During the Second World War, the internment of people of Japanese descent occurred in the U.S.A. and Canada simultaneously. Each country produced a documentary film about the internment. Although these documentaries were superficially similar, the two countries' political and cultural difference were reflected in them. In this study, a combined qualitative and quantitative analysis was conducted for the two films for a systematic comparative assessment. Consequently, substantial differences were observed in the two films on several respects. First, the number of “Frontal view of the internees” shots in the Canadian film exceeded those of Americans where people looked away from the camera and face the other direction. This phenomenon may be considered as a reflection of the cultural difference such as a family-like-co-existence and a symbolic assimilation. Second, when people of Japanese descent and Caucasian are in the same frame, they face opposite directions in the American film. However, the Japanese Canadians and Caucasians in the Canadian film face the same direction and are placed in an equivalent position on the screen. Third, based on the outliers, i.e., characteristic shots of the films, descriptions of Japanese and Western culture coexist in the Canadian film. In contrast, the U. S. documentary has only Western ones. In general, a reflection of the American way of assimilation and the Canadian co-existence in the content of the two war-time propaganda documentaries is observed. This study confirmed by combined qualitative and quantitative analysis the political and cultural differences of the two countries as reflected in their documentaries, which appeared similar on the surface. Although this study focused on documentaries produced during the Second World War, the method used here may be applied to the analysis of other video contents and contribute to future research in film-video media studies.

The COVID-19 Pandemic is a global problem, and to prevent the spread of the infections, it is crucial not only to develop vaccines and therapeutic medications but also to encourage people to change their behavior. Behavioral change to prevent the spread of infectious diseases has required people to give up many activities, especially pleasures outside the home. However, it is hoped that if most people behave cooperatively, individuals’ selfish pursuit of pleasure will have little effect on the spread of infection. This conflict between benefits for individuals and those for the community as a whole can be considered a social dilemma. Clarifying the factors that define people’s behavior during epidemics is essential for designing social systems after the COVID-19 Pandemic is declared over. Here, we analyze the determinants of people’s behavior in the framework of a social dilemma by conducting a two-wave panel survey in 2020 and 2021. The results show that in the first wave, psychological attitudes that affect prosocial behavior, such as reciprocity, positively affect prosocial behavior. However, in the second wave, these effects disappear, and other factors define people’s behavior. Continuous analysis of the factors determining people’s behavior under drastically changing circumstances can provide information for planning measures to promote desirable behavioral changes.

Regarding the impact of fact-checking, extensive research has been conducted on the correlation between fact-checking and individuals’ political beliefs, but this issue is difficult to address by policy. This study investigates the relationship between the effectiveness of fact-checking and literacy, as well as the relationship between the effectiveness of fact-checking and the types of media used to disseminate this information. These variables can be addressed through policy measures. We conducted the survey via the internet. Participants were tasked with making true or false judgments about real instances of misinformation before and after fact-checking. The results highlighted the significance of information literacy in achieving accurate perceptions through fact-checking. Secondly, in the case of COVID-19-related misinformation, fact-checking proved more effective on government websites than on social media. Thirdly, many individuals incorrectly identified misinformation as true even after fact-checking. These findings underscore the risk of indiscriminately disseminating fact-check results on social media, as doing so could potentially have the opposite effect if the recipients lack the requisite literacy.