Superlatives, clickbaits, appeals to authority, poor grammar, or boldface: Is editorial style related to the credibility of online health messages?
Superlatives, clickbaits, appeals to authority, poor grammar, or boldface: Is editorial style related to the credibility of online health messages?
复制标题
DOI：
10.3389/fpsyg.2022.940903
复制
发表时间：
2022
影响因子：
3.8
通讯作者：
Cavojova, Vladimira
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Greskovicova, Katarina;Masaryk, Radomir;Synak, Nikola;Cavojova, Vladimira
青少年作为积极的在线搜索者，很容易获得健康信息。他们在网上遇到的许多健康信息质量很差，甚至包含潜在的有害健康信息。在健康态度和行为方面，需要有能力确定通过在线技术传播的健康信息的质量。本研究旨在了解编辑健康相关信息的不同方式如何影响其在青少年中的可信度，以及这可能对健康信息的内容或格式产生什么影响。样本由300名中学生组成（法师= 17.26; SDage = 1.04; 66.3%为女性）。为了检验操纵编辑元素的效果，我们使用了七条关于不同水果和蔬菜的健康促进作用的短信。然后，参与者被要求用一个问题来评价信息的可信度。我们计算了二阶变量敏感度，作为假消息的可信度与真实中性消息的可信度的导数。我们还控制了参与者的科学推理，认知反思和媒体素养。青少年能够区分明显虚假的健康信息和真实的健康信息。有和没有编辑元素的真实信息被认为是同样值得信赖的，除了带有点击诱饵标题的新闻，这比其他真实信息更不值得信赖。当科学推理、分析推理和媒体素养被考虑时，结果也是一样的。应对青少年进行良好培训，使他们能够识别带有低质量内容特点的编辑内容的在线健康信息。他们还应接受如何评价这些信息的培训。
Adolescents, as active online searchers, have easy access to health information. Much health information they encounter online is of poor quality and even contains potentially harmful health information. The ability to identify the quality of health messages disseminated via online technologies is needed in terms of health attitudes and behaviors. This study aims to understand how different ways of editing health-related messages affect their credibility among adolescents and what impact this may have on the content or format of health information. The sample consisted of 300 secondary school students (Mage = 17.26; SDage = 1.04; 66.3% female). To examine the effects of manipulating editorial elements, we used seven short messages about the health-promoting effects of different fruits and vegetables. Participants were then asked to rate the message’s trustworthiness with a single question. We calculated second-order variable sensitivity as the derivative of the trustworthiness of a fake message from the trustworthiness of a true neutral message. We also controlled for participants’ scientific reasoning, cognitive reflection, and media literacy. Adolescents were able to distinguish overtly fake health messages from true health messages. True messages with and without editorial elements were perceived as equally trustworthy, except for news with clickbait headlines, which were less trustworthy than other true messages. The results were also the same when scientific reasoning, analytical reasoning, and media literacy were considered. Adolescents should be well trained to recognize online health messages with editorial elements characteristic of low-quality content. They should also be trained on how to evaluate these messages.