

Litman, J. A. (2005). Curiosity and the pleasures of learning: Wanting and liking new information. Cognition and Emotion, 19(6), 793–814. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930541000101

Míka, V. T. (2004). Špecifiká krízovej komunikácie s verejnosťou. Riešenie krízových situácií v špecifickom prostredí. Žilina: FŠI ŽU. s. 429-436. Available from http://www.akademickyrepozitar.sk/sk/repozitar/specifika-krizovej-komunikacie-s-verejnostou.pdf

Ministerstvo investícií, regionálneho rozvoja a informatizácie Slovenskej republiky. (2020). Koronavírus na Slovensku v číslach. Available from https://korona.gov.sk/koronavirus-na-slovensku-v-cislach/

MNFORCE, s.r.o. Seesame, s.r.o. Sociologický ústav SAV. Ústav výskumu sociálnej komunikácie SAV. (2020). Ako sa máte, Slovensko? Marec 2020. [dataset]. Slovenský archív sociálnych dát, 2020. SASD2020001. Version 1.0. Available from http://sasd.sav.sk/_archiv/sasd_2020001/sasd_2020001__sk.xml#Q3_A

Oh, S.-H., Lee, S. Y., & Han, C. (2020). The Effects of Social Media Use on Preventive Behaviors during Infectious Disease Outbreaks: The Mediating Role of Self-relevant Emotions and Public Risk Perception. Health Communication. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2020.1724639

Olagoke, A. A., Olagoke, O. O., & Hughes, A. M. (2020). Exposure to coronavirus news on mainstream media: The role of risk perceptions and depression. British journal of health psychology, e12427. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12427

Oosterwijk, S. (2017). Choosing the negative: A behavioral demonstration of morbid curiosity. PLoS ONE, 12(7): e0178399. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178399

Pérez-Lugo, M. (2004). Media Uses in Disaster Situations: A New Focus on the Impact Phase. Sociological Inquiry, 74, 210-225. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.2004.00087.x

Sadiković, S., Branovački, B., Oljača, M., Mitrović, D., Pajić, D., & Smederevac, S. (2020). Daily Monitoring of Emotional Responses to the Coronavirus Pandemic in Serbia: A Citizen Science Approach. Frontiers in psychology, 11, 2133. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02133

SAV. (2020). Obavy z koronavírusu sú po mesiaci nižšie. Available from https://www.sav.sk/index.php?doc=services-news&source_no=20&news_no=8832

Simonov, A., Sacher, S., Dubé, J.-P., & Biswas, S. (2020). The Persuasive Effect of Fox News: Non-Compliance with Social Distancing During the Covid-19 Pandemic. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3600088

Tomšik, R. (2017). Kvantitatívny výskum v pedagogických vedách. Úvod do metodológie a štatistického spracovania. Nitra: PF, UKF.

World Health Organization. (2020a). WHO Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Dashboard. Available from https://covid19.who.int/

World Health Organization. (2020b). Rolling updates on coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Available from: https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/events-as-they-happen