Crisis Communication Timing and Rumor Correction in Public Health Agencies: Survey Experiment

Abstract

During public health crises, the rapid spread of misinformation and rumors poses significant challenges to risk communication and emergency management. This study investigates the impact of crisis communication timing on the efficacy of rumor correction by public health agencies. Utilizing a randomized survey experiment with a sample of 1,200 participants, we analyze how proactive timing (inoculation or prebunking) versus reactive timing (debunking or refutation) affects public trust, belief in rumors, and subsequent health-protective behavioral intentions. The results indicate that proactive communication significantly reduces the initial and subsequent belief in rumors and enhances the credibility of public health agencies compared to reactive debunking. Furthermore, we find that the level of pre-existing institutional trust moderates the relationship between communication timing and correction efficacy. Specifically, proactive inoculation is highly effective even among individuals with low initial institutional trust, whereas reactive debunking depends heavily on high pre-existing trust to achieve any corrective effect. These findings offer critical insights for public health authorities aiming to optimize their strategic communication frameworks during epidemics, pandemics, and other health emergencies.