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AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验