信息源对数字原住民健康信息可信度判断的启发式实验研究

doi:10.3772/j.issn.1000-0135.2020.04.006

情报学报

2020, Vol. 39

Issue (4): 399-408 DOI: 10.3772/j.issn.1000-0135.2020.04.006

情报分析方法与技术

本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索

信息源对数字原住民健康信息可信度判断的启发式实验研究

宋士杰¹, 赵宇翔², 宋小康³, 朱庆华¹

1.南京大学信息管理学院，南京 210023
2.南京理工大学经济管理学院，南京 210094
3.南京大学工程管理学院，南京 210093

Impact of Source Selection on Health Information Credibility Judgment: A Heuristic Information Processing Experiment among Digital Natives

Song Shijie¹, Zhao Yuxiang², Song Xiaokang³, Zhu Qinghua¹

1.School of Information Management, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210023
2.School of Economics and Management, Nanjing University of Science and Technology, Nanjing 210094
3.School of Management and Engineering, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210093

摘要
图/表
参考文献
相关文章 (3)

全文: PDF (803 KB) HTML (136 KB)
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

摘要互联网已成为消费者健康信息搜寻的重要渠道。Web 2.0环境下互联网信息传播的路径和形态嬗变使在线健康信息环境日趋多样与复杂，用户在异质信息源中选择恰当健康信息的难度显著提升。本文基于启发式信息处理视角，从理论层面梳理启发式与健康信息可信度判断之间的内在关联并构建概念模型。在此基础上，采用实验研究法，以受控健康信息文本与启发式信息线索网页框架构建实验材料，并招募高中生群体这一典型的数字原住民作为被试开展实验研究。实验结果表明，各类健康信息来源中的启发式信息线索对数字原住民的可信度判断具有显著影响，特别是机构信息源线索的出现会显著提高数字原住民的可信度评价。数字原住民对机构信息源的可信度评价显著高于商业信息源与社会化媒体信息源，而商业信息源与社会化媒体信息源之间没有显著差别。研究结论有助于进一步理解数字原住民的健康信息行为模式，并为政府部门和公共卫生机构更好地构建健康信息平台提供参考依据。

	服务

	把本文推荐给朋友
	加入我的书架
	加入引用管理器
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	作者相关文章
	宋士杰
	赵宇翔
	宋小康
	朱庆华

关键词 ：可信度判断, 健康信息搜寻, 信息源选择, 启发式信息处理, 实验方法, 数字原住民

收稿日期: 2019-10-10

基金资助:国家自然科学基金面上项目“协同视角下社会化搜索的形成机制及实现模式研究”（71473114）；江苏省研究生创新项目“信息过载对用户健康信息搜寻影响机制研究”（KYCX19_0022）。

作者简介: 宋士杰，男，1989年生，博士研究生，主要研究领域为用户信息行为、人机交互

引用本文:

宋士杰, 赵宇翔, 宋小康, 朱庆华. 信息源对数字原住民健康信息可信度判断的启发式实验研究[J]. 情报学报, 2020, 39(4): 399-408.
Song Shijie, Zhao Yuxiang, Song Xiaokang, Zhu Qinghua. Impact of Source Selection on Health Information Credibility Judgment: A Heuristic Information Processing Experiment among Digital Natives. 情报学报, 2020, 39(4): 399-408.

链接本文:

https://qbxb.istic.ac.cn/CN/10.3772/j.issn.1000-0135.2020.04.006 或 https://qbxb.istic.ac.cn/CN/Y2020/V39/I4/399

1 李月琳, 张秀, 王姗姗. 社交媒体健康信息质量研究:基于真伪健康信息特征的分析[J]. 情报学报, 2018, 37(3): 294-304.
2 EysenbachG. Medicine 2.0: Social networking, collaboration, participation, apomediation, and openness[J]. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 2008, 10(3): e22.
3 赵宇翔, 范哲, 朱庆华. 用户生成内容(UGC)概念解析及研究进展[J]. 中国图书馆学报, 2012, 38(5): 68-81.
4 OhS, ZhangY, ParkM. Cancer information seeking in social Q&A: Identifying health-related topics in cancer questions on Yahoo! Answers[J]. Information Research, 2016, 21(3): 718.
5 李月琳, 张秀. 大学生社交媒体健康信息甄别能力研究[J]. 图书情报知识, 2018(1): 66-77, 43.
6 FiksdalA S, KumbamuA, JadhavA S, et al. Evaluating the process of online health information searching: A qualitative approach to exploring consumer perspectives[J]. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 2014, 16(9): e224.
7 De ChoudhuryM, MorrisM R, WhiteR W. Seeking and sharing health information online: Comparing search engines and social media[C]// Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: ACM Press, 2014: 1365-1376.
8 LongoD R, SchubertS L, WrightB A, et al. Health information seeking, receipt, and use in diabetes self-management[J]. The Annals of Family Medicine, 2010, 8(4): 334-340.
9 HuX Y, BellR A, KravitzR L, et al. The prepared patient: Information seeking of online support group members before their medical appointments[J]. Journal of Health Communication, 2012, 17(8): 960-978.
10 AyersS L, KronenfeldJ J. Chronic illness and health-seeking information on the Internet[J]. Health, 2007, 11(3): 327-347.
11 周晓英. “互联网时代的医疗健康信息传播与利用”专题导语[J]. 图书与情报, 2015(4): 1.
12 闫慧, 余章馗, 姜怡婷. 国内外消费者健康信息学研究进展[J]. 图书情报工作, 2017, 61(6): 134-141.
13 HardyA P. The selection of channels when seeking information: Cost/benefit vs least-effort[J]. Information Processing & Management, 1982, 18(6): 289-293.
14 XuY, TanB C, YangL. Who will you ask? An empirical study of interpersonal task information seeking[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2006, 57(12): 1666-1677.
15 AllenT J. Managing the flow of technology: Technology transfer and the dissemination of technological information within the R&D organization[M]. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1977: 1.
16 GerstbergerP G, AllenT J. Criteria used by research and development engineers in the selection of an information source[J]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1968, 52(4): 272-279.
17 EysenbachG. Credibility of health information and digital media: New perspectives and implications for youth[M]// Digital Media, Youth, and Credibility. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2008: 123-154.
18 ZhaoS Y. Parental education and children’s online health information seeking: Beyond the digital divide debate[J]. Social Science & Medicine, 2009, 69(10): 1501-1505.
19 FlanaginA J, MetzgerM J. Digital media and youth: Unparalleled opportunity and unprecedented responsibility[M]// Digital Media, Youth, and Credibility. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2008: 5-27.
20 赵宇翔. 数字悟性: 基于数字原住民和数字移民的概念初探[J]. 中国图书馆学报, 2014, 40(6): 43-54.
21 李月琳, 闫希敏. 大学毕业生就业信息搜寻行为研究:信息源的选择与利用[J]. 图书情报知识, 2015(5): 57-65.
22 马费成. 信息资源管理的历史沿革——从信息源管理到信息资源管理[J]. 情报科学, 1998, 16(3): 251-256.
23 王芳, 张鑫. 国内外信息源选择研究进展[J]. 情报学进展, 2018, 12: 192-216.
24 De PietroR, ClarkN M. A sense-making approach to understanding adolescents selection of health information sources[J]. Health Education Quarterly, 1984, 11(4): 419-430.
25 DervinB, NilanM S, JacobsonT L. Improving predictions of information use: A comparison of predictor types in a health communication setting[J]. Annals of the International Communication Association, 1981, 5(1): 807-830.
26 EysenbachG, K?hlerC. How do consumers search for and appraise health information on the World Wide Web? Qualitative study using focus groups, usability tests, and in-depth interviews[J]. BMJ, 2002, 324(7337): 573-577.
27 ZhangY. The effects of preference for information on consumers online health information search behavior[J]. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 2013, 15(11): e234.
28 HuY F, Shyam SundarS. Effects of online health sources on credibility and behavioral intentions[J]. Communication Research, 2010, 37(1): 105-132.
29 龚文庠. 说服学的源起和发展趋向——从亚里士多德的“信誉证明(Ethos)”、“情感证明(Pathos)”、“逻辑证明(Logos)”三手段谈起[J]. 北京大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 1994, 31(3): 24-30.
30 HovlandC I, JanisI L, KelleyH H. Communication and persuasion[M]. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1953.
31 RiehS Y, DanielsonD R. Credibility: A multidisciplinary framework[J]. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 2007, 41(1): 307-364.
32 SbaffiL, RowleyJ. Trust and credibility in web-based health information: A review and agenda for future research[J]. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 2017, 19(6): e218.
33 SillenceE, BriggsP, HarrisP R, et al. How do patients evaluate and make use of online health information?[J]. Social Science & Medicine, 2007, 64(9): 1853-1862.
34 ChaikenS. Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion[J]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1980, 39(5): 752-766.
35 ChaikenS. The heuristic model of persuasion[C]// Proceedings of the Ontario Symposium on Personality and Social Psychology. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1987, 5: 3-39.
36 SundarS S, XuQ, Oeldorf-HirschA. vsAuthority. peer: How interface cues influence users[C]// Proceedings of the 27th International Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: ACM Press, 2009: 4231-4236.
37 MetzgerM J, FlanaginA J, MeddersR B. Social and heuristic approaches to credibility evaluation online[J]. Journal of Communication, 2010, 60(3): 413-439.
38 ChaikenS, TropeY. Dual-process theories in social psychology[M]. New York: Guilford Press, 1999.
39 SundarS S. The MAIN model: A heuristic approach to understanding technology effects on credibility[M]// Digital Media, Youth, and Credibility. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2008: 73-100.
40 赵宇翔, 朱庆华. 感知示能性在社会化媒体后续采纳阶段的调节效应初探[J]. 情报学报, 2013, 32(10): 1099-1111.
41 FoggB J, TsengH. The elements of computer credibility[C]// Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: ACM Press, 1999: 80-87.
42 WaltherJ B, WangZ M, LohT. The effect of top-level domains and advertisements on health web site credibility[J]. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 2004, 6(3): e24.
43 EastinM S. Credibility assessments of online health information: The effects of source expertise and knowledge of content[J]. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2001, 6(4): JCMC643.
44 WesterwickA. Effects of sponsorship, web site design, and Google ranking on the credibility of online information[J]. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2013, 18(2): 194-211.
45 ZhangY. Beyond quality and accessibility: Source selection in consumer health information searching[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2014, 65(5): 911-927.
46 ZhangY, SunY L, KimY. The influence of individual differences on consumer s selection of online sources for health information[J]. Computers in Human Behavior, 2017, 67: 303-312.
47 宋士杰, 赵宇翔, 宋小康, 等. 互联网环境下失真健康信息可信度判断的影响因素研究[J]. 中国图书馆学报, 2019, 45(4): 72-85.
48 FlanaginA J, MetzgerM J. Perceptions of Internet information credibility[J]. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 2000, 77(3): 515-540.
49 McComasK A, TrumboC W. Source credibility in environmental health-risk controversies: Application of meyer s credibility index[J]. Risk Analysis, 2001, 21(3): 467-480.
50 NormanC D, SkinnerH A. eHealth literacy: Essential skills for consumer health in a networked world[J]. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 2006, 8(2): e9.
51 NormanC D, SkinnerH A. eHEALS: The eHealth literacy scale[J]. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 2006, 8(4): e27.
52 ChungS, ParkB K, NahmE S. The Korean eHealth Literacy Scale (K-eHEALS): Reliability and validity testing in younger adults recruited online[J]. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 2018, 20(4): e138.
53 WongD K K, CheungM K. Online health information seeking and eHealth literacy among patients attending a primary care clinic in Hong Kong: A cross-sectional survey[J]. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 2019, 21(3): e10831.
54 ChapmanD W, CarterJ F. Translation procedures for the cross cultural use of measurement instruments[J]. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 1979, 1(3): 71-76.
55 TukeyJ W. Comparing individual means in the analysis of variance[J]. Biometrics, 1949, 5(2): 99-114.
56 FoggB, TsengH. The elements of computer credibility[C]// Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: ACM Press, 1999: 80-87.
57 RobinsD, HolmesJ, StansburyM. Consumer health information on the Web: The relationship of visual design and perceptions of credibility[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2010, 61(1): 13-29.
58 WarnickB. Online ethos: Source credibility in an “authorless” environment[J]. American Behavioral Scientist, 2004, 48(2): 256-265.
59 周晓英, 宋丹, 张秀梅. 健康素养与健康信息传播利用的国家战略研究[J]. 图书与情报, 2015(4): 2-10.
60 GrayN J, KleinJ D, NoyceP R, et al. Health information-seeking behaviour in adolescence: The place of the Internet[J]. Social Science & Medicine, 2005, 60(7): 1467-1478.
61 SawyerS M, AfifiR A, BearingerL H, et al. Adolescence: A foundation for future health[J]. The Lancet, 2012, 379(9826): 1630-1640.