An infodemic has accompanied the COVID-19 pandemic. This study explores whether overexposure to COVID-19-related information amplifies emotional distress. A cross-sectional online survey was conducted in China during the outbreak and after the peak of the pandemic (N = 1313). A latent moderated mediation model was built to analyze this relationship. COVID-19 information exposure was found to relate positively with emotional distress, and risk perception mediated the association between them. Additionally, psychological resilience moderated the mediating effects of risk perception. However, five factors of resilience differed in their moderating effects. This study offers theoretical and practical implications apropos clinical intervention and public health management.
“We’re not just fighting an epidemic; we’re fighting an infodemic.” WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus at the Munich Security Conference, 2020
The unprecedented global COVID-19 pandemic  has been accompanied by a crisis of public knowledge—an infodemic . The urgency of the pandemic and the need for public awareness have flooded media outlets with indistinguishable COVID-19 facts and rumors . Accurate information is necessary to respond appropriately to the pandemic; however, media overexposure can exacerbate health problems and amplify emotional distress . Similar negative psychological effects of repeated media exposure have been identified after the 9/11 terrorist attack, the Boston Marathon bombings, H1N1 flu, and the western African Ebola epidemic [4,5,6].
Social media provides crucial information about COVID-19, especially under conditions of social isolation. However, overexposure to COVID-19-related information is associated with negative emotions [7,8,9]. The mechanisms underlying these effects are incompletely understood or limitedly explored in terms of risk perception and psychological resilience, although both factors significantly influence mental health [10, 11]. Investigating the associations and mechanisms between COVID-19 information exposure and emotional distress is necessary to improve public handling of the infodemic.
This study identifies triggering mechanisms concerning the effects of COVID-19 information exposure on emotional distress by focusing on the mediating and moderating effects of risk perception and psychological resilience. This exploration offers theoretical and practical insights. Theoretically, it enriches the knowledge of media exposure, risk perception, and mental health. Practically, it attracts attention of healthcare workers and governments to the infodemic crisis during information communication. It can also form a practical reference for mitigating mental health challenges related to information exposure, risk perception, and psychological resilience.
COVID-19 information exposure and emotional distress
Legacy media (e.g., print magazines and newspapers, TV, and radio broadcasting) and particularly social media (e.g., Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, TikTok, WeChat, Weibo, QQ, and WhatsApp) provide information on COVID-19 during the pandemic . Health professionals and officials use social media to communicate directly with the public, potentially augmenting the impact of information on public health behaviors . However, social media can feature information overload and surges of fake news . In contrast to legacy media, which filters and supervises information and sources, social media is characterized by interactivity and sharing of information , thereby leading to a lack of information control . Access to an overwhelming amount of broadcast material produces an overexposure to information, leads to fear and mental health problems, which harbingers a larger health crisis for societies [4, 16].
Exposure to COVID-19 information is a vulnerability factor for mental health [17, 18], with increased exposure being associated with a higher prevalence of anxiety and depression [8, 9], accounting for approximately 5.1% of the total variance in anxiety . The frequency and duration of COVID-19 information exposure independently predict mental health outcomes [6, 8, 9, 19]. Studies in several countries have consistently found that individuals exposed to COVID-19 information for more than 3 h per day were at a greater risk of developing psychological distress, such as anxiety, depression, and insomnia, than those with less than 1 or 2 h of access [8, 19,20,21].
China’s netizens now number 989 million, of whom 99.7% use cell phones to obtain information . Global COVID-19 information flows indiscriminately without gatekeepers, through individual mobile devices, and this implies the risk of a Chinese infodemic [23, 24]. Previous studies indicated that increased exposure (in frequency or duration) to COVID-19 information might be associated with increased emotional distress (i.e., anxiety or depression).
COVID-19 information exposure and risk perception
Risk perception, a crucial concept in health and risk communication, refers to the estimation of the probability of a negative health incident or consequence . It includes perceived susceptibility and severity [26, 27] and encompasses cognitive and affective processes [28, 29]. People tend to immediately perceive risk in a public health crisis , especially when confronted with an outbreak of an unexpected infectious disease, including Ebola, MERS, and H1N1 flu [28, 31, 32]. Identifying antecedents and outcomes of risk perception can help the public manage the threats of COVID-19 . This pandemic offers a natural context for studying risk perception in the face of a public health threat.
Mass media is vital in shaping public risk perceptions , especially where a health issue is poorly understood by the public. Many people depend on mass media for pandemic information . Media exposure substantially affects public risk perception in many infectious diseases, such as H1N1 flu , avian flu , and bovine spongiform encephalopathy . However, media exposure exerted various effects on risk perceptions, either attenuating or amplifying . Limited information exposure causes increased uncertainty, uncontrollability, and overestimated risk ; overexposure results in likelier exposure to fake or negative news and induces heightened risk perception . Moderate media exposure is crucial: it helps the public connect with reality, utilize resources appropriately, attenuate perceived risk, and comply with preventive policies . Of Chinese citizens, almost 70% are netizens , indicating that the majority of Chinese citizens are possibly over-exposed to information. Even though a few people don’t use Internet to obtain information, they can obtain COVID-19 information from channels such as newspapers, radio broadcasting, and TV news. Thus, we propose the assumption solely regarding the case of information overexposure.
Media exposure to information on global outbreaks of infectious disease is positively associated with risk perception and preventive behaviors [33, 39]. Few studies have explored this association in relation to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic . We assume that COVID-19 information exposure may be positively associated with risk perception in China during the pandemic.
Risk perception and emotional distress
The perception of danger triggers negative emotions and has adverse mental health consequences, including worry, anxiety, and depression [7, 10, 38]. The WHO specifically indicates that the public overestimates risk vis-à-vis the actual incidence of COVID-19 . Studies in psychology, clinical science, and economics indicate that health-related risks are perceived cognitively and responded to emotionally [41, 42], which generally induces adverse emotional distress [25, 43], having a crucial effect on public mental health in a pandemic .
Investigations of the connection between risk perception and mental health have increased during the COVID-19 pandemic . Such studies have consistently reported that COVID-19 risk perception is associated with server emotional distress, such as fear, anger, anxiety, and depression [7, 42, 44,45,46]. Few studies have investigated the associations between media exposure, risk perception, and emotional distress . Therefore, we assume that risk perception may mediate the influence of COVID-19 information exposure on anxiety and depressive symptoms.
Resilience and emotional distress
Although exposure to COVID-19 information leads to predictable perceived risk, psychological responses and mental health outcomes vary , depending on socio-psychological factors such as personality traits, resilience, and social support [7, 49]. Individuals adopt discrete coping strategies to manage perceived risk. Effective coping supports adaptation to change and maintenance of mental health; however, poor coping results in stress and psychological distress . Coping encompasses a set of adapting skills to adversities, with resilience being a successful outcome [51, 52]. Resilience explains why some people can maintain mental health during crises.
The research on resilience began in child development since the 1970s, and then extended to psychological therapy, disease care, and public health . Resilience refers to the ability to adapt to adversity, trauma, tragedy, threats, or other significant stress . In psychological terms, resilience is considered a defense mechanism  and is characterized by two pivotal constructs: adversity and positive adaptation . Current theories consider resilience as a multidimensional concept with stable attributes, such as temperament and personality, along with changeable factors, such as coping and adaptive skills [56, 57]. Thus, resilience offers a short- and long-term positive perspective on mental health, providing due preventive and intervention-related directions for public health crises.
Resilience can support mental health by delivering cognitive, behavioral, and emotional responses in adverse situations . Meta-analyses have identified a positive overall association between resilience and mental health, with a correlation value of 0.48 . Besides, a negative relationship has been found between resilience and psychological distress [57, 58]. Thus, understanding resilience is crucial for developing preventive and intervention strategies to safeguard people from emotional distress in crises . For instance, scholars called for targeted actions after the 9/11 terrorist attacks to enable public recovery . The COVID-19 pandemic is also a stressful public crisis. Presently, resilience is associated with lower COVID-19-related worry, anxiety, and depression [61,62,63]. It is necessary to examine how resilience continues to influence mental health in this context. A range of studies have defined risk perception as perceived vulnerability to risk [26, 27] and resilience as reduced vulnerability [64, 65]. However, few studies have explored the interactive effects of risk perception and resilience on mental health. This study aims to examine the buffering role of resilience on anxiety and depressive symptoms. More importantly, it aims to investigate how the mediating effects of risk perception on mental health changes with the influence of resilience.
Participants and study design
This study applied a cross-sectional design and cluster sampling strategy. It is conducted from February 2 to March 3, 2020, at two Chinese universities in Beijing, where undergraduate and graduate students filled an online questionnaire distributed by their class teachers via a clickable link. During this period, the number of positive cases in China peaked and began to decline and a nationwide self-isolation order was issued (see Fig. S1 in supplemental materials). Each participant could only complete the survey once. The respondents were informed about the purpose of the study and their freedom to withdraw beforehand. Individual informed consent was obtained on the first page of the questionnaire. This study was approved by the Research Ethics Review Committee of Beijing Normal University, China.
With a response rate of 78.6%, 1347 students completed the questionnaire out of the 1713 that participated. The following exclusion criteria were adopted to ensure participation quality : Participants infected by COVID-19 were excluded as most of them were quarantined in isolated wards, and their media exposure was limited . Participants who failed the attention check question: “Please select ‘strongly disagree’ for this question.” . Participants who spent less than 5 min completing the questionnaire as it could not be completed in that time. The time duration was adjusted to 6, 7, or other denominations of minutes. The results of applying different time duration stipulations were all robust. These criteria excluded 34 participants, and the final sample comprised 1313 respondents.
COVID-19 information exposure
COVID-19 information exposure was assessed through frequency and duration adapted from previous studies [8, 42]. Exposure frequency was measured through a single question: “On average, how many times per day did you browse for COVID-19-related information in the last month?” Responses were rated on a 21-point scale, ranging from “0 times” to “20 times”. Exposure duration was measured by another question: “On average, how many hours per day did you browse for COVID-19-related information in the last month?” Responses ranged on a 13-point scale from “0 h” to “12 h”. Both legacy media and social media were considered. Because of the difference in the scoring method, the correlation of frequency and duration (r = 0.33, p < 0.001) was calculated to make a reference that the two items had acceptable reliability.
Two items were used to measure perceived risk: “How likely do you think it is that you will be infected with COVID-19” and “How likely do you think it is that your family members/relatives/friends will be infected with COVID-19?” [33, 66]. Participants were asked to rate the probability on an 11-point scale spanning from 0% to 100%. The scores of the two items were totaled to construct a composite score of perceived risk (Cronbach’s α = 0.872); higher scores indicated a greater perceived risk of COVID-19.
Emotional distress encompasses a wide range of emotional suffering typically characterized by symptoms of anxiety and depression . Previous studies proposed that anxiety and depression diagnoses frequently tended to co-occur and their symptoms were highly correlated [68, 69]. Therefore, emotional distress was assessed by two indicators in this study: anxiety and depressive symptoms. Anxiety symptoms were measured using the 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale (GAD-7) , a self-reporting screening scale that has been validated in China . The participants indicated the occurrence of anxiety symptoms over the past 2 weeks on a 4-point scale (0 = not at all; 1 = several days; 2 = more than half the days; 3 = nearly every day). Sample statements included “feeling nervous, anxious, or on edge,” “having trouble relaxing,” and “feeling afraid as if something awful might happen.” A composite anxiety score was calculated by aggregating the scores of all seven items (Cronbach’s α = 0.916); higher scores reflected more severe anxiety symptoms. The cutoff score for the identification of anxiety symptoms was set to 5 .
Depressive symptoms were measured using the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) . Similar to GAD-7, this self-reporting screening scale has been validated in China . The participants were asked to indicate the occurrence of depressive symptoms over the past 2 weeks on a 4-point scale ranging from 0 (“not at all”) to 3 (“nearly every day”). Sample items included “little interest or pleasure in doing things” and “thoughts that you would be better off dead or of hurting yourself in some way.” The scores of the nine items were summed, and a composite index of depressive symptoms was constructed (Cronbach’s α = 0.885). A higher score indicated more severe depressive symptoms. A cutoff score of 5 was used in this study to identify depressive symptoms .
The Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) comprising 25 items was used to measure psychological resilience . Participants rated the extent to which they agreed with each statement, examples of which included “I am able to adapt to change” and “I like challenges.” Responses ranged on a 5-point scale (1 = “not true at all,” 2 = “rarely true,” 3 = “sometimes true,” 4 = “often true,” 5 = “true nearly all of the time”). This scale has been validated among Chinese people [75, 76]. A composite score of psychological resilience (Cronbach’s α = 0.941) was computed by adding all items; higher scores demonstrated greater resilience in handling adversities. Besides, this scale incorporates five factors: tenacity (i.e., personal competence, high standards, and tenacity), tolerance (i.e., trust in one’s instinct, tolerance of negative affect, and strengthening effects of stress), acceptance (i.e., positive acceptance of change and secure relationships), control (i.e., sense of control), and spirituality (i.e., spiritual influences) [57, 74]. This study calculated the composite scores for each factor by aggregating corresponding items, and Cronbach’s α of tenacity, tolerance, acceptance, control and spirituality were 0.865, 0.860, 0.798, 0.736, and 0.419, respectively.
All statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS 26.0 and Mplus 8.3. The statistical significance level was set at a two-tailed 0.05. First, descriptive statistics were calculated for demographic characteristics. Second, the direct effects of COVID-19 information exposure on psychological disorders were examined and demographic variables (i.e., age, sex, ethnic group, and education level) were controlled as covariates. Third, a latent mediation model was applied by controlling the demographic variables to investigate mediating effects by using latent COVID-19 information exposure as the independent variable, latent risk perception as the mediator, and latent emotional distress as the dependent variable. Finally, with the demographics controlled as covariates, a latent moderated mediation model was constructed to investigate the latent interactions of resilience and risk perception on emotional distress, and the changes of risk perception’s mediating effects.
Two steps were needed to test the moderating effects of resilience. First, a benchmark null model (i.e., Model 0) was built to assess the moderating effects of resilience only on emotional distress. Model fitness was evaluated using the chi-squared-degree of freedom ratio (χ2/df), comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and standardized root mean residual (SRMR) . The acceptable criteria for the model were set as CFI > 0.90, TLI > 0.90, RMSEA < 0.08, and SRMR < 0.08 . Next, Model 1 was constructed by adding latent interactions (i.e., risk perception and resilience) based on Model 0. A log-likelihood ratio test was conducted to examine whether Model 1 was better than Model 0. Model 1 would be deemed to better fit the data than Model 0 if the log-likelihood ratio test produced a significant value and the latent interactions could significantly predict emotional distress.
The majority of the 1313 participants (Mage = 19.76 ± 2.25 years) were female (73.1%), Han ethnic (85.1%), and undergraduate students (94.6%). The reported frequency of exposure to COVID-19 information was 5.73 (SD = 4.18) times per day, and the exposure duration was 1.46 (SD = 1.18) hours per day (see Table 1).
Common method bias and correlations between main variables
The use of same-source data for independent and dependent variables might introduce the possibility of common method bias in the present study. Therefore, we conducted Harman’s single factor test  to examine the common method bias. The results showed that the single un-rotated factor only explained 33.9% of the variance, indicating that common method bias was not a major problem in this study.
The results of the correlation analysis revealed that the frequency (ranxiety = 0.19, p = 0.000; rdepression = 0.14, p = 0.000) and the duration (ranxiety = 0.17, p = 0.000; rdepression = 0.12, p = 0.000) of COVID-19 information exposure were positively associated with anxiety and depression (see Table 2).
Effects of COVID-19 information exposure
The direct effects of COVID-19 information exposure on emotional distress were examined using a model with information exposure (i.e., frequency and duration) as the latent independent variable and emotional distress (i.e., anxiety and depressive symptoms) as the latent dependent variable. The correlation results showed that some demographic variables (i.e., age, sex, and education level) were correlated with the independent, dependent or mediating variables. Therefore, these demographics were controlled as covariates in the subsequent models. This model fit well with the data (χ2/df = 1.858, CFI = 0.993, TLI = 0.987, RMSEA = 0.026, 90% CI = [0.003, 0.043], SRMR = 0.018). The results showed that increased exposure to COVID-19 information predicted greater emotional distress (β = 0.30, 95% CI = [0.20, 0.39], p = .000).
Further, the relationships between the frequency and duration of information exposure and the severity of anxiety and depressive symptoms were examined through descriptive means. As Fig. 1 shows, the critical threshold of seven times or 2 h per day was obtained to mark the difference between mild and moderate anxiety symptoms; the critical value of six times or 1.64 h (38 min) per day was attained to differentiate between mild and moderate depressive symptoms.
Mediating effects of perceived risk
The mediating effects of perceived risk were examined through a latent mediation model (see Fig. 2), which evinced a good fit with the data (χ2/df = 2.180, CFI = 0.990, TLI = 0.985, RMSEA = 0.030, 90% CI = [0.018, 0.042], SRMR = 0.022). The results evidenced that COVID-19 information exposure predicted higher perceived risk (β = 0.12, 95% CI = [0.05, 0.19], p = .005), which projected severer emotional distress (β = 0.23, 95% CI = [0.18, 0.28], p = 0.000). In brief, the results of the indirect effects demonstrated that perceived risk significantly mediated the effects of COVID-19 information exposure on emotional distress (β = 0.03, 95% CI = [0.01, 0.04], p = 0.005).
Moderating effects of resilience
The moderating effects of resilience were examined using a latent moderated mediation model. First, Model 0 (see Fig. 3) without latent interactions presented a good fit (χ2/df = 4.976, CFI = 0.964, TLI = 0.954, RMSEA = 0.055, 90% CI = [0.049, 0.061], SRMR = 0.040). Second, Model 1 (see Fig. 4) including the latent interactions of risk perception and resilience showed a significant log-likelihood ratio value (D = 19.266, df = 1, p = 0.000). Thus, Model 1 fit the data better than Model 0.
Figure 4 displays that resilience moderated the mediating effects of risk perception, as indicated by the significant interaction between perceived risk and resilience on emotional distress (β = −0.15, 95% CI = [−0.22, −0.07], p = 0.002). Moreover, the differences between the mediating effects of risk perception were analyzed at different levels of resilience. The results revealed that the indirect effects of risk perception at a high level (1 SD above the mean) of resilience (β = 0.01, 95% CI = [−0.01, 0.02]) were weaker than those at a low level (1 SD below the mean) of resilience (β = 0.08, 95% CI = [0.01, 0.13]). The results indicate that the mediating effects of risk perception between COVID-19 information exposure and emotional distress diminish with an increase in resilience. Specifically, Fig. 5 illustrates that greater perceived risk predicted severer emotional distress (β = 0.34, 95% CI = [0.25, 0.44], p = 0.000) at low levels of resilience. However, the prediction of risk perception on emotional distress decreased at high resilience levels (β = 0.06, 95% CI = [−0.03, 0.14], p = 0.276).
The present study also tested the moderating effects of each factor of psychological resilience to investigate the specific roles of each factor on the prevention of emotional distress. The results showed that all factors except for tolerance significantly moderated the mediating effects of risk perception on emotional distress (β = −0.07, 95% CI = [−0.19, 0.05], p = 0.365) (see Figs. S2–S10 in supplementary materials). The moderating effects of tenacity (β = −0.15, 95% CI = [−0.23, −0.07], p = 0.002), acceptance (β = −0.14, 95% CI = [−0.25, −0.03], p = 0.033), control (β = −0.11, 95% CI = [−0.19, −0.02], p = 0.048), and spirituality (β = −0.17, 95% CI = [−0.27, −0.08], p = 0.004) were particularly significant.
This study investigated the effects of COVID-19 information exposure on mental health during the pandemic, particularly in China. It clarified the relationships between information exposure and mental health with respect to risk perception and psychological resilience. It confirmed previous studies’ findings that overexposure to COVID-19 information amplifies emotional distress and supported the conclusion that the infodemic could negatively impact mental health. Overexposure to COVID-19 information may spark an overload of information and a surge of fake news. Thresholds of COVID-19 information exposure were identified as 7 times or 2 h per day for moderate anxiety symptoms and six times or 38 min per day for depressive symptoms. Notably, critical threshold values in this study were lower than those found in other countries [8, 20, 21], indicating that the Chinese public may suffer severer emotional distress given the same amount of information exposure. The possible explanation is that Chinese people are more collectivistic  and more relying on situational signs ; thus, they are possibly more sensitive to the pandemic context and related information, exhibiting more anxiety or depression especially when they were social-isolated.
As hypothesized, risk perception partially mediated the association between COVID-19 information exposure and emotional distress. Overloading of COVID-19 information or misinformation may cause inaccurate risk perception, thus inducing anxiety or depressive symptoms [21, 82]. The mediating effects of risk perception were moderated by psychological resilience, which buffered the negative effects of COVID-19 information exposure on mental health, indicating that low resilience entails vulnerability to emotional distress from the high perceived risk of COVID-19. Furthermore, the resilience factors (i.e., tenacity, acceptance, control, and spirituality) protect individual mental health against the threat of high-risk perception: not all five resilience factors equally safeguard against risk perception . This result suggests that handling unpleasant feelings or tolerating adverse circumstances is not enough to fight an infodemic; rather, individuals must respond actively and adapt optimistically.
This study has theoretical and practical implications. It is among the first to illuminate the mediating role that risk perception plays in the association between information exposure and emotional distress during the COVID-19 pandemic . It also investigated the role of resilience, thereby providing an expanded framework for the association between COVID-19 information exposure and mental health. Moreover, this study is the first to evaluate the five factors of resilience separately and demonstrate their disparate roles in preventing emotional distress, thereby resolving long-standing concerns regarding the construct of resilience  and enriching the theory of psychological resilience.
Furthermore, this study provides critical practical insights for the public, psychiatrists and government in the pandemic. First, for the public, this study shows that information overload should be reduced by limiting the frequency and duration of accessing COVID-19-related information . People should also rely more on updated authentic information from authoritative media sources, such as the WHO and other official entities, than social media such as WeChat or blogs [23, 85]. Second, for the psychiatrists, psychologists, and public health workers, our data established a distinct threshold for COVID-19 information exposure associated with risk of anxiety or depressive symptoms. This cutoff can be a reference for clinical psychiatric assessments . Furthermore, psychiatrists and psychologists should deliver mental health knowledge, resources, and services through mainstream media. For instance, online psychological counseling services were afforded in some Chinese cities during the COVID-19 outbreak [86, 87] and were found to help a group of insomnia sufferers . Moreover, this study showed that interventions against the effects of COVID-19 information overexposure must target psychological resilience. Resilience is not a trait but ideas and behaviors that can be learned and developed . Psychologists and psychiatrists could educate the public about ways of building and developing resilience . Specifically, developing certain sub-dimensional abilities within resilience, such as tenacity, acceptance, and spirituality, is necessary. Lastly, for policymakers, this study indicates that official agencies should regulate COVID-19-related information dissemination. Previous studies have indicated that misinformation restricts governments from effectively responding to crises [16, 89]; thus, governments must release unified and accurate information in a timely manner through official media channels . They should also reduce the overexposure of susceptible individuals to pandemic-related information, especially duplicate negative information. Governments could also provide positive information on preventive or protective measures to offset negative information on the pandemic, which could increase individual resilience against heightened risk perception.
The study acknowledges some limitations. First, only students skilled in mobile phone use were recruited, and the sample may not be representative of users of legacy media. Second, this study only examined the amount (i.e., frequency and duration) of information exposure. Several studies have found that the content of the information also affect mental health . Thus, future surveys may also include information content. Third, this study found that risk perception partially mediated the relationship between COVID-19 information and emotional distress, whereas previous studies found that other factors, such as perceived self-efficacy  and information processing modes [33, 91], also influence the association. Thus, it is necessary to identify the mechanism of information exposure’s effects on mental health more comprehensively. Fourth, this study used a cross-sectional design and only collected self-reported indicators. Future research could adopt objective biological indicators, such as peripheral blood heredity, immune and metabolic function markers, cerebrospinal fluid indicators, cortisol, or brain imaging. Finally, although this study was conducted when the pandemic broke out, the investigation time provided a comprehensive reference for different pandemic stages in China, including the outbreak, peak, and after peak stage in 2020. More research during the after peak period is required to examine the robustness of the results.
In conclusion, this study found that overexposure to COVID-19 information in China has increased individual perceived risk and thus amplified emotional distress. Further, it confirmed the buffering role of resilience for mitigating perceived risk and is the first to investigate the moderating effects of five resilience sub-factors. The development of psychological resilience, especially tenacity, acceptance, control, and spirituality, could be an antidote to anxiety and depressive symptoms in an infodemic.
The datasets used in the present study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
The materials used in the present study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
The codes used in the present study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
WHO. Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) Situation Dashboard 2021; 2021. Available from: https://covid19.who.int/.
WHO. Munich Security Conference 2020. Available from: https://www.who.int/director-general/speeches/detail/munich-security-conference.
Zarocostas J. How to fight an infodemic. lancet. 2020;395:676.
Garfin DR, Silver RC, Holman EA. The novel coronavirus (COVID-2019) outbreak: amplification of public health consequences by media exposure. Health Psychology. 2020;39:355–57.
Taha SA, Matheson K, Anisman H. H1N1 was not all that scary: uncertainty and stressor appraisals predict anxiety related to a coming viral threat. Stress health. 2014;30:149–57.
Hao Y. The more exposure to media information about COVID-19, the more distressed you will feel. Brain Behav Immun. 2020;87:167.
Cai Q, Feng H, Huang J, Wang M, Wang Q, Lu X, et al. The mental health of frontline and non-frontline medical workers during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in China: a case-control study. J Affect Disord. 2020;275:210–5.
Bendau A, Petzold MB, Pyrkosch L, Maricic LM, Betzler F, Rogoll J, et al. Associations between COVID-19 related media consumption and symptoms of anxiety, depression and COVID-19 related fear in the general population in Germany. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2021;271:283–91.
Gao J, Zheng P, Jia Y, Chen H, Mao Y, Chen S, et al. Mental health problems and social media exposure during COVID-19 outbreak. PLoS ONE. 2020;15:e0231924.
Marloes B, Jma BD, Onno DZ, Gerjo K, Pepijn VE, van Steenbergen JE, et al. Perceived risk, anxiety, and behavioural responses of the general public during the early phase of the Influenza A (H1N1) pandemic in the Netherlands: Results of three consecutive online surveys. BMC Public Health. 2011;11:1–13.
Davydov DM, Stewart R, Ritchie K, Chaudieu I. Resilience and mental health. Clin Psychol Rev. 2010;30:479–95.
Melki J, Tamim H, Hadid D, Farhat S, Makki M, Ghandour L, et al. Media exposure and health behavior during pandemics: the mediating effect of perceived knowledge and fear on compliance with COVID-19 prevention measures. Health Commun. 2020;37:586–96.
Cowper A. Covid-19: are we getting the communications right? BMJ. 2020;368:m919.
Obar JA, Wildman SS. Social media definition and the governance challenge: an introduction to the special issue. Telecommun Policy. 2015;39:745–50.
Kulshrestha J, Eslami M, Messias J, Zafar MB, Ghosh S, Gummadi KP, et al., eds. Quantifying search bias: Investigating sources of bias for political searches in social media. Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing; 2017.
Pulido CM, Villarejo-Carballido B, Redondo-Sama G, Gómez A. COVID-19 infodemic: More retweets for science-based information on coronavirus than for false information. Int Sociol. 2020;35:377–92.
Xiong J, Lipsitz O, Nasri F, Lui LM, Gill H, Phan L, et al. Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on mental health in the general population: a systematic review. J Affect Disord. 2020;277:55–64.
Bo HX, Li W, Yang Y, Wang Y, Zhang Q, Cheung T, et al. Posttraumatic stress symptoms and attitude toward crisis mental health services among clinically stable patients with COVID-19 in China. Psychol Med. 2021;51:1052–3.
Huang Y, Zhao N. Generalized anxiety disorder, depressive symptoms and sleep quality during COVID-19 outbreak in China: a web-based cross-sectional survey. Psychiatry Res. 2020;288:112954.
Zakout YM-A, Alreshidi FS, Elsaid RM, Ahmed HG. The magnitude of COVID-19 related stress, anxiety and depression associated with intense mass media coverage in Saudi Arabia. AIMS Public Health. 2020;7:664.
Mongkhon P, Ruengorn C, Awiphan R, Thavorn K, Hutton B, Wongpakaran N, et al. Exposure to COVID-19-related information and its association with mental health problems in thailand: nationwide, cross-sectional survey study. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23:e25363.
Cyberspace Administration of China. The 47th Statistical Report on Internet Development in China (in Chinese) 2021. Available from: http://www.cac.gov.cn/2021-02/03/c_1613923423079314.htm.
Ren Z, Zhou Y, Liu Y. The psychological burden experienced by Chinese citizens during the COVID-19 outbreak: prevalence and determinants. BMC Public Health. 2020;20:1–10.
Zhang J, Cheng M, Mei R, Wang F. Internet use and individuals’ environmental quality evaluation: evidence from China. Sci Total Environ. 2020;710:136290.
Leppin A, Aro AR. Risk perceptions related to SARS and avian influenza: theoretical foundations of current empirical research. Int J Behav Med. 2009;16:7–29.
Paek H-J, Oh S-H, Hove T. How fear-arousing news messages affect risk perceptions and intention to talk about risk. Health Commun. 2016;31:1051–62.
Robert JG, Kurt N, James G, Sharon D. Linking the heuristic-systematic model and depth of processing. Commun Res. 2002;29:705–32.
Oh S-H, Paek H-J, Hove T. Cognitive and emotional dimensions of perceived risk characteristics, genre-specific media effects, and risk perceptions: the case of H1N1 influenza in South Korea. Asian. J Commun. 2015;25:14–32.
Freimuth VS, Hovick SR. Cognitive and emotional health risk perceptions among people living in poverty. J Health Commun. 2012;17:303–18.
Bish A, Michie S. Demographic and attitudinal determinants of protective behaviours during a pandemic: a review. Br J Health Psychol. 2010;15:797–824.
Yang JZ, Chu H. Who is afraid of the Ebola outbreak? The influence of discrete emotions on risk perception. J Risk Res. 2018;21:834–53.
Reynolds B, Seeger MW. Crisis and emergency risk communication as an integrative model. J Health Commun. 2005;10:43–55.
Choi D-H, Yoo W, Noh G-Y, Park K. The impact of social media on risk perceptions during the MERS outbreak in South Korea. Computers Hum Behav. 2017;72:422–31.
Snyder CR. Conceptualizing, measuring, and nurturing hope. J Counseling Dev. 1995;73:355–60.
Fung TK, Namkoong K, Brossard D. Media, social proximity, and risk: a comparative analysis of newspaper coverage of avian flu in Hong Kong and in the United States. J Health Commun. 2011;16:889–907.
Kasperson RE, Renn O, Slovic P, Brown HS, Emel J, Goble R, et al. The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework. Risk Anal. 1988;8:177–87.
Fischhoff B, Wong‐Parodi G, Garfin DR, Holman EA, Silver RC. Public understanding of Ebola risks: mastering an unfamiliar threat. Risk Anal. 2018;38:71–83.
Komasi S, Saeidi M. A perceived risk factor may lead to increased anxiety and depression in cardiovascular patients. Jundishapur J Chronic Dis Care. 2016;5:1–5.
Han G, Zhang J, Chu K, Shen G. Self–other differences in H1N1 flu risk perception in a global context: a comparative study between the United States and China. Health Commun. 2014;29:109–23.
Zeballos Rivas DR, Lopez Jaldin ML, Nina, Canaviri B. Portugal Escalante LF, Alanes Fernández AM, Aguilar Ticona JP. Social media exposure, risk perception, preventive behaviors and attitudes during the COVID-19 epidemic in La Paz, Bolivia: A cross sectional study. PloS one. 2021;16:e0245859.
Loewenstein GF, Weber EU, Hsee CK, Welch N. Risk as feelings. Psychological Bull. 2001;127:267.
Fiorenzato E, Zabberoni S, Costa A, Cona G. Cognitive and mental health changes and their vulnerability factors related to COVID-19 lockdown in Italy. PLoS ONE. 2021;16:e0246204.
Slovic P, Finucane ML, Peters E, MacGregor DG. Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Anal: Int J. 2004;24:311–22.
Ding Y, Xu J, Huang S, Li P, Lu C, Xie S. Risk perception and depression in public health crises: Evidence from the COVID-19 crisis in China. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17:5728.
Teufel M, Schweda A, Dörrie N, Musche V, Hetkamp M, Weismüller B, et al. Not all world leaders use Twitter in response to the COVID-19 pandemic: impact of the way of Angela Merkel on psychological distress, behaviour and risk perception. J Public Health. 2020;42:644–6.
Liu M, Zhang H, Huang H. Media exposure to COVID-19 information, risk perception, social and geographical proximity, and self-rated anxiety in China. BMC Public Health. 2020;20:1–8.
Olagoke AA, Olagoke OO, Hughes AM. Exposure to coronavirus news on mainstream media: The role of risk perceptions and depression. Br J Health Psychol. 2020;25:865–74.
Bonanno GA. Loss, trauma, and human resilience: Have we underestimated the human capacity to thrive after extremely aversive events? Am Psychologist. 2004;59:20.
Kim HS, Sherman DK, Updegraff JA. Fear of Ebola: the influence of collectivism on xenophobic threat responses. Psychol Sci. 2016;27:935–44.
Vashmehsara ME. The study of emotional intelligence and coping styles and the evaluation of their interactive relationship in case of cancerous patients. Med J Tabriz Univ Med Sci Health Serv. 2015;36:54–61.
Beasley M, Thompson T, Davidson J. Resilience in response to life stress: the effects of coping style and cognitive hardiness. Personal Individ Differences. 2003;34:77–95.
Gheshlagh RG, Sayehmiri K, Ebadi A, Dalvandi A, Dalvand S, Maddah SSB, et al. The relationship between mental health and resilience: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Iranian Red Crescent Med J. 2017;19:e13537.
Luthar SS, Cicchetti D, Becker B. The construct of resilience: a critical evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Dev. 2000;71:543–62.
Association WM. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Bull World Health Organ. 2001;79:373–4.
Luthar SS, Cicchetti D. The construct of resilience: Implications for interventions and social policies. Dev Psychopathol. 2000;12:857.
Campbell-Sills L, Cohan SL, Stein MB. Relationship of resilience to personality, coping, and psychiatric symptoms in young adults. Behav Res Ther. 2006;44:585–99.
Haddadi P, Besharat MA. Resilience, vulnerability and mental health. Procedia-Soc Behav Sci. 2010;5:639–42.
Ong AD, Bergeman CS, Bisconti TL, Wallace KA. Psychological resilience, positive emotions, and successful adaptation to stress in later life. J Personal Soc Psychol. 2006;91:730.
Connor KM, Zhang W. Resilience: determinants, measurement, and treatment responsiveness. CNS Spectr. 2006;11(S12):5–12.
Kaplan HB. Toward an understanding of resilience. Resilience and development. Springer; 2002. p. 17–83.
Barzilay R, Moore TM, Greenberg DM, DiDomenico GE, Brown LA, White LK, et al. Resilience, COVID-19-related stress, anxiety and depression during the pandemic in a large population enriched for healthcare providers. Transl Psychiatry. 2020;10:1–8.
Luceño-Moreno L, Talavera-Velasco B, García-Albuerne Y, Martín-García J. Symptoms of posttraumatic stress, anxiety, depression, levels of resilience and burnout in Spanish health personnel during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17:5514.
Mosheva M, Hertz‐Palmor N, Dorman Ilan S, Matalon N, Pessach IM, Afek A, et al. Anxiety, pandemic‐related stress and resilience among physicians during the COVID-19 pandemic. Depression Anxiety. 2020;37:965–71.
Schneiderman N, Ironson G, Siegel SD. Stress and health: psychological, behavioral, and biological determinants. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2005;1:607–628.
Hofer MA. Evolutionary basis of adaptation in resilience and vulnerability: response to Cicchetti and Blender. Ann N. Y Acad Sci. 2006;1094:259–62.
Feng Y, Zong M, Yang Z, Gu W, Dong D, Qiao Z. When altruists cannot help: the influence of altruism on the mental health of university students during the COVID-19 pandemic. Globalization Health. 2020;16:1–8.
Ridner SH. Psychological distress: concept analysis. J Adv Nurs. 2004;45:536–45.
Lamers F, van Oppen P, Comijs HC, Smit JH, Spinhoven P, van Balkom AJ, et al. Comorbidity patterns of anxiety and depressive disorders in a large cohort study: the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA). J Clin Psychiatry. 2011;72:3397.
Jacobson NC, Newman MG. Anxiety and depression as bidirectional risk factors for one another: a meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bull. 2017;143:1155–200.
Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JBW, Lowe B. A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: The GAD-7. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166:1092–7.
Tong X, An D, McGonigal A, Park S-P, Zhou D. Validation of the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) among Chinese people with epilepsy. Epilepsy Res. 2016;120:31–6.
Kroenke K, Spitzer RL. The PHQ-9: A new depression diagnostic and severity measure. Psychiatr Ann. 2002;32:509–15.
Wang W, Bian Q, Zhao Y, Li X, Wang W, Du J, et al. Reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) in the general population. Gen Hospital Psychiatry. 2014;36:539–44.
Connor KM, Davidson JR. Development of a new resilience scale: The Connor‐Davidson resilience scale (CD‐RISC). Depression Anxiety. 2003;18:76–82.
Yu X-N, Lau JT, Mak WW, Zhang J, Lui WW. Factor structure and psychometric properties of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale among Chinese adolescents. Compr psychiatry. 2011;52:218–24.
Yu X, Zhang J. Factor analysis and psychometric evaluation of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) with Chinese people. Soc Behav Personality: Int J. 2007;35:19–30.
Hu L, Bentler PM. Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychol Methods. 1998;3:424–53.
Zhonglin W, Kit-Tai H, Marsh HW. Structural equation model testing: Cutoff criteria for goodness of fit indices and Chi-square test. Acta Psychologica Sin. 2004;36:186–94.
Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY, Podsakoff NP. Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol. 2003;88:879–903.
Brewer MB, Chen Y-R. Where (who) are collectives in collectivism? Toward conceptual clarification of individualism and collectivism. Psychological Rev. 2007;114:133.
Branzei O, Vertinsky I, Camp RD II. Culture-contingent signs of trust in emergent relationships. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2007;104:61–82.
Diseases TLI. The COVID-19 infodemic. Lancet. 2020;20:875.
Sigurvinsdottir R, Thorisdottir IE, Gylfason HF. The impact of COVID-19 on mental health: The role of locus on control and internet use. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17:6985.
Grein TW, Kamara K, Rodier G, Plant AJ, Bovier P, Ryan MJ, et al. Rumors of disease in the global village: outbreak verification. Emerg Infect Dis. 2000;6:97–102.
Jones NM, Garfin DR, Holman EA, Silver RC. Media use and exposure to graphic content in the week following the Boston Marathon bombings. Am J Community Psychol. 2016;58:47–59.
Liu S, Yang L, Zhang C, Xiang Y-T, Liu Z, Hu S, et al. Online mental health services in China during the COVID-19 outbreak. Lancet Psychiatry. 2020;7:e17–e8.
Chen S, Li F, Lin C, Han Y, Nie X, Portnoy RN, et al. Challenges and recommendations for mental health providers during the COVID-19 pandemic: the experience of China’s First University-based mental health team. Globalization Health. 2020;16:1–10.
Sternberg RJ. The other three Rs: part three, resilience 2003. Available from: http://www.apa.org/monitor/may03/pc.html.
Levaot Y, Greene T, Palgi Y. The associations between media use, peritraumatic distress, anxiety and resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Psychiatric Res. 2020.
Holman EA, Garfin DR, Lubens P, Silver RC. Media exposure to collective trauma, mental health, and functioning: does it matter what you see? Clin Psychol Sci. 2020;8:111–24.
Meffert MF, Chung S, Joiner AJ, Waks L, Garst J. The effects of negativity and motivated information processing during a political campaign. J Commun. 2006;56:27–51.
This work was supported by the Party Construction and Ideological Political Work of Central University of Finance and Economics (Grant No. DJC21037), the National Social Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 20&ZD153), and the Ministry of Science and Technology of the People’s Public of China (Grant No. 2020YFC0832402).
The authors declare no competing interests.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Feng, Y., Gu, W., Dong, F. et al. Overexposure to COVID-19 information amplifies emotional distress: a latent moderated mediation model. Transl Psychiatry 12, 287 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-022-02048-z