
































Microsoft Word - 219_Manuscript.docx


Baker et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
  Volume 3, Issue 2, 2022 
  agdevresearch.org 

1. Lauri Baker, Associate professor, University of Florida, 1408 Sabal Palm Drive, Level 2 , P.O. Box 110126, Gainesville, FL 

32611, lauri.m.baker@ufl.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4241-6077 
2. Ashley McLeod-Morin, Associate director of strategic communication, Southeastern Coastal Center for Agricultural Health 

and Safety, University of Florida, 1408 Sabal Palm Drive, Level 2, P.O. Box 110126, Gainesville, FL 32611, 

ashleynmcleod@ufl.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8649-9783 
3. Shelli D. Rampold, Assistant professor, University of Tennessee, 2621 Morgan Circle, 320 Morgan Hall, Knoxville, TN 37996, 

srampold@tennessee.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4815-7157 
4. Angela B. Lindsey, Assistant professor, University of Florida, 3014C McCarty D, Gainesville, FL 32611, ablindsey@ufl.edu, 

 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9859-7962 
5. Ricky W. Telg, Professor, University of Florida, 1408 Sabal Palm Drive, Level 2, P.O. Box 110126, Gainesville, FL 32611, 

rwtelg@ufl.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8729-1634 
6. Meredith Oglesby, Graduate student, University of Florida, 1408 Sabal Palm Drive, Level 2, P.O. Box 110126, Gainesville, FL 

32611, moglesby1@ufl.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3666-6456 
 

62 

 

Search, Seek, Share: A National Survey Assessing Americans’ 
Information Channels and Sharing Behaviors During a 

Pandemic 
L. Baker1, A. McLeod-Morin2, S. Rampold3, A. Lindsey4, R. Telg5, M. Oglesby 6 

 
  

Abstract 

The spread of accurate and inaccurate information happened quickly in the early stages of the 
COVID-19 pandemic and understanding how this occurred is important to prepare for 
communication of future disease outbreaks. The purpose of this study was to understand Americans’ 
information seeking and sharing behaviors during the early stages of COVID-19 and was guided by 
the following objectives: identify passive sources/channels of information; identify active 
sources/channels of information; and describe how frequently and across which channels/sources 
the U.S. public shared information about COVID-19 in early stages of the pandemic. Results indicated 
people first found information about COVID-19 from personal communication but turned to national 
and international organizations if they were to actively seek information. Scientists and universities 
were some of the least sought after and shared sources of information. The sources shared most 
were from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization. 
Implications from this research are a need for communicators to use grassroots communication 
efforts during a crisis, to actively share information early during a crisis, to share information outside 
of traditional academic networks, and to collaborate with sources inside and outside of traditional 
Extension networks. 
 
Keywords 

Extension, communication, COVID-19, public health, agriculture 



Baker et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i2.219  63 
 

 Introduction and Problem Statement  
 
The presence of infectious, zoonotic diseases is increasing and could pose significant impacts to 
the agricultural industry, particularly in sectors of the industry that involve animals. Policies and 
disease management will need a more proactive approach in order to address zoonotic 
diseases while ensuring an abundant food supply (Rohr et al., 2019). The full impact of an 
emerging infectious disease was exemplified during the COVID-19 pandemic. The novel 
coronavirus disease (COVID-19) was first identified in Wuhan China in late 2019 and spread 
rapidly through more than 160 countries, reaching the United States in late January. The 
impacts of COVID-19 surpassed the usual impacts of typical disease outbreaks and affected 
areas of science, entertainment, politics, economy, education, and more in countries around 
the world (Sahin et al., 2020). The World Health Organization (WHO) declared COVID-19 as a 
pandemic in March, followed by the United States declaring COVID-19 a national emergency, 
which allowed Americans to access federal support. Over the next few weeks through March 
and April, the United States experienced school closures, stay-at-home orders, economic 
turmoil, and individual and community interventions (American Journal of Managed Care 
[AMJC] Staff, 2020). 
 
COVID-19 impacted the health of people around the world, as well as impacted the economy 
through job and income loss due to widespread business closures and decreased spending 
while people were staying at home. Additionally, COVID-19 brought about changes in public 
purchasing and consumption behaviors. The shelves at grocery stores were often emptied as 
people stocked up on household goods and cooked more frequently at home (Clements, 2020). 
The purpose of the current study was to understand the public’s information seeking and 
sharing behaviors during these early stages of COVID-19. 
 

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework 
 
Information seeking behaviors, information channels, and sources impact a person’s 
understanding of risk communication and, therefore, guided the conceptual framework of this 
study. The perception of a risk can impact the goals of an organization, making effective risk 
communication particularly important for health organizations or state and federal 
governments during a public health crisis (Covello & Sandman, 2001). The groundwork for trust 
in risk communication is laid between the community and the organization dealing with the 
risks involved (Telg, 2019).  
 
Communication messages during a public health crisis should be carefully crafted, and the 
source and channel used for the message should be thoughtfully matched (Liu et al., 2011). 
Communication channels are the method in which a message is shared, including print media, 
online media, and social media; communication sources refer to the sender of the message, 
which could be an organization or an individual. Providing communication messages on 
targeted channels is only half of the process. Understanding the seeking and processing tactics 
that individuals use when confronted with messages can provide insight on the impact of the 
message. Bates (2005) described differences between active vs. passive information as simply 



Baker et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i2.219  64 
 

the act of an individual acquiring information about a topic versus passively taking in 
information. Bates (2005) further defined differences through types of behaviors associated 
with each. Awareness and monitoring are often considered passive behaviors, whereas 
searching and browsing are considered active behaviors. Curiosity and browsing often lead to 
directed searching or actively seeking information to answer specific questions (Bates, 2005). 
Kahlor et al. (2006) stated that active information seeking tends to be more purposeful and 
leads to more systematic processing of information.  
 
As the agricultural industry proactively prepares for future disease outbreaks or pandemic 
situations, crisis communication should be considered. Two-way communication is particularly 
important during a pandemic or public health crisis, such as COVID-19. Covello (2003) 
recommended seven best practices for communication in a public health crisis, which include 
the following: (a) involve stakeholders as partners; (b) listen to all parties involved; (c) be 
truthful and transparent; (d) collaborate with other credible sources; (e) provide information to 
the media; (f) be compassionate and clear; and (g) plan ahead.  
 
The information sources and channels used to communicate during a crisis warrant 
consideration as these can impact an individual’s perception of the crisis (Nguyen et al., 2017). 
During natural disasters, the public has found traditional news sources, such as printed news, to 
be more credible (Endsley et al., 2014). COVID-19 occurred in the most technologically 
advanced time in history, which enabled the transfer of information to spread quickly through 
traditional and emerging channels. Rapidly increasing infection rates signified a need to provide 
knowledge and best practices “at a pace equal to or better than the spreading epidemic” (Chan 
et.al., 2020, p. 1). Popular social media channels were utilized including Facebook, Instagram, 
and Twitter, all of which are commonly used to disseminate information. Early in the pandemic, 
the social media platform TikTok included users posting videos of a coronavirus dance, which 
featured moves that mirrored the steps for preventing the spread of COVID-19 (Wang, 2020). 
The platform also had inaccurate and culturally insensitive messages related to COVID-19 
(Kenyon, 2020). The WHO saw this as an opportunity and joined the platform to spread valid 
health communication related to COVID-19 (Brown, 2020).  
 

Purpose 
 
The purpose of this study was to understand the U.S. general public’s information seeking and 
sharing behaviors during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, specifically to learn what 
information sources were passive and which were active in an effort to understand how to 
reach the public with purposeful communication during a zoonotic disease pandemic. The 
following objectives guided this study: 
1. Identify the passive sources/channels of information used by the U.S. public in the early 

stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. 
2. Identify the active sources/channels of information used by the U.S. public in the early 

stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. 
3. Describe how frequently and across which channels the U.S. public shared information 

about COVID-19 in the early stages of the pandemic. 



Baker et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i2.219  65 
 

Methods 
 
An online survey research design was utilized. A third-party company, Qualtrics, was consulted 
to obtain a nonprobability opt-in sample of U.S. residents 18 years of age or older. This 
approach is commonly used to make population estimates (Baker et al., 2013) and has become 
common in research examining public opinion of emerging issues due to increased access to 
internet, relatively low cost of online surveys, and higher response rates (Dillman et al., 2014). 
An online link was distributed to 4,935 U.S. residents during the second and third weeks of 
March, 2020. Attention filters (e.g. “select strongly agree for this answer”) were used to identify 
respondents not paying attention. Respondents who did not complete all items of the 
instrument or did not select the appropriate answer to attention filters were excluded from 
analyses. Useable responses were obtained from 1,512 residents (31% participation rate). 
Potential exclusion, selection, and non-participation biases can limit the use of nonprobability 
samples (Baker et al., 2013). To minimize impacts, post-stratification weighting methods (Kalton 
& Flores-Cervantes, 2003) were executed post hoc to balance results based on 2010 Census 
data to accurately approximate to the population (Baker et al., 2013).  
 
An original researcher-designed questionnaire was the instrument for this study; it was 
reviewed for face and content validity by a panel that consisted of faculty and staff at the 
University of Florida and its One Health Center of Excellence. The instrument was reviewed for 
content accuracy, clarity of wording, readability, and survey flow (Colton & Covert, 2007). A 
pilot test (n = 50) was conducted to examine preliminary data distribution and ensure 
functionality of built-in survey logic. This instrument was a part of a larger study; four sections 
of the questionnaire used to meet the objectives of this study: (a) information search 
frequency; (b) active and passive use of information sources; (c) information sharing frequency; 
and (d) use of information-sharing networks and sources. Respondents’ information-search 
frequency was assessed using a single item to gauge how frequently they sought information 
about COVID-19 the month prior to the study. Responses were collected using a 5-point ordinal 
scale: 0 = never; 1 = rarely (1-2 times); 2 = occasionally (3-4 times); 3 = often (5-6 times); 4 = very 
often (more than 6 times). To identify the channels through which respondents had passively 
received information about COVID-19, they were asked to indicate, by checking all that apply, 
where they had seen or heard information about COVID-19 during the past month. Active 
information-seeking behavior was assessed using 24 items designed to capture respondents' 
likeliness of use for both the source and method of delivery (e.g., “Department of Health 
websites,” “social media posts from the Department of Health,” etc.). Responses were collected 
using a 5-point Likert scale: 1 = very unlikely; 2 = unlikely; 3 = neither likely nor unlikely; 4 = 
likely; 5 = very likely. To assess information-sharing frequency, respondents were first asked to 
indicate if they had shared any information related to COVID-19 the month prior to the study (1 
= yes; 2 = no). Respondents who had shared information were then asked how frequently they 
had done so. Responses were collected using the same, previously mentioned frequency scale. 
Use of networks and sources when sharing was assessed by first asking respondents to indicate, 
by checking all that apply, which networks they used to share information (e.g., Facebook). 
Respondents were then asked to list the top three sources of the information they had shared. 
 



Baker et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i2.219  66 
 

Data were analyzed using the SPSS26. Analyses consisted of descriptive statistics (e.g., means, 
standard deviations, modes, frequencies, and percentages). Open-ended responses of the top 
three sources of information shared were analyzed in Excel using Glaser’s constant comparative 
method (Glaser, 1965) to identify themes.  
 

Findings 
 
Passive Channels/Sources of Information 
In order to understand how the public found out about information related to COVID-19, it was 
important to understand the passive ways someone saw information about the virus in the 
early stages of the pandemic. The passive items were provided in a “check all that apply” 
format, with a mix of the most common sources and channels. Because a filter question for 
completing the survey was “have you heard of the coronavirus disease COVID-19?”, all 
respondents had heard about COVID-19.  
 
The largest percentage of people had heard or seen information about COVID-19 from 
conversations with friends or family members (f = 1,160; 76.7%), followed by national network 
television (f = 1,117; 73.9%), local TV news (f = 1,045; 69.1%), and general websites (f = 1,015; 
67.2%). The least identified passive information sources were Twitter (f = 412, 27.2%), personal 
healthcare provider (f = 407, 26.9%), Instagram (f = 382, 25.2%), and TikTok (f = 149, 9.8%). Full 
results are in Table 1. 
 
Table 1 
 
Channels Through Which Respondents Saw or Heard Information About COVID-19 in the Early 
Stages of the Pandemic (n = 1,512). 
Channel f % 
Conversations with friends or family members 1,160 76.7% 
National network TV news channels  1,117 73.9% 
Local TV news channels  1,045 69.1% 
Websites  1,015 67.2% 
National cable TV news channels  917 60.6% 
Facebook  841 55.6% 
Radio  617 40.8% 
Conversations with work colleagues  579 38.3% 
TV programs (not news) 562 37.2% 
Print newspaper 506 33.4% 
YouTube  456 30.2% 
Twitter  412 27.2% 
Personal healthcare provider 407 26.9% 
Instagram  382 25.2% 
TikTok  149 9.8% 
Note: Responses were collected using a “check all that apply” multiple-response format, so 
percentages do not add up to 100%. 



Baker et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i2.219  67 
 

 
Active Sources/Channels of Information Used by The Public about COVID-19 
The next piece to fully understand how people received information about COVID-19 was to 
understand their active search for information. Researchers asked how often people actively 
sought information about COVID-19 over the month, i.e., late February through early March, 
2020. The vast majority of people had actively searched for information related to COVID-19 (f 
= 1,431; 96.4%) to some extent, with the largest number of people searching very often for 
information (f = 626, 41.4%; see Table 2).  
 
Table 2 
 
Respondents’ Search Frequency for Information about COVID-19 in the Early Stages of the 
Pandemic (n = 1,512)  
Response Category f % 
Very often (more than 6 times) 626 41.4 
Occasionally (3-4 times) 343 22.7 
Often (5-6 times) 276 18.3 
Rarely (1-2 times) 185 12.2 
Never 81 5.4 

 
Next, researchers sought to understand where respondents were searching for information. All 
respondents, including the 5.4% who indicated they had not searched for information in the 
month prior to the study, were asked to indicate the likelihood they would seek information 
related to COVID-19 from select sources/channels. The highest means for actively seeking 
information were all for national or international organizations’ websites involved in health: 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) websites (M = 4.32, SD = .89), Department of 
Health (DOH) websites (M = 4.08, SD = .95), and the World Health Organization (WHO) website 
(M = 4.05, SD = 1.05; see Table 3). Respondents also identified their personal healthcare 
providers (M = 4.05, SD = 1.00) among the top sources they would most likely seek. The sources 
least likely to be used were social media from friends and family (M = 2.95, SD = 1.24), 
universities (M = 2.89, SD = 1.15), Extension systems (M = 2.86, SD = 1.22), and social media 
posts from work colleagues (M = 2.75, SD = 1.25; see Table 3).  
 
  



Baker et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i2.219  68 
 

Table 3 
 
Likeliness of Use of Sources for COVID-19 During the Early Stages of the Pandemic (n = 1,512) 
  M SD 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) websites  4.32 0.9 
Department of Health (DOH) websites  4.08 1.0 
World Health Organization (WHO) website   4.05 1.1 
Personal healthcare provider  4.05 1.0 
Social media posts from Centers from Disease Control and 

Prevention (CDC)   
3.63 1.3 

Social media posts from the World Health Organization (WHO)   3.56 1.3 
Communication with friends or family members  3.52 1.1 
National network TV news channels (ABC, CBS, NBC, etc.)  3.51 1.2 
Social media posts from the Department of Health (DOH)   3.47 1.2 
National cable TV news channels (Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, etc.)  3.42 1.3 
Internet news sources  3.40 1.2 
Other internet sources (e.g. WebMD)  3.37 1.2 
Social media posts from national network TV news channels (ABC, 

CBS, NBC, etc.)  
3.13 1.3 

Newspaper  3.09 1.3 
Social media posts from national cable TV news channels (Fox 
News, MSNBC, CNN, etc.)  

3.09 1.3 

Social media posts from local TV news channels  3.07 1.3 
Communication with colleagues  3.06 1.2 
Social media posts from friends or family  2.95 1.2 
Universities  2.89 1.2 
State Extension systems  2.86 1.2 
Social media posts from work colleagues  2.75 1.3 
Note. Responses were collected using a 5-point Likert scale: 1 = very unlikely; 2 = unlikely; 3 = 
neither likely nor unlikely; 4 = likely; 5 = very likely. 
 
How the Public Shared Information about COVID-19 
The next step in understanding information spread was to determine if people were sharing 
information about COVID-19 and, if so, how they were sharing information. Slightly more than 
two-thirds (f = 1,045; 69.2%) of respondents said they had shared information about COVID-19 
in the month prior to this study (see Table 4). On average, respondents who indicated they had 
shared information about COVID-19 did so occasionally (M = 2.59, SD = 1.06).  
 
  



Baker et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i2.219  69 
 

Table 4 
 
Frequency People Shared Information about COVID-19 in the First Month of the Pandemic (n = 
1,045) 
Item  f % 
Very often (more than 6 times) 289 27.6 
Often (5-6 times) 209 20.0 
Occasionally (3-4 times) 380 36.4 
Rarely (1-2 times) 167 15.9 

 
When asked specifically what personal and social networks they used to share information, the 
majority of people said they used a form of personal communication (n = 831, 54.9%). The next 
highest percentage was for Facebook (n = 404, 26.7%), and the lowest was for TikTok (n = 44, 
2.9%). Full results are in Table 5. 
 
Table 5 
 
Personal and Social Networks Used to Share Information about COVID-19 with Others in Early 
Stage of Pandemic (n = 1,045) 
 f % 
Personal communication  831 54.9% 
Facebook  404 26.7% 
Twitter  155 10.3% 
Instagram 148 9.8% 
YouTube 95 6.3% 
TikTok 44 2.9% 
Other 38 2.5% 
Note. The “Other” category included WhatsApp, Snapchat, Reddit, Skype, Hangouts, and 
other forms of personal communication 

 
The last step taken to understand how people shared information during the early stages of 
COVID-19 was to ask the 1,045 respondents who indicated they had shared information to list 
the top three sources they used to do so. Diversity in channels and sources shared were great 
(see Table 6). The largest number of people said they used the CDC or WHO (f = 679). The CDC 
and WHO had to be included in the same category because a large portion of people who said 
they used the CDC and WHO included these as one source in the form of CDC/WHO or similar 
instead of listing these as distinctly different sources. This was followed by news outlets (f = 
435) and conversations with people (f = 412). A large number of sources in the middle range of 
use were highly specialized and ranged from social media (f = 246) and online sources (f = 148) 
to the government (f = 153) and doctors (f = 143). On the lower end were science and research 
(f = 22), blogs and maps/statistics (f = 12), email (f = 11), and religious sources (f = 7; see Table 
6).  
 
 



Baker et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i2.219  70 
 

Table 6 
 
Open-ended Responses for Three Sources Used by Respondents Who Indicated They Had Shared 
Information about COVID-19 in the Early Stages of The Pandemic (n = 1,045) 
Source Category Examples of Answers f (%) 
CDC/WHO CDC website, CDC articles, News articles citing 

CDC/WHO, National Health Service, OMS 
679 (65.0) 

News Outlets ABC, NBC, Today Show, CBS, CBSN, CNBC, Fox, 
CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, Washington Post, 
NPR, Media, Wall Street Journal, Huffington Post, 
Cable News 

435 (41.6) 

Conversations with 
People 

Friends, family, colleagues, word of mouth, face 
to face, with people with who have the virus  

412 (39.4) 

Social Media Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, TikTok, Snapchat, 
YouTube, Memes  

246 (23.5) 

Local News Sources Texas Tribune, WLWT, WTVA news, news story 
about local company testing sars meds on COVID, 
local news on Facebook 

164 (15.8) 

Government Federal, State, health departments, Fauci, 
Surgeon General, FDA, county information, 
Homeland Security, public health, congress  

153 (14.6) 

News News  152 (14.5) 
Online 
Searches/Articles 

Internet, search engine results, business websites, 
research from internet, internet medical news 
sites, alternative media, conservative websites 

148 (14.2) 

Doctors/Medical 
Professionals 

Doctor, health care professional, health care 
providers, care centers, nurses, hospitals, military 
medic, Web MD, CMS, medical website, articles 
written by medical experts  

143 (13.6) 

Newspaper/ Print 
Sources 

Newspapers, printed materials, magazines  76 (7.3) 

Podcasts/ Radio Podcasts, radio, Joe Rogan 64 (6.1) 
News Aggregators/ 
Online Sources 

Apple News, Smart News, Bing, Tivi, Google, 
Yahoo, Wikipedia, Forbes, uberfacts, 
medium.com, Trenches World Report  

50 (4.8) 

Specialty Media 
Outlets 

Inside Edition, ESPN, Dr. Oz, TV (not news), beal 
beats, famous people, PBS, Joe Rogan, Buzzfeed, 
Chinese resident videos, special shows 

48 (4.6) 

President President, Trump, President speeches, President 
press conferences  

39 (3.7) 

Phone Phone, phone alerts, smart phone, weather 
channel app, community app, mobile news app, 
texting, WhatsApp, next door app, video chat  

32 (3.1) 



Baker et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i2.219  71 
 

Source Category Examples of Answers f (%) 
Schools/University Classes, district website, district emails, school 

closing, teachers, education, live feed from 
superintendent  

31 (3.0) 

Science/Research Science, infectious disease experts, research, 
experts, Epidemiologist on my college campus 

22 (2.1) 

International Sources BBC, Foreign News, UN website, Reuters  19 (1.8) 
Other Common sense, business, USAUS, MSJD, ship 

cruise information, strangers, trusted sources, 
Amazon 

18 (1.7) 

Blog Blogs, Reddit, Zero Hedge, Daily Kos  12 (1.1) 
COVID 
maps/information 

Coronavirus map, detected counties, coronavirus 
task force press conferences, updates, 
information from other health officials not 
related to White House or staff, virus trackers, 
Worlometer website, numbers detected, number 
died  

12 (1.1) 

Email Email  11 (1.1) 
Church/Religious Minister, church leaders, Christian tv news 7 (0.1) 
Self Myself  7 (0.1) 

 
Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations 

 
Both active and passive information-seeking behaviors among the American public early in 
COVID-19 were observed, as well as some key differences in the primary sources and channels 
of information when pursued actively versus consumed passively. These findings support Bates’ 
(2005) recommendation to use multiple channels and sources to reach all audiences as part of 
an effective risk communication strategy. If members of the public were to actively seek 
information about COVID-19, they were more likely to do so from the websites of major 
national or international health organizations. While previous work indicated people found 
newspapers a more credible source during a crisis (Endsley et al., 2014), the results of the 
current study showed people were more likely to use online sources. With rapid changes 
occurring early in the COVID-19 pandemic, online sources may have been attractive to 
Americans due to the instantaneous nature of online channels and quickly updated crisis 
response information.  
 
Respondents were not likely to actively seek information about COVID-19 from scientists, 
universities, and Extension systems directly, which provides further evidence for a need to work 
with health-focused organizations during a zoonotic disease outbreak. This also provides 
evidence that scientists and health communicators must move beyond using communication 
channels viewed only by people in academia. Effective science and health communication may 
also help a university or Extension program to establish a relationship before a public health 
crisis (Telg, 2019). Personal networks were also extremely important in the sharing process 



Baker et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i2.219  72 
 

among those who shared information in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. This 
provides further support for the use of grassroots communication efforts for risk 
communication in the early stages of a pandemic. Though people indicated they eventually 
would seek information from national and international organizations’ websites, these health 
organizations could have been on the forefront of communication if they were actively pushing 
information in the beginning stages of the pandemic. While social media channels received 
average to little consideration from people when they were in the passive or active search 
process, people indicated more use of personal communication, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, 
YouTube, and TikTok when it came to sharing information about COVID-19. While only a small 
portion of people were using TikTok during the early stages of the pandemic, its emergence as a 
channel/source of information during this pandemic was rapid (Wang, 2020) and may indicate 
an emerging trend in its use for health communication messages in the future.  
 
This work supports the continued use of Covello’s (2003) best practices for communication in a 
public health crisis. Involving stakeholders as partners and listening to all parties involved will 
allow communicators to connect through personal networks, which were the most used active 
and passive channels in this study. Collaboration with other credible sources is also supported 
by this work, as the top active search channels/sources were all health-focused organizations. 
Scientists, universities, Extension programs, and communicators from many disciplines, 
including public health, science, and agriculture, will need to partner with health organizations 
in future zoonotic disease outbreaks.  
 
Future research should investigate the trust of the public related to their primary and 
secondary passive and active sources of information to understand the role trust played in risk 
communication during COVID-19. Additionally, future research should explore the relationship 
between the public and popular sources of information, such as the CDC and WHO, to 
determine why people might react more positively to some sources compared to others. And 
lastly, research should be conducted to understand how these sources, channels, and behaviors 
changed throughout the pandemic.  
 

Acknowledgments 
 
This research was funded by the University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences 
(UF/IFAS) Center for Public Issues Education in Agriculture and Natural Resources (PIE Center) 
and the UF/IFAS Office of the Dean for Research. 
 

References 
 

American Journal of Managed Care Staff. (2021, January 1). A timeline of COVID-19 
developments in 2020. https://www.ajmc.com/view/a-timeline-of-covid19-
developments-in-2020   

 
Baker, R., Brick, J. M., Bates, N.A., Battaglia, M., Couper, M.P., Dever, J. A., Gile, K. J., & 

Tourangeau, R. (2013). Report of the AAPOR task force on non-probability sampling. 



Baker et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i2.219  73 
 

Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology. 1(2), 90–143. 
https://doi.org/10.1093/jssam/smt008  

 
Bates, M. J. (2005). Berrypicking. In K.E. Fisher, S. Erdelez, & L. McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of 

information behavior (pp. 58-62). Information Today Inc. 
 
Brown, D. (2020). World Health Organization joins TikTok to share 'reliable' coronavirus 

information. Medical Press. https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-03-world-health-
tiktok-reliable-coronavirus.html  

 
Chan, A. K. M., Nickson, C. P., Rudolph, J. W., Lee, A., & Joynt, G. M. (2020). Social media for 

rapid knowledge dissemination: Early experience from the COVID-19 pandemic. 
Anaesthesia, 75, 1579-1582. https://doi.org/10.1111/anae.15057  

 
Clements, J. M. (2020). Knowledge and behaviors toward COVID-19 among U.S. residents during 

the early days of the pandemic: Cross-sectional questionnaire. JMIR Public Health & 
Surveillance, 6(2), e19161. https://doi.org/10.2196/19161  

 
Colton, D., & Covert, R. (2007). Designing and constructing instruments for social research and 

evaluation. Jossey-Bass. 
 
Covello, V. T. (2003). Best practices in public health risk and crisis communication. Journal of 

Health Communication, 8(S1), 5–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/713851971  
 
Covello, V., & Sandman, P. M. (2001). Risk communication: Evolution and revolution. In A. 

Wolbarst, (Ed.), Solutions to an Environment in Peril (pp. 164-178). John Hopkins 
University Press. https://www.psandman.com/articles/covello.htm  

 
Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail and mixed-mode 

surveys: The tailored design method (4th ed.). John Wiley 
 
Endsley, T., Wu, Y., & Reep, J. (2014, May 18-21). The source of the story: Evaluating the 

credibility of crisis information sources. [Paper presentation].  ISCRAM 2014 Conference 
Proceedings - 11th International Conference on Information Systems for Crisis Response 
and Management (160–164), University Park, Pennsylvania, USA. 
http://idl.iscram.org/files/endsley/2014/475_Endsley_etal2014.pdf  

 
Glaser, B. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems, 

12(4), 436–445. https://doi.org/10.2307/798843 
 
Kahlor, L., Dunwoody, S., Griffin, R. J., & Neuwirth, K. (2006). Seeking and processing 

information about impersonal risk. Science Communication, 28(2), 163–194. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547006293916  

 



Baker et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i2.219  74 
 

Kalton, G., & Flores-Cervantes, I. (2003). Weighting methods. Journal of Official Statistics, 19(2), 
81–97. 
http://www.sverigeisiffror.scb.se/contentassets/ca21efb41fee47d293bbee5bf7be7fb3/
weighting-methods.pdf  

 
Kenyon, S. (2020, May 20). Coronavirus news: TikTok experiences boom during COVID-19 

pandemic. ABC News. Arts & Entertainment. https://abc7ny.com/tiktok-social-medial-
manuela-frey-coronavirus-new-york/6201468  

 
Liu, B. F., Austin, L., & Jin, Y. (2011). How publics respond to crisis communication strategies: 

The interplay of information form and source. Public Relations Review, 37(4), 345–353. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.08.004  

 
Nguyen, T., Yoon, D., & Tsetsura, K. (2017, March 8-12). Exploring the effects of media and 

information sources on individuals’ attitude, perception, and behavior intentions toward 
crisis responses [Paper presentation]. In B. R. Yook, Y. G. Ji, & Z. F. Chen (Eds.), 
Proceedings of the 20th international public relations research conference (218–229). 
Orlando, Florida, USA. https://www.instituteforpr.org/wp-content/uploads/IPRRC20-
proceedings_Final.pdf#page=219  

 
Rohr, J. R., Barrett, C. B., Civitello, D. J., Craft, M. E., Delius, B., DeLeo, G. A., Hudson, P. J., 

Jouanard, N., Nguyen, K. H., Ostfeld, R. S., Remais, J. V., Riveau, G., Sokolow, S. H., & 
Tilman, D. (2019). Emerging human infectious diseases and the links to global food 
production. Nature Sustainability, 2(6), 445–456. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-
0293-3  

 
Sahin A.R., Erdogan A, Ağaoğlu P.M., Dineri Y, Cakirci A.Y., Senel M.E., Okyay, R.A., & Tasdogan, 

A.M.(2020). 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak: A review of the current 
literature. Eurasian Journal of Medicine and Oncology, 4(1), 1-7. 
https://doi.org/10.14744/ejmo.2020.12220  

 
Telg, R. W. (2019). Risk and crisis communication: When things go wrong (WC093). University of 

Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences Electronic Data Information Source 
Publication. https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/wc093  

 
Wang, K. (2020, March 26). How a coronavirus safety-themed dance took the world by storm, 

according to the TikTok star who created it. Business Insider. 
https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-song-dance-wash-hands-quang-dang-
2020-3  

 
© 2022 by authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of 
the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 
 


