Suppr超能文献

人们何时在社交媒体上相信、查看和分享健康谣言?证据类型、健康素养和健康知识的影响。

When do people believe, check, and share health rumors on social media? Effects of evidence type, health literacy, and health knowledge.

机构信息

University of California at Davis, USA.

出版信息

J Health Psychol. 2023 Jun;28(7):607-619. doi: 10.1177/13591053221125992. Epub 2022 Sep 28.

Abstract

Vaccine rumors on social media endanger public health. This study examined how evidence types influenced perceived persuasiveness and relevance and engagement intentions of vaccine rumors. We conducted a 2 (evidence type: anecdotes vs. anecdotal statistics) × 2 (stance: pro-vaccine rumor vs. anti-vaccine rumor) online experiment ( = 551) and surveyed participants' health literacy and vaccine knowledge. Anecdotal statistics were perceived as more relevant than anecdotes and indirectly influenced perceived persuasiveness and behavior intentions. This finding was confirmed when vaccine rumors were pro-attitudinal. Health literacy positively predicted perceived persuasiveness; health knowledge negatively predicted relevance and behavior intentions. Practical implications and future research directions are discussed.

摘要

社交媒体上的疫苗谣言危害公共健康。本研究考察了证据类型如何影响疫苗谣言的说服力、相关性和参与意愿。我们进行了一项 2(证据类型:轶事 vs. 轶事统计)× 2(立场:支持疫苗谣言 vs. 反对疫苗谣言)的在线实验(n=551),并调查了参与者的健康素养和疫苗知识。轶事统计信息被认为比轶事更相关,并且间接地影响了感知的说服力和行为意图。当疫苗谣言持赞成态度时,这一发现得到了证实。健康素养正向预测感知说服力;健康知识负向预测相关性和行为意图。讨论了实际意义和未来的研究方向。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验