Public sphere attitudes towards the rumor sources of the COVID-19 pandemic: evidence from community perceptions in Iran

Abstract

Background
In the COVID-19 pandemic, rumors travel far faster than the outbreak itself. The current study aimed to evaluate the factors affecting the attitudes of individuals towards the rumors-producing media in Iran.

Methods
An online cross-sectional survey was conducted in Iran in March 2020 on the source of information and rumors, along with the perception of individuals regarding the reasons for rumors propagation during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Results
Results showed that the majority of the participants (59.3%) believed that social media were the main source of rumors. The lack of a reliable and formal news resource was also considered the most common cause of rumoring by the participants (63.6%). An evaluation was carried out to identify the main source of misinformation and rumors. Results showed that Retired participants considered foreign media ( P < 0.001) as the main resource. The middle-income level participants believed that social media ( P < 0.001) were the main source. In this regard, the highly educated participants (P < 0.001), government employees, and middle-income individuals ( P = 0.008) believed that national media produced rumors.

Conclusion
Although findings were achieved during the first peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the authorities immediately introduced the national media as a reliable news resource, which allowed both media and its journalists to reduce the gap between themselves and the public sphere. It was suggested that social networks and foreign media be more accountable in pandemics.

Full text

Banakaretal. BMC Public Health (2021) 21:2187
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-12254-x
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Public sphere attitudes towardstherumor
sources oftheCOVID-19 pandemic: evidence
fromcommunity perceptions inIran
Morteza Banakar1, Ahmad Kalateh Sadati2, Leila Zarei1, Saeed Shahabi1, Seyed Taghi Heydari1* and
Kamran Bagheri Lankarani1
Abstract
Background: In the COVID-19 pandemic, rumors travel far faster than the outbreak itself. The current study aimed to
evaluate the factors affecting the attitudes of individuals towards the rumors-producing media in Iran.
Methods: An online cross-sectional survey was conducted in Iran in March 2020 on the source of information and
rumors, along with the perception of individuals regarding the reasons for rumors propagation during the COVID-19
pandemic.
Results: Results showed that the majority of the participants (59.3%) believed that social media were the main
source of rumors. The lack of a reliable and formal news resource was also considered the most common cause of
rumoring by the participants (63.6%). An evaluation was carried out to identify the main source of misinformation
and rumors. Results showed that Retired participants considered foreign media (P < 0.001) as the main resource. The
middle-income level participants believed that social media (P < 0.001) were the main source. In this regard, the highly
educated participants (P < 0.001), government employees, and middle-income individuals (P = 0.008) believed that
national media produced rumors.
Conclusion: Although findings were achieved during the first peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the authorities
immediately introduced the national media as a reliable news resource, which allowed both media and its journal-
ists to reduce the gap between themselves and the public sphere. It was suggested that social networks and foreign
media be more accountable in pandemics.
Keywords: COVID-19, Rumor, Coronavirus, Misinformation, Crisis management
© The Author(s) 2021. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which
permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the
original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or
other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line
to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory
regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this
licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http:// creat iveco
mmons. org/ publi cdoma in/ zero/1. 0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
Background
COVID-19 pandemic has become one of the major
concerns of all nations globally, as it has affected many
aspects of daily lives [1, 2]. A major part of mitiga-
tion strategies in this pandemic relies on community
engagement. Solid information and credible social
interaction are important in this regard, while factors
including confusion, fear, panic, and misinformation
or rumors have detrimental effects [2, 3]. ere are no
other choices than using non-pharmaceutical interfer-
ences to battle COVID-19, including social distancing
and quarantine, risk communication, and information
circulation; therefore, they have the highest impor-
tance in current pandemic management [4]. While
media could be an important channel of communicat-
ing with society and increasing their engagement in the
mitigation processes, it can also interfere with public
Open Access
*Correspondence: heydari.st@gmail.com
1 Health Policy Research Center, Institute of Health, Shiraz University
of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
Full list of author information is available at the end of the article
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Page 2 of 9
Banakaretal. BMC Public Health (2021) 21:2187
health efforts if rumors are publicized [5]. e wrong
or ambiguous information, which does not originate
from reliable resources which do not deceive people,
is called misinformation. It includes rumors, insults,
and pranks [6]. Rumors consist of four distinct types.
First of all, the legendary rumors are derived from sto-
ries or legends and contain popular fantasies in real-life
events; they also characterize the supernatural beings,
including various narratives from the SARS outbreak
to traditional folklore stories and legends. Second, the
aetiological narratives are baseless doubtful claims
regarding the illness’s reasons, prevention, and thera-
pies. Rumors of the second type could be perceived
because of the nonexistence of enough information of
the media regarding the properties of the novel virus at
the first stages during the SARS period. e third type
is known as protomemorates, which spread in a chain
from one person to another. Nowadays, they are trans-
mitted in the communities too much faster than in the
past because of more powerful media. Finally, bogies
are the last type of rumors that cause fear or anxiety in
society. e rumors of city quarantine or food short-
ages are included in this category [7].
A study on the dimensions of SARS-related rumoring
throughout China during an epidemic in 2003 showed a
strong correlation between the scale of SARS infections
and rumoring levels [7]. Another study in China during
the COVID-19 pandemic revealed that the state media
played an irresponsible role during the crisis [8]. Another
study conducted by Cheung in West Africa during the
EBOLA outbreak showed that rumors originated from
the lack of information and fear [9]. Besides, community
partnerships could prevent rumors, fear, and distrust,
sometimes hiding family members’ illness or death [10].
ere are both positive and negative impacts asso-
ciated with social media. ey could be implemented
properly to change people’s behaviors and improve pub-
lic health [11]. Moreover, social media can provide sig-
nificant knowledge; therefore, it would be essential that
people have appropriate access to social media during
the COVID-19 pandemic and prevent rumoring [12].
Swamping the media with trustworthy data and infor-
mation, purposeful media monitoring, and prompt
response to rumors and misinformation are the most
effective strategies to promote community engagement
[13]. Although the recent technological advances have
increased the data access of consumers by implement-
ing various resources and networks, misinformation has
begun to be spread worldwide, particularly through social
media, during the pandemic due to the novelty of virus
and avidity of communities for information (6). Accord-
ingly, the virus concurrence and its viral news have led to
faster rumoring than the outbreak itself [14, 15].
e Islamic Republic of Iran reported two COVID-
19 deaths on February 18, 2020, 50 days after the first
detected cases in China. Various social, economic, and
political aspects could influence public health. Further-
more, the qualification of countries in COVID-19 man-
agement is influenced by political and economic states
associated with positive and negative effects. Sanctions
are the most influential political-economic factors with
the highest limiting impacts on the capacity of Iran in
pandemic management [16]. e Iranian Ministry of
Health and Medical Education represents reports of the
infected, recovered, and death cases every day; how-
ever, there are rumors represented by foreign media and
cyberspace regarding the reported mortality rates, mass
graves of dead cases, or considering the international air-
ports of Iran as one of the potential centers of the out-
break. All of these factors have adverse effects on Iranian
people’s general beliefs and attitudes towards pandemic
management in the country [16, 17].
According to WHO, during the COVID-19 pandemic,
we faced a new type of misinformation and rumor called
infodemic. It includes excessive information, typically
referring to a rapid and far-reaching spread of incor-
rect or misleading information on social media or mass
media. Particularly, this misinformation led to the confu-
sion of the public, legislators, and physicians. As Tedros
Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General, said,
“We’re not just fighting an epidemic; we’re fighting an
infodemic.” However, no clear classification completely
differentiates the rumors from each other [12, 18]. e
information or misinformation achievement by the com-
munity was associated with considerable impacts on peo-
ple’s behaviors during the pandemic. e current study
aimed to evaluate the perception of individuals regarding
COVID-19 rumors, detect the resources used by people
to achieve data, and reveal the association between social
factors and attitudes of individuals towards the source of
rumors.
Methods
Study design andsetting
Data was collected using an online cross-sectional study
during 19-25 March 2020 in Tehran, Fars, Gilan, East
Azarbaijan, Sistan and Baluchestan, and Isfahan Prov-
inces of Iran. Table 1 provides more details of the sur-
veyed provinces.
e current investigation was conducted simultane-
ously with Nowruz, the thousands-year-old Persian new
year celebration (March 21). Generally, people get pre-
pared for this celebration from mid-February; therefore,
streets become too crowded. Furthermore, most people
prefer to travel during this 15-day holiday. It could be
found from the mentioned facts that the risk of disease
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Page 3 of 9
Banakaretal. BMC Public Health (2021) 21:2187
prevalence could peak due to the increase of interper-
sonal contacts during this period.
Instruments andmeasures
In this study, a researcher-made questionnaire was
applied to investigate the dominant media, informa-
tion gathering, misinformation resources, the level of
perceived misinformation, perception of individuals
regarding the reasons of rumoring, and mechanisms of
monitoring and controlling using the Likert scale. To
measure the variables, relevant items were developed
using both the literature and the experts’ opinions. e
final questionnaire included seven items. Moreover,
some questions gathered the participants’ demograph-
ics, including their age, gender, educational level, marital
status, children, employment, socioeconomic status, and
the effect of COVID-19 on their income. Supplementary
file1 is a blank copy of the mentioned questionnaire.
Questionnaire validation
e first draft of the questionnaire was submitted to six
academic experts in the research area. e question-
naire validity was evaluated during the meetings with
these experts, including transparency, comprehensive-
ness, and items correlation. erefore, some questions
were modified considering their transparency and con-
tent. To ensure the measurement reliability, a pilot study
was carried out in a setting of 60 participants before
the commencement of the current study. Accordingly, a
Cronbach’s alpha of 0.70 represented data reliability.
Participants
At the beginning of the survey in each province, a focal
point was selected as the starter to distribute the ques-
tionnaire link. e data was collected from Iranian peo-
ple aged 18 years and over who had access to the internet.
No sampling framework was used. e link was sent to
anyone who could, whether answer anonymously or send
it to others; hence, the questionnaire link was sent and
rotated using the snowball method. In addition, an invi-
tation letter and a written consent form, which included
information about the research purposes and ethical
issues, were provided for the individuals. In order to
respect privacy and confidentiality, the questionnaires
were designed anonymously, without receiving any iden-
tity information. A response validation rule was speci-
fied for each question to be answered according to the
instructions, ensuring the lack of missing data; thus, the
2550 participants answered the questions properly.
Statistical analysis
Data analysis was carried out through SPSS software ver-
sion 18 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Moreover, various
factors were applied in order to describe data, including
the mean, standard deviation, frequency, and percent-
age. e chi-square test was also applied to compare the
sources of information and COVID-19 rumors regard-
ing participants’ age, gender, education, employment,
and socioeconomic status. Bonferroni adjustment takes
0.05/4 = 0.0125 of P-values as a corrected for the sources
of information and COVID-19 rumors. e other signifi-
cance level was set to P-values below 0.05.
Results
e questionnaire was viewed 5000 times; however, only
2550 individuals completed the questionnaire. So, the
completion rate in this study was nearly 50%. e mean
age of participants was 36.38 ± 10.64 years. e study
population consisted of 1246 men (48.9%) and 1304
women (51.1%). Moreover, 711 people (27.9%) were
below 30 years of age, 1532 (60.1%) were between 30 to
50, and 307 (12%) were above 50 years of age.
According to the participants, social media, includ-
ing WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram, and the national
broadcasting media, namely TV and radio, were the main
sources of COVID-19 news. Furthermore, the newspaper
was the least reported media (1.3% (32)) to achieve infor-
mation. Social media was also considered as the primary
source of misleading information for a majority of partic-
ipants (59.3% (1513)); however, phone calls and text mes-
sages were regarded as the least rumor-containing media
(4.5% (115)) (Table2).
Perceptions of participants regarding the main
resources of rumors are presented in Table 3. Accord-
ing to findings, the lack of a reliable news resource was
considered the most common cause of rumors (63.6%
(1621)).
Regarding the mechanism adopted to encounter
rumors, most participants (24.1% (614)) mentioned that
very few measures were adopted to tackle the rumors
Table 1 Related information of surveyed provinces
a Source: The last census of the Statistical Center of Iran (SCI);1395
b Source: Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Ministry of Health and
Medical Education (MOHME); Iran
Province % of the total
population of
country a
COVID-related
information b
Infection Death
Tehran 16.6% 5098 512
Fars 6.07% 505 28
Gilan 3.17% 1191 461
East Azarbaijan 4.89% 813 159
Sistan and Baluchestan 3.47% 134 21
Isfahan 6.41%, 1979 336
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Page 4 of 9
Banakaretal. BMC Public Health (2021) 21:2187
during the pandemic. Concerning COVID-19’s mis-
leading information, most participants (31.3% (799))
mentioned that they became informed about the data
uncertainty of this novel disease most of the time. Also,
most of the participants (34.8% (888)) reported the mod-
erate active monitoring and interventions of related
organizations aimed at reducing the rumoring. Further-
more, most participants (33.1% (844)) reported that they
often heard some news about the disease that was later
disproved (Table4).
Male participants reported using the websites as their
main news resource more than females (P < 0.001). More-
over, participants over 50-year stated that they used the
national and foreign media more frequently than other
age groups (P < 0.001). Regarding the effect of the edu-
cational level on COVID-19 data resources, those with
higher educational levels seemed to use foreign media,
social media, and the web more frequently than the other
groups (P = 0.003). e application of national media
as the primary source of news was significantly more
prevalent among individuals with a bachelor’s degree
(P < 0.001). e type of employment also had a significant
effect on the primary news resource for the participants.
National media was significantly favored among retired
people (72.5%) (P < 0.001), while freelancers (22.6%)
reported foreign media as the favorite source of informa-
tion (P < 0.001). Also, social media were more considered
by the government employees (63.4%) (P < 0.001), and the
web was the first common news resource for non-govern-
mental employment (30.7%) (P = 0.007). Socioeconomic
status did not significantly affect sources of information
(P > 0.05) (Table5).
According to the findings, different groups mentioned
various resources as the causes of rumoring. Male partic-
ipants mostly considered social media (P = 0.008) as the
source of rumors. Highly-educated individuals mostly
reported national media as a source of rumors (P < 0.001).
In other words, individuals with under diploma degrees
(49% (73)) mostly reported foreign media as a source of
rumors (P < 0.001). In contrast, highly-educated partici-
pants considered this media as a source of rumors less
than others. For individuals aged 60 years and over, social
media was considered a source of rumors (P = 0.005).
On the other hand, individuals below 30 years of age
Table 2 The number (%) of each media usage with regard to COVID-19 information and misinformation
National Media Foreign
Media Social Media Web Newspaper The phone
call and text
messages
It is your primary source
of information regarding
Covid-19:
No 1103 (43.4) 2139 (83.9) 1051 (41.2) 1887 (74.0) 2518 (98.7) 2403 (94.2)
Yes 1447 (56.7) 411 (16.1) 1499 (58.8) 663 (26.0) 32 (1.3) 147 (5.8)
Most of the misinforma-
tion and rumors are
related to this media:
No 1632 (64.0) 1496 (58.7) 1037 (40.7) 2167 (85.0) 2427 (95.2) 2435 (95.5)
Yes 918 (36.0) 1054 (41.3) 1513 (59.3) 383 (15.0) 123 (4.8) 115 (4.5)
Total 2550 (100) 2550 (100) 2550 (100) 2550 (100) 2550 (100) 2550 (100)
Table 3 The perceptions of participants regarding the main resources of rumors (Number (%))
Lack of
social media
monitoring
Lack of reliable
news source Inaccuracy in
choosing the news
source
The uncertainty caused by
the novelty of the disease Other
It is the primary cause of the rumors: No 1190 (46.7) 929 (36.4) 262 (49.5) 1348 (52.9) 2193 (86.0)
Yes 1360 (53.3) 1621 (63.6) 1288 (50.5) 1202 (47.1) 357 (14.0)
Table 4 The perception of participants regarding COVID-19 rumors (n(%))
Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always
How often there any mechanisms to take action against rumors? 452 (17.7) 614 (24.1) 902 (3.4) 386 (15.1) 196 (7.7)
How often had you been informed of the uncertainty of the information
about Covid-19? 141 (5.5) 216 (8.5) 799 (31.3) 938 (36.8) 456 (17.9)
How often does an active organization monitor and respond to rumors? 446 (17.5) 584 (22.9) 888 (34.8) 429 (16.8) 203 (8.0)
Have you heard of any news about Covid-19, which has been later refuted? 126 (4.9) 320 (12.5) 639 (25.1) 844 (33.1) 621 (24.4)
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Page 5 of 9
Banakaretal. BMC Public Health (2021) 21:2187
Table 5 The number (%) of each media applied for COVID-19 news based on the demographic data of participants
*Base on Bonferroni adjustment P-value less than 0.0125 was signicant
National Media Foreign Media Social Media Web
No Yes P-value No Yes P-value No Ye s P-value No Ye s P-value
Sex M 550 (44.1) 696 (55.9) 0.377 1024 (82.8) 222 (17.8) 0.023 495 (39.7) 751 (60.3) 0.135 860 (69.0) 386 (31.0) < 0.001*
F 553 (42.4) 751 (57.6) 1115 (85.5) 189 (14.5) 556 (42.6) 748 (57.4) 1027 (78.8) 277 (21.2)
Age < 30 348 (48.9) 363 (51.1) < 0.001* 618 (86.9) 93 (13.1) < 0.001* 295 (41.5) 416 (58.8) 0.980 517 (72.7) 194 (27.3) 0.570
30-50 653 (42.6) 879 (57.4) 1301 (84.9) 231 (15.1) 629 (41.1) 903 (58.9) 1145 (74.7) 387 (25.3)
> 50 102 (33.2) 205 (66.8) 220 (71.7) 87 (28.3) 127 (41.4) 180 (58.6) 225 (73.3) 82 (26.7)
Education Under diploma 43 (28.9) 106 (71.1) < 0.001* 133 (89.3) 16 (10.7) . < 0.001* 91 (61.1) 58 (38.9) < 0.001* 122 (81.9) 27 (18.1) 0.003*
Diploma 121 (38.9) 190 (61.1) 278 (89.4) 33 (10.6) 165 (53.1) 146 (46.9) 236 (75.9) 75 (24.1)
Associate’s degree 72 (36.9) 123 (63.1) 160 (82.1) 35 (17.9) 88 (45.1) 107 (54.9) 157 (80.5) 38 (19.5)
Bachelor’s degree 342 (40.2) 508 (59.8) 732 (86.1) 118 (13.9) 351 (41.3) 499 (58.7) 635 (74.7) 215 (25.3)
High educated 523 (50.2) 519 (49.8) 834 (80.0) 208 (20.0) 356 (34.2) 686 (65.8) 735 (70.5) 307 (29.5)
Employment Governmental employment 310 (40.8) 450 (59.2) < 0.001* 651 (85.7) 109 (14.3) < 0.001* 278 (36.6) 482 (63.4) < 0.001* 571 (75.1) 189 (24.9) 0.007*
Non-governmental employment 165 (45.2) 200 (54.8) 291 (79.7) 74 (20.3) 142 (38.9) 223 (61.1) 253 (69.3) 112 (30.7)
Freelancer 164 (51.4) 155 (48.6) 247 (77.4) 72 (22.6) 131 (41.1) 188 (58.9) 231 (72.4) 88 (27.6)
Student 187 (49.0) 195 (51.0) 339 (88.7) 43 (11.3) 148 (38.7) 234 (61.3) 268 (70.2) 114 (29.8)
Housewive 104 (33.9) 203 (66.1) 275 (89.6) 32 (10.4) 161 (52.4) 146 (47.6) 252 (82.1) 55 (17.9)
Retired 33 (27.5) 87 (72.5) 93 (77.5) 27 (22.5) 60 (50) 60 (50) 92 (76.7) 28 (23.3)
Unemployed 90 (51.4) 85 (48.6) 143 (81.7) 32 (18.3) 69 (39.4) 106 (60.6) 132 (75.4) 43 (24.6)
Daily-paid 41 (39.8) 62 (60.2) 84 (81.6) 19 (18..4) 53 (51.5) 50 (48.5) 75 (72.8) 28 (27.2)
Socioeconomic status High 270 (45.6) 322 (54.4) 0.134 492 (83.1) 100 (16.9) 0.512 246 (41.6) 346 (58.4) .257 431 (72.8) 161 (27.2) 0.748
Middle 466 (41.1) 667 (58.9) 944 (83.3) 189 (16.7) 447 (39.5) 686 (60.5) 841 (74.2) 292 (25.8)
Low 364 (44.6) 452 (55.4) 694 (85.0) 122 (15.0) 352 (43.1) 464 (56.9) 608 (74.5) 208 (25.5)
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Page 6 of 9
Banakaretal. BMC Public Health (2021) 21:2187
considered the web as a source of rumors (P = 0.001).
e freelancers (46.7% (149)) and the unemployed (45.7%
(80)) participants mostly reported the national media
as a rumoring resource (P < 0.001). A majority of the
retired people (50.8% (61)) and housewives (45.0% (138))
mentioned the foreign media as a rumoring resource
(P < 0.01). Individuals with middle income assumed social
media as a rumoring resource (P < 0.001) (Table6).
Discussion
e current study aimed to explain the attitudes of Ira-
nian people towards rumors during the COVID-19
pandemic. Results revealed that social media, including
WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram, and national media
such as IRI TV and radio, were the primary sources of
COVID-19 news for the participants. In contrast to the
findings of other investigations, Twitter did not have any
role in Iran [13, 19].
Participants did not considerably use printed media
(1.3% (32)) for COVID-19 news. is paradigm shift in
the behaviors of consumers led to the innate features of
these media platforms. In other words, the acquisition
of information through social media platforms was more
time-saving and cost-effective compared to conventional
news media such as newspapers or television. Chatting
and sharing the news with others through social media
was found to be much easier [20]; also, it was the primary
source of misleading information for most participants
(59.3%(1513)).
In general, the inferential statistics regarding the rela-
tionship between social factors and attitudes towards
the source of rumors, social networks, national media,
and satellites were accused of forming rumors. In other
words, the trust in news media and social media was
dwindled [21]. Despite investigations in China dur-
ing this SARS epidemic [8], Iran’s national media made
efforts to represent clear news responsively. Community
partnerships can prevent rumors, fear, and distrust [10],
and this media should have a more closed relationship
with people and the public sphere.
Socio-demographically, men were more likely than
women to consider foreign media (P = 01) and social
media (P = 00.8) as the rumoring resources. Regard-
ing the rumors on the public health intervention, Kaler
claimed that such skepticism would regularly lead to
rumoring, influencing the thought processes or public
health intervention. eoretically, the widespread rumor
of sterility could broadly articulate the shared under-
standings about reproductive bodies, collective survival,
and global asymmetries of power [22]. is bio-power
demonstrated the gender-based perceptions that were
formed during the pandemic. e male participants
of the current study were doubtful of foreign spaces,
including the foreign media and social media, which led
to the formation of concepts of overcoming the social
discourse of the pandemic.
Considering the age, participants between 30 to
50 years of age assumed rumors were mainly resulted
from social media (P = 0.001) and the web (P = 0.005),
while > 50-year old participants were less concerned with
social networks and the web. Individuals under 30 years
of age also were not skeptical of cyberspace due to their
higher existential connections with cyberspace. Moreo-
ver, individuals between 30 to 50 years of age use social
media and the web more frequently. On the other hand,
they held a skeptical view towards these spaces and
considered social media and the web as rumor sources
because of the generation gap. Individuals below 30 years
of age had less generation gap; therefore, they did not
feel alienated and held a positive attitude towards such
spaces.
Increasing levels of education had a significant relation-
ship with attitudes toward rumors in national (P < 0.001)
and foreign (P = 0.002) media. Afassinou (2014) showed
that improving the education level of the population
could catalyze rumoring. In social networks, when peo-
ple with higher educational levels heard a rumor in seri-
ous conflict with their beliefs, it was easier for them to
counterattack the rumor and even do their best to pre-
vent its propagation [23]. e current study showed that
education could not affect participants’ attitudes towards
the rumors from social networks and the web; also, it was
found that educated individuals were in a more problem-
atic position. It was believed that both media outlets were
spreading the rumors. Due to the importance of educa-
tion in such pandemics, the government must estab-
lish closer contacts with such individuals through the
national media and spare its trust-building efforts.
Regarding employment, government employees
believed that national media (P < 0.001) and foreign
media (P = 0.009) produced rumors in pandemics, which
was similar to the attitude held by educated individu-
als. erefore, the authorities had to interact with their
employees and attract their trust more actively in such
situations than in the past. Considering the income
status, the middle-income groups, whose income lev-
els were equal to their expenses, believed that national
media (P = 0.009) and social media (P = 0.009) produced
rumors. It seemed that the critical view among the mid-
dle class was related to this perception. Further studies
are recommended in this regard.
Rumors can significantly influence the control of pan-
demics [24]. Journalists have both built and undermined
open belief, which is a valuable source of logical realities
and a dangerous source of the rumor that intensifies the
freeze [25]. Nowadays, modern media are a major source
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Page 7 of 9
Banakaretal. BMC Public Health (2021) 21:2187
Table 6 The number (%) of each media as a source of rumors based on the demographic information of participants
a Base on Bonferroni adjustment P-value less than 0.0125 was signicant
National Media Foreign Media Social Media Web
No Yes P-value No Yes P-value No Ye s P-value No Yes P-value
Sex M 783 (62.8) 463 (37.2) 0.233 700 (56.2) 546 (43.8) 0.013 474 (38.0) 772 (62.0) 0.008a1042 (83.6) 204 (16.4) 0.062
F 849 (65.1) 455 (34.9) 796 (61.0) 508 (39.0) 563 (43.2) 741 (56.8) 1125 (86.3) 179 (13.7)
Age < 30 451 (63.4) 260 (36.6) 0.554 429 (60.3) 282 (39.7) 0.419 328 (46.1) 383 (53.9) 0.001a578 (81.3) 133 (18.7) 0.005a
30-50 976 (63.7) 556 (36.3) 895 (58.4) 637 (41.6) 601 (39.2) 931 (60.8) 1322 (86.3) 210 (13.7)
> 50 205 (66.8) 102 (33.2) 172 (56.0) 135 (44.0) 108 (35.2) 199 (64.8) 267 (87.0) 40 (13.0)
Education Under Diploma 124 (83.2) 25 (16.8) < 0.001a76 (51.0) 73 (49.0) < 0.001a57 (38.3) 92 (61.7) 0.667 119 (79.9) 30 (20.1) 0.186
Diploma 217 (69.8) 94 (30.2) 187 (60.1) 124 (39.9) 126 (40.5) 185 (59.5) 272 (87.5) 39 (12.5)
Associate’s degree 134 (68.7) 61 (31.3) 106 (54.4) 89 (45.6) 72 (36.9) 123 (63.1) 160 (82.1) 35 (17.9)
Bachelor’s degree 547 (64.4) 303 (35.6) 470 (55.3) 380 (44.7) 359 (42.2) 491 (57.8) 722 (84.9) 128 (15.1)
High educated 610 (58.5) 432 (41.5) 656 (63.0) 386 (37.0) 422 (40.5) 620 (59.5) 892 (85.6) 150 (14.4)
Employment Governmental employment 509 (67.0) 251 (33.0) < 0.001a420 (55.3) 340
(44.7) 0.009a289 (38.0) 471 (62.0) 0.246 657 (86.4) 103 (13.6) 0.040
Non-governmental employment 211 (57.8) 154 (42.2) 233 (63.8) 132 (36.2) 153 (41.9) 212 (58.1) 309 (84.7) 56 (15.3)
Freelancer 170 (53.3) 149 (46.7) 209 (65.5) 110 (34.5) 129 (40.4) 190 (59.6) 280 (87.8) 39 (12.2)
Student 249 (65.2) 133 (34.8) 229 (59.9) 153 (40.1) 155 (40.6) 227 (59.4) 301 (78.8) 81 (21.2)
Housewive 224 (73.0) 83 (27.0) 169 (55.0) 138 (45.0) 128 (41.7) 179 (58.3) 263 (85.7) 44 (14.3)
Retired 89 (74.2) 31 (25.8) 59 (49.2) 61 (50.8) 41 (34.2) 79 (65.8) 106 (88.3) 14 (11.7)
Unemployed 95 (54.2) 80 (45.7) 103 (58.6) 72 (44.1) 85 (48.5) 90 (51.5) 148 (84.5) 27 (15.4)
Daily-paid 71 (68.9) 32 (31.1) 63 (61.2) 40 (38.8) 47 (45.6) 56 (54.4) 87 (84.5) 16 (15.5)
Socioeconomic status High 340 (57.4) 252 (42.6) 0.001a368 (62.2) 224 (37.8) 0.071 252 (42.6) 340 (57.4) 0.009a505 (85.3) 87 (14.7) 0.729
Middle 757 (66.8) 376 (33.2) 640 (56.5) 493 (43.5) 423 (37.3) 710 (62.7) 968 (85.4) 165 (14.6)
Low 528 (64.7) 288 (35.3) 483 (59.2) 333 (40.8) 357 (43.8) 459 (56.3) 687 (84.2) 129 (15.8)
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Page 8 of 9
Banakaretal. BMC Public Health (2021) 21:2187
of news and data. One-third of the world’s population is
engaged in social media, and others are entangled with
the internet [26]. All of the mentioned media, such as
social media, print media, and Twitter, can produce
rumors [27].
On the other hand, social media consists of ubiquitous
health misinformation, which is described as information
that is not achieved from the greatest accessible evidence
by medical experts [13]. Social media have become an
effective and innovative channel of rumoring, influencing
people’s lifestyles, thoughts, and values [28]. A qualita-
tive study was carried out by Bastani etal. in Iran, which
represented the lack of accurate monitoring of social
media as the most important cause of rumoring. e cur-
rent study revealed that the contribution of healthcare
providers and authorities in improving public health lit-
eracy could control rumoring during the pandemic more
efficiently [29]. Singh etal. showed that while there was
a considerable enhancement in providing information
about health issues, coronavirus, and the origin of the
pandemic during the COVID-19 crisis, there were fewer
arguments about rumors and myths. However, misin-
formation and rumors play a pivotal role in pandemics
[13]. One of the main reasons for COVID-19 rumoring
is that most people share information on social networks
regardless of its accuracy. Pennycook etal. showed that
people could distinguish true and false news if they con-
sider the correctness of information [30]. e authorities
should identify and amplify the help-seeking information,
donations, and notifications required for the public; they
also have to detect and counter the blames or rumors to
improve the crisis information publishing strategies in
the future [31].
e current study showed the necessity of building
more social trust by authorities during the pandem-
ics. It should be noted that based on the experiences
achieved during the COVID-19 pandemic in Iran, a seri-
ous dilemma was formed between social network satellite
and national media. In the first phase of the pandemic,
foreign media worked hard to provide the news and
analyses of the pandemic’s origins in Iran. It was due to
the coincidence of the outbreak, national celebrations,
and elections in Iran. e news was soon republished on
social media. e primary purpose was to express the
political weakness and incompetence of the government,
which led to the skepticism of the public and serious
doubts regarding the national media. However, the politi-
cians could solve this problem partially through solidar-
ity and focusing on the national media. From the outset,
the national media was referred to by the government as
a source of COVID-19 news. A spokesman for the Min-
istry of Health announced the latest new cases, recov-
ered cases, and mortality of COVID-19 at News 14:00
daily. erefore, the national media gradually became
the main source of COVID-19 statistics. However, many
journalists tried harder to verify foreign and social media
rumors and consequently clarify the information.
Study limitations
e main limitation of this study is that the current study
was conducted at the beginning of the outbreak when
duality was formed between national media on the one
hand and foreign media and social networks on the other.
e second limitation is that due to the cross-sectional
design of this study, only correlations were investigated.
In addition, the current study may not be a representa-
tive sample of all population groups, particularly the
individual that have no access to the internet and the
illiterate individual. So, there is a possibility of selection
bias. erefore, different data collection strategies should
be implemented to ensure that all population’ groups
are included and the data collected are representative.
Finally, due to this pandemic’s rapid and sudden occur-
rence, another limitation of this study was the lack of val-
idated measures. ere is a risk of measurement bias, and
the objectivity of the measured concept may be question-
able. erefore, the other measurement strategies could
be used for the assessment to be valid and reliable.
Conclusion
Since rumors have adverse effects on citizens’ mental
health and crisis management, news management during
the outbreak is one of the most critical social issues that
policymakers should consider. Failure to tackle rumors
could lead to the ineffectiveness of pandemic policies.
Many of the measures of news management have been
performed via national media despite powerful competi-
tors such as foreign and social media. Providing accurate
news for all ages and gender groups with different educa-
tional backgrounds can help policymakers overcome the
rumors. What seems to be of paramount importance is
to build trust between the government and the public in
the pandemics. is issue is suggested to be examined in
future studies. As the main governance tool in large-scale
pandemics, the national media requires more trust and
closeness to the public sphere.
Abbreviations
WHO: World health organization.
Supplementary Information
The online version contains supplementary material available at https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1186/ s12889- 021- 12254-x.
Additional le1.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Page 9 of 9
Banakaretal. BMC Public Health (2021) 21:2187
Acknowledgments
Not applicable.
Authors’ contributions
MB, LZ, and ST contributed to designing the study, analyzed the data, inter-
preted the results, and performed the manuscript drafting. AKS, SSh contrib-
uted to the results interpretation and manuscript drafting. KBL contributed to
the interpretation of the results and study designation. All authors confirmed
and approved the final version for submission.
Funding
The research grant was provided by the Research Deputy of Shiraz University
of Medical Sciences (No. 98-01-106-22071). The funding body of the study
did not play any role in its design, collection, analysis, data interpretation, and
writing the manuscript.
Availability of data and materials
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study available from the
corresponding author on reasonable request.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
The ethics committee approved this study of Shiraz University of Medical Sci-
ences (code: IR.SUMS.REC.1399.093). Written informed consent was obtained
from the participants before completing the questionnaire form.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Author details
1 Health Policy Research Center, Institute of Health, Shiraz University of Medical
Sciences, Shiraz, Iran. 2 Department of Social Sciences, Yazd University, Yazd,
Iran.
Received: 14 February 2021 Accepted: 17 November 2021
References
1. Munster VJ, Koopmans M, van Doremalen N, van Riel D, de Wit E. A novel
coronavirus emerging in China—key questions for impact assessment. N
Engl J Med. 2020;382(8):692–4.
2. Organization WH. Responding to community spread of COVID-19: interim
guidance, 7 march 2020: World Health Organization; 2020.
3. Organization WH: Risk communication and community engagement (
RCCE) readiness and response to the 2019 novel coronaviruses ( 2019-
nCoV): interim guidance, 26 January 2020. 2020.
4. Wilder-Smith A, Freedman D. Isolation, quarantine, social distancing
and community containment: pivotal role for old-style public health
measures in the novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. J Travel Med.
2020;27(2):taaa020.
5. Depoux A, Martin S, Karafillakis E, Preet R, Wilder-Smith A, Larson H.
The pandemic of social media panic travels faster than the COVID-19
outbreak. Journal of Travel Medicine. J Travel Med. 2020;27(3):taaa031.
6. Lazer DM, Baum MA, Benkler Y, Berinsky AJ, Greenhill KM, Menczer F, et al.
The science of fake news. Science. 2018;359(6380):1094–6.
7. Tai Z, Sun T. The rumouring of SARS during the 2003 epidemic in China.
Sociol Health Illness. 2011;33(5):677–93.
8. Jinqiu Z. The SARS epidemic under China’s media policy. Media Asia.
2003;30(4):191–6.
9. Cheung EY. An outbreak of fear, rumours and stigma: psychosocial
support for the Ebola virus disease outbreak in West Africa. Intervention.
2015;13(1):70–6.
10. Marais F, Minkler M, Gibson N, Mwau B, Mehtar S, Ogunsola F, et al. A
community-engaged infection prevention and control approach to
Ebola. Health Promot Int. 2015;31(2):440–9.
11. Sahni H, Sharma H. Role of social media during the COVID-19 pandemic:
beneficial, destructive, or reconstructive? Int J Acad Med. 2020;6(2):70.
12. Ali S, Khalid A, Zahid E. Is COVID-19 immune to misinformation? A brief
overview. Asian Bioeth Rev. 2021;13(2):1-23.
13. Singh L, Bansal S, Bode L, Budak C, Chi G, Kawintiranon K, et al. A first look
at COVID-19 information and misinformation sharing on Twitter. ArXiv
[Preprint]. 2020:arXiv:2003.13907v1.
14. Larson HJ. The biggest pandemic risk? Viral Misinform Nat.
2018;562(7726):309–10.
15. McCauley M, Minsky S, Viswanath K. The H1N1 pandemic: media frames,
stigmatization and coping. BMC Public Health. 2013;13(1):1116.
16. Rassouli M, Ashrafizadeh H, Shirinabadi Farahani A, Akbari ME. COVID-19
Management in Iran as One of the Most Affected Countries in the World:
Advantages and Weaknesses. Front Public Health. 2020;8:510.
17. Tuite AR, Bogoch II, Sherbo R, Watts A, Fisman D, Khan K. Estimation
of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) burden and potential for
international dissemination of infection from Iran. Ann Intern Med.
2020;172(10):699–701.
18. Zarocostas J. How to fight an infodemic. Lancet. 2020;395(10225):676.
19. Shahi GK, Dirkson A, Majchrzak TA. An exploratory study of COVID-19
misinformation on twitter. Online Soc Netw Media. 2021;22:100104.
20. Shu K, Sliva A, Wang S, Tang J, Liu H. Fake news detection on social
media: a data mining perspective. ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter.
2017;19(1):22–36.
21. Dubois E, Minaeian S, Paquet-Labelle A, Beaudry S. Who to Trust on Social
Media: How Opinion Leaders and Seekers Avoid Disinformation and Echo
Chambers. Soc Media Soc. 2020;6(2):2056305120913993.
22. Kaler A. Health interventions and the persistence of rumour: the circula-
tion of sterility stories in African public health campaigns. Soc Sci Med.
2009;68(9):1711–9.
23. Afassinou K. Analysis of the impact of education rate on the rumor
spreading mechanism. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applica-
tions. 2014;414:43–52.
24. Okware S, Omaswa F, Zaramba S, Opio A, Lutwama J, Kamugisha
J, et al. An outbreak of Ebola in Uganda. Tropical Med Int Health.
2002;7(12):1068–75.
25. Thomas K. What should health science journalists do in epidemic
responses? AMA J Ethics. 2020;22(1):55–60.
26. Ortiz-Ospina E. The rise of social media. https:// ourwo rldin data. org/ rise-
of- social- media. Accessed 23 Nov 2021.
27. Dang A, Smit M, Moh’d A, Minghim R, Milios E: Toward understanding
how users respond to rumours in social media. In Proc. IEEE/ACM Int.
Conf. Adv. Social Netw. Anal. Mining (ASONAM). 2016: 777-84.
28. Zhu L, Zhao H, Wang H. Stability and spatial patterns of an epidemic-like
rumor propagation model with diffusions. Phys Scr. 2019;94(8):085007.
29. Bastani P, Bahrami MA. COVID-19 Related Misinformation on Social Media:
A Qualitative Study from Iran. J Med Internet Res. 2020. https:// doi. org/
10. 2196/ 18932. Epub ahead of print.
30. Pennycook G, McPhetres J, Zhang Y, Lu JG, Rand DG. Fighting COVID-19
misinformation on social media: experimental evidence for a scalable
accuracy-nudge intervention. Psychol Sci. 2020;31(7):770–80.
31. Li L, Zhang Q, Wang X, Zhang J, Wang T, Gao T-L, et al. Tsoi KK-f, Wang F-Y:
characterizing the propagation of situational information in social media
during COVID-19 epidemic: a case study on weibo. IEEE Transact Comput
SocSyst. 2020;7(2):556–62.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in pub-
lished maps and institutional affiliations.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com