突发自然灾害情境下信息源选择影响因素及其关系研究：基于认知权威和认知-情感信任理论

doi:10.3772/j.issn.1000-0135.2026.07.004

情报学报

2026, Vol. 45

Issue (7): 969-985 DOI: 10.3772/j.issn.1000-0135.2026.07.004

情报理论与方法

本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索

突发自然灾害情境下信息源选择影响因素及其关系研究：基于认知权威和认知-情感信任理论

李月琳^1,3, 张向怡虹^1,2,3

1.南开大学信息与传播学院，天津 300350
2.南开大学商学院，天津 300071
3.南开大学信息行为科学研究中心，天津 300071

Factors and Their Relationships in Information Source Selection During Sudden Natural Disasters: Based on Cognitive Authority and Cognitive-Affective Trust Theory

Li Yuelin^1,3, Zhang Xiangyihong^1,2,3

1.School of Information and Communication, Nankai University, Tianjin 300350
2.Business School, Nankai University, Tianjin 300071
3.Research Center for Information Behavior, Nankai University, Tianjin 300071

摘要
图/表
参考文献
相关文章 (5)

全文: PDF (2698 KB) HTML (1 KB)
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

摘要分析突发自然灾害情境下用户信息源选择影响因素及其关系，可以为政府提高信息公开质量和优化信息公开策略提供指导。本研究采用探索性序列设计的混合研究方法，基于认知权威和认知-情感信任理论，在文献回顾和焦点小组访谈的基础上，构建突发自然灾害情境下用户信息源选择影响因素理论模型，通过问卷调查、结构方程模型和模糊集定性比较分析方法进行验证，探讨不同类型信息源影响因素的条件组合。本研究发现，信息源质量属性和认知信任对官方媒体选择意愿有显著影响，信息源关系属性和情感信任对非官方网络媒体选择意愿有显著影响，而人际信息源选择意愿受到以上所有因素的影响。认知权威判断在不同类型的信息源选择过程中均发挥了核心作用。任务重要性和紧急性负向调节认知权威判断对网络信息源选择的影响。本研究揭示了认知权威判断的动态性，为认知权威理论在突发事件情境中的应用提供了新视角，为提高政府信息公开质量提供了启示。

	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
	李月琳
	张向怡虹

关键词 ：认知权威, 认知-情感信任理论, 突发自然灾害, 信息源选择, 政府信息公开

收稿日期: 2025-08-25

基金资助:国家社会科学基金重大项目“国家重大突发事件信息公开质量研究”（20&ZD142）。

作者简介: 李月琳，1970年生，博士，二级教授，博士生导师，主要研究方向为信息行为、交互信息检索、健康信息学、数字图书馆、智慧图书馆与信息系统评估、信息公开质量，E-mail：yuelinli@nankai.edu.cn；张向怡虹，1998年生，博士研究生，主要研究方向为信息行为、信息公开质量；

引用本文:

李月琳, 张向怡虹. 突发自然灾害情境下信息源选择影响因素及其关系研究：基于认知权威和认知-情感信任理论[J]. 情报学报, 2026, 45(7): 969-985.
Li Yuelin, Zhang Xiangyihong. Factors and Their Relationships in Information Source Selection During Sudden Natural Disasters: Based on Cognitive Authority and Cognitive-Affective Trust Theory. 情报学报, 2026, 45(7): 969-985.

链接本文:

https://qbxb.istic.ac.cn/CN/10.3772/j.issn.1000-0135.2026.07.004 或 https://qbxb.istic.ac.cn/CN/Y2026/V45/I7/969

1 李月琳, 胡玲玲. 基于环境与情境的信息搜寻与搜索[J]. 情报科学, 2012, 30(1): 110-114.
2 Taylor R S. Information use environments[M]// Progress in Communication Sciences. Norwood: Ablex Publishing, 1991: 217-255.
3 李晶, 龙秋爽, 明均仁. 突发公共事件背景下信息源选择多样性研究: 概念内涵与测度方法[J]. 图书馆论坛, 2023, 43(2): 3-13.
4 Rieh S Y. Judgment of information quality and cognitive authority in the Web[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2002, 53(2): 145-161.
5 Luo C, Zheng H, Yang X Y, et al. From search to share: exploring the relationships between seeking health information from diverse online sources and health misinformation sharing[J]. Library & Information Science Research, 2025, 47(3): 101370.
6 初彦伯, 王萍, 胡姝姝. 社交媒体健康信息用户信任形成机理研究[J]. 现代情报, 2025, 45(1): 97-111.
7 章小童, 李月琳, 辛然, 等. 多元属性任务与用户网络健康信息源选择偏好研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2024, 68(8): 63-79.
8 Yu M L, Guo Y C, Wang J H, et al. Antecedents of health short videos’ information adoption and continuous usage intention: evidence from SEM and fsQCA[J]. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 2025, 125(5): 1869-1891.
9 明均仁, 周莉媛, 朱君妍. 突发公共事件下用户信息源选择多样性影响因素研究[J]. 科技创新发展战略研究, 2023, 7(6): 56-62.
10 李月琳, 王姗姗, 阮妹. 跨源健康信息搜寻的动机、信息源选择及行为路径[J]. 情报学报, 2021, 40(1): 77-87.
11 Huo F F, Huo C G. Exploring the determinants of maternal and infant health knowledge adoption, sharing and purchase in short videos from an empathy theory perspective[J]. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 2025, 77(4): 733-759.
12 Hirvonen N, Multas A M, Nyg?rd T, et al. Cognitive authority: a scoping review of empirical research. An Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST) paper[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2025, 76(1): 155-192.
13 Wilson P. Second-hand knowledge: an inquiry into cognitive authority[M]. Westport: Greenwood Press, 1983: 3-196.
14 McAllister D J. Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 1995, 38(1): 24-59.
15 Lopez-Lopez E, Abels C M, Holford D, et al. Generative artificial intelligence-mediated confirmation bias in health information seeking[J]. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 2025, 1550(1): 23-36.
16 Savolainen R. Media credibility and cognitive authority. The case of seeking orienting information[J]. Information Research, 2007, 12(3): 319.
17 Zhuang W, Zeng Q F, Zhang Y, et al. What makes user-generated content more helpful on social media platforms? Insights from creator interactivity perspective[J]. Information Processing & Management, 2023, 60(2): 103201.
18 Liu J Q, Wang Y W, Mandal S, et al. Exploring the immediate and short-term effects of peer advice and cognitive authority on web search behavior[J]. Information Processing & Management, 2019, 56(3): 1010-1025.
19 Pang H, Liu Y X Y. Untangling the effect of cognitive trust and perceived value on health-related information seeking, sharing and psychological well-being: motivations sought perspective[J]. Telematics and Informatics, 2023, 79: 101964.
20 王芳, 张鑫, 翟羽佳. 国内外信息源选择研究述评及一个整合的理论模型[J]. 中国图书馆学报, 2017, 43(2): 96-116.
21 张泰瑞, 李月琳, 张建伟. 突发公共危机信息公开情境下的公众信息行为及适应性特征[J]. 图书馆论坛, 2025, 45(2): 137-147.
22 Dong X Y, Tang Z Y, Wang H C. Understanding the impact of government social media on citizens’ unverified information avoidance behavior during health crises: the health belief model[J]. Online Information Review, 2025, 49(2): 269-289.
23 Zheng H, Chen X Y, Jiang S H, et al. How does health information seeking from different online sources trigger cyberchondria? The roles of online information overload and information trust[J]. Information Processing & Management, 2023, 60(4): 103364.
24 张云开, 李月琳, 张泰瑞, 等. 从犹豫到接受: 意义建构视角下公众疫苗认知演变路径研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2023, 67(16): 41-51.
25 Bonfanti R C, Oberti B, Ravazzoli E, et al. The role of trust in disaster risk reduction: a critical review[J]. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2024, 21(1): 29.
26 李睿, 孟展豪, 康心寓, 等. 突发灾害情境中的受灾者信息行为特征分析——以7·20郑州地铁进水事件为例[J]. 情报理论与实践, 2023, 46(3): 127-133.
27 Creswell J W, Clark V L. Designing and conducting mixed methods research[M]. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, 2007.
28 Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology[J]. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2006, 3(2): 77-101.
29 Neal D M, McKenzie P J. Putting the pieces together: endometriosis blogs, cognitive authority, and collaborative information behavior[J]. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 2011, 99(2): 127-134.
30 Hirvonen N, Palmgren-Neuvonen L. Cognitive authorities in health education classrooms: a nexus analysis on group-based learning tasks[J]. Library & Information Science Research, 2019, 41(3): 100964.
31 B?hmer K. #QuédateEnCasa, because it’s not just flu: the impact of cognitive authorities’ communication on human behaviour during the pandemics[J]. Diskuze v Psychologii, 2021, 2(2): 33-47.
32 Ragin C C. Redesigning social inquiry: fuzzy sets and beyond[M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008: 44-68.
33 杜运周, 刘秋辰, 程建青. 什么样的营商环境生态产生城市高创业活跃度?——基于制度组态的分析[J]. 管理世界, 2020, 36(9): 141-155.
34 Pappas I O, Woodside A G. Fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA): guidelines for research practice in information systems and marketing[J]. International Journal of Information Management, 2021, 58: 102310.
35 Ding H E. What kinds of countries have better innovation performance? A country-level fsQCA and NCA study[J]. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 2022, 7(4): 100215.
36 张明, 杜运周. 组织与管理研究中QCA方法的应用: 定位、策略和方向[J]. 管理学报, 2019, 16(9): 1312-1323.
37 Zhang X F, Du L, Huang Y L, et al. COVID-19 information seeking and individuals’ protective behaviors: examining the role of information sources and information content[J]. BMC Public Health, 2024, 24(1): 316.
38 Lee H S, Smith C A. A comparative mixed methods study on health information seeking among US-born/US-dwelling, Korean-born/US-dwelling, and Korean-born/Korean-dwelling mothers[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2022, 73(7): 929-943.
39 费孝通. 乡土中国[M]. 上海: 上海人民出版社, 2019: 214.
40 Ye J F, Zou W X, Huang L Y, et al. Health information acquisition and lifestyle choices among cancer survivors in China: examining the roles of patient-centered communication, patient trust, and system trust[J]. Journal of Health Psychology, 2025, 30(13): 3865-3879.