nach oben

Universal Access in the Information Society

Erschienen in:

04.08.2022 | Long Paper

Better safe than sorry: a study on older adults’ credibility judgments and spreading of health misinformation

verfasst von: Jia Zhou, Honglian Xiang, Bingjun Xie

Erschienen in: Universal Access in the Information Society | Ausgabe 3/2023

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

The online world is flooded with misinformation that puts older adults at risk, especially the misinformation about health and wellness. To understand older adults’ vulnerability to online misinformation, this study examines how eye-catching headlines and emotional images impact their credibility judgments and spreading of health misinformation. Fifty-nine older adults aged between 58 and 83 years participated in this experiment. Firstly, participants intuitively chose an article for further reading among a bunch of headlines. Then they viewed the emotional images. Finally, they judged the credibility of health articles and decided whether to share these articles. On average, participants only successfully judged 41.38% of health articles. Attractive headlines not only attracted participants’ clicks at first glance but also increased their credibility judgments on the content of health misinformation. Although participants were more willing to share an article they believed than not, 62.5% of the articles they want to share were falsehoods. Older adults in this study were notified of possible falsehoods in advance and were given enough time to discern misinformation before sharing. However, these efforts neither lead to a high judgment accuracy nor a high quality of information that they wanted to share. That may be on account of eye-catching headlines which misled participants into believing health misinformation. Besides, the most older adults in this study may follow the “better safe than sorry” principle when confronted with health misinformation, that is to say they would rather trust the misinformation to avoid health risks than doubt it.

Vorheriger Artikel An investigation of the virtual competitive scaffolding assistant: a prior knowledge perspective

Nächster Artikel The effect of learning analytics-based interventions in mobile learning on students' academic achievements, self-regulated learning skills, and motivations

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Gartner Inc.: Gartner Top Strategic Predictions for 2018 and Beyond (2017). https://www.gartner.com/smarterwithgartner/gartner-top-strategic-predictions-for-2018-and-beyond/. Accessed 27 Nov 2020

Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., Aral, S.: The spread of true and false news online. Science 359(6380), 1146–1151 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap9559CrossRef

RSTMH.: ECTMIH 2019: Next Steps (2019). https://rstmh.org/news-blog/news/ectmih-2019-next-steps. Accessed 27 Nov 2020

Grinberg, N., Joseph, K., Friedland, L., Swire-Thompson, B., Lazer, D.: Fake news on Twitter during the 2016 US presidential election. Science 363(6425), 374–378 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aau2706CrossRef

Guess, A., Nagler, J., Tucker, J.: Less than you think: prevalence and predictors of fake news dissemination on Facebook. Sci. Adv. 5, 1 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aau4586CrossRef

People's Daily Online: Survey Report on Internet Access Status and Risks of the Elderly (2018). http://yuqing.people.com.cn/n1/2018/0629/c405625-30096878.html. Accessed 2 Dec 2020

Brashier, N.M., Schacter, D.L.: Aging in an era of fake news. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. (2020). https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721420915872CrossRef

Xiang, H., Zhou, J., Xie, B.: Understanding older Adults’ vulnerability and reactions to telecommunication fraud: The effects of personality and cognition. In: Gao, Q., Zhou, J. (Eds) Human Aspects of IT for the Aged Population. Technology and Society. HCII 2020. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 12209. Springer, Cham (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50232-4_25

Boot, W.R., Nichols, T.A., Rogers, W.A., Fisk, A.D.: Design for aging. In: Salvendy, G. (Ed.) Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., pp 1442–1471 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118131350.ch52

10.

Carstensen, L.L., Isaacowitz, D.M., Charles, S.T.: Taking time seriously: A theory of socioemotional selectivity. Am. Psychol. 54(3), 165–181 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.3.165CrossRef

11.

Wang, Y., McKee, M., Torbica, A., Stuckler, D.: Systematic literature review on the spread of health-related misinformation on social media. Soc. Sci. Med. 240, 112552 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112552CrossRef

12.

Dobele, A., Lindgreen, A., Beverland, M., Vanhamme, J., van Wijk, R.: Why pass on viral messages? Because they connect emotionally. Bus. Horiz. 50(4), 291–304 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2007.01.004CrossRef

13.

Witte, K., Allen, M.: A meta-analysis of fear appeals: Implications for effective public health campaigns. Health Educ. Behav. 27(5), 591–615 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1177/109019810002700506CrossRef

14.

Acerbi, A.: Cognitive attraction and online misinformation. Palgrave Commun. 5(1), 15 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0224-yCrossRef

15.

Lindgreen, A., Vanhamme, J.: Viral marketing: The use of surprise. In: Advances in electronic marketing. IGI Global, pp 122–138 (2005). https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59140-321-0.ch007

16.

Chakraborty, A., Paranjape, B., Kakarla, S., Ganguly, N.: Stop clickbait: Detecting and preventing clickbaits in online news media. In: 2016 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM), pp 9–16 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1109/ASONAM.2016.7752207

17.

Fitzgerald, H.N., Sevi, B., Shook, N.J.: Fraudulent health claims: Further consideration of the role of emotions. Soc. Sci. Med. 259, 112979 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.112979CrossRef

18.

Gabielkov, M., Ramachandran, A., Chaintreau, A., Legout, A.: Social clicks: What and who gets read on twitter? Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGMETRICS International Conference on Measurement and Modeling of Computer Science - SIGMETRICS ’16, pp179–192 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1145/2896377.2901462

19.

Jenkins, E.L., Ilicic, J., Barklamb, A.M., McCaffrey, T.A.: Assessing the credibility and authenticity of social media content for applications in health communication: Scoping review. J. Med. Internet Res. 22(7), e17296 (2020). https://doi.org/10.2196/17296CrossRef

20.

Ma, T., Atkin, D.: User generated content and credibility evaluation of online health information: A meta analytic study. Telemat. Inf. 34(5), 472–486 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2016.09.009CrossRef

21.

Borah, P., Xiao, X.: The importance of ‘likes’: the interplay of message framing, source, and social endorsement on credibility perceptions of health information on Facebook. J. Health Commun. 23(4), 399–411 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2018.1455770CrossRef

22.

Seo, H., Blomberg, M., Altschwager, D., Vu, H.T.: Vulnerable populations and misinformation: a mixed-methods approach to underserved older adults’ online information assessment. New Media Soc. (2020). https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820925041CrossRef

23.

Armstrong, P.W., Naylor, C.D.: Counteracting health misinformation: a role for medical journals? JAMA 321, 19 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2019.5168CrossRef

24.

Chou, W.Y.S., Oh, A., Klein, W.M.P.: Addressing health-related misinformation on social media. JAMA 320(23), 2417 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.16865CrossRef

25.

Merchant, R.M., Asch, D.A.: Protecting the value of medical science in the age of social media and “fake news.” JAMA 320(23), 2415 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.18416CrossRef

26.

Mitchell, A., Oliphant, J.B.: Americans Immersed in COVID-19 News; Most Think Media are Doing Fairly Well Covering It (2020). https://www.journalism.org/2020/03/18/americans-immersed-in-covid-19-news-most-think-media-are-doing-fairly-well-covering-it/. Accessed 27 Nov 2020

27.

Bangkok Post.: Fake news rife as coronavirus fears spread (2020). https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/general/1852989/fake-news-rife-as-coronavirus-fears-spread. Accessed 27 Nov 2020

28.

Sudau, F., Friede, T., Grabowski, J., Koschack, J., Makedonski, P., Himmel, W.: Sources of information and behavioral patterns in online health forums: observational study. J. Med. Internet Res. 16(1), e10 (2014). https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2875CrossRef

29.

Federal Bureau Investigation (FBI).: 2019 Internet Crime Report (2019). https://pdf.ic3.gov/2019_IC3Report.pdf. Accessed 27 Nov 2020

30.

Poland, G.A., Spier, R.: Fear, misinformation, and innumerates: How the Wakefield paper, the press, and advocacy groups damaged the public health. Vaccine 28(12), 2361–2362 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2010.02.052CrossRef

31.

Broniatowski, D.A., Jamison, A.M., Qi, S., AlKulaib, L., Chen, T., Benton, A., Quinn, S.C., Dredze, M.: Weaponized health communication: Twitter bots and Russian trolls amplify the vaccine debate. Am. J. Public Health 108(10), 1378–1384 (2018). https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304567CrossRef

32.

Porat, T., Garaizar, P., Ferrero, M., Jones, H., Ashworth, M., Vadillo, M.A.: Content and source analysis of popular tweets following a recent case of diphtheria in Spain. Eur. J. Pub. Health 29(1), 117–122 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/cky144CrossRef

33.

Funk, C.: Mixed messages about public trust in science (2017). https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2017/12/08/mixed-messages-about-public-trust-in-science/. Accessed 27 Nov 2020

34.

Davenport, T.H., Beck, J.C.: The attention economy. Ubiquity, Article 6 (May 1–31, 2001) (2001). https://doi.org/10.1145/375348.376626

35.

Berger, J., Milkman, K.: Social transmission, emotion, and the virality of online content. Wharton Res. Pap. 106, 1–52 (2010)

36.

Brady, W.J., Wills, J.A., Jost, J.T., Tucker, J.A., Van Bavel, J.J.: Emotion shapes the diffusion of moralized content in social networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 114(28), 7313–7318 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1618923114CrossRef

37.

Botha, E., Reyneke, M.: To share or not to share: the role of content and emotion in viral marketing: content and emotion in viral marketing. J. Public Aff. 13(2), 160–171 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.1471CrossRef

38.

Eckler, P., Bolls, P.: Spreading the virus. J. Interact. Advert. 11(2), 1–11 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2011.10722180CrossRef

39.

Dillard, J.P., Nabi, R.L.: The persuasive influence of emotion in cancer prevention and detection messages. J. Commun. 56(1), 123–139 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00286.xCrossRef

40.

Green, E.C., Witte, K.: Can fear arousal in public health campaigns contribute to the decline of HIV prevalence? J. Health Commun. 11(3), 245–259 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730600613807CrossRef

41.

Stoneburner, R.L.: Population-level HIV declines and behavioral risk avoidance in Uganda. Science 304(5671), 714–718 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1093166CrossRef

42.

Heath, C., Bell, C., Sternberg, E.: Emotional selection in memes: the case of urban legends. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 81(6), 1028–1041 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.1028CrossRef

43.

Peters, K., Kashima, Y., Clark, A.: Talking about others: Emotionality and the dissemination of social information. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 39, 207–222 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.523CrossRef

44.

Pew Research Center.: Internet/broadband fact sheet (2021). https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/internet-broadband/ Accessed 24 December 2021

45.

Burnes, D., Henderson, C.R., Sheppard, C., Zhao, R., Pillemer, K., Lachs, M.S.: Prevalence of financial fraud and scams among older adults in the united states: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am. J. Public Health 107(8), e13–e21 (2017). https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2017.303821CrossRef

46.

Chinese Ministry of Public Security.: The ministry of public security has made remarkable progress in cracking down on fraud related to health products (2018). http://www.gov.cn/xinwen/2018-12/20/content_5350583.htm. Accessed 27 November 2020

47.

Nilsson, L.G.: Memory function in normal aging. Acta Neurol. Scand. 107(s179), 7–13 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0404.107.s179.5.xCrossRef

48.

Salthouse, T.A.: Trajectories of normal cognitive aging. Psychol. Aging 34(1), 17–24 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000288CrossRef

49.

Castle, E., Eisenberger, N.I., Seeman, T.E., Moons, W.G., Boggero, I.A., Grinblatt, M.S., Taylor, S.E.: Neural and behavioral bases of age differences in perceptions of trust. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 109(51), 20848–20852 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1218518109CrossRef

50.

Harmon-Jones, C., Bastian, B., Harmon-Jones, E.: The discrete emotions questionnaire: a new tool for measuring state self-reported emotions. PLoS ONE 11(8), e0159915 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0159915CrossRef

51.

China Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC).: The 47th China statistical report on Internet development (2021). http://www.cac.gov.cn/2021-02/03/c_1613923423079314.htm Accessed 24 December 2021

52.

Institute of Sociology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.: Report on Internet life of Chinese middle-aged and older adults (2018). https://tengyun.tencent.com/storage/source180712/files/%E4%B8%AD%E8%80%81%E5%B9%B4%E4%BA%92%E8%81%94%E7%BD%91%E7%94%9F%E6%B4%BB%E7%A0%94%E7%A9%B6%E6%8A%A5%E5%91%8A.pdf Accessed 24 December 2021

53.

Petz, G., Karpowicz, M., Fürschuß, H., Auinger, A., Stříteský, V., Holzinger, A.: Computational approaches for mining user’s opinions on the Web 2.0. Inf. Process. Manag. 50(6), 899–908 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2014.07.005CrossRef

54.

Ballinger, G.A.: Using generalized estimating equations for longitudinal data analysis. Organ. Res. Methods 7(2), 127–150 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428104263672CrossRef

55.

Judith, F.W., Baraka, S.C., Gregory, G., Joseph, K.: Clickbait-style headlines and journalism credibility in Sub-Saharan Africa: exploring audience perceptions. J. Med. Commun. Stud. 13(2), 50–56 (2021). https://doi.org/10.5897/JMCS2020.0715CrossRef

56.

Liu, M.T., Xue, J., Liu, Y.: The mechanism leads to successful clickbait promotion in WeChat social media platforms. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist. 33(9), 1952–1973 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1108/APJML-08-2020-0562CrossRef

57.

Munger, K., Luca, M., Nagler, J., Tucker, J.: The (null) effects of clickbait headlines on polarization, trust, and learning. Public Opin. Q. 84(1), 49–73 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfaa008CrossRef

58.

Tenenbaum, J.B., Griffiths, T.L., Kemp, C.: Theory-based Bayesian models of inductive learning and reasoning. Trends Cogn. Sci. 10(7), 309–318 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.05.009CrossRef

59.

Spaan, P.E.: Episodic and semantic memory functioning in very old age: Explanations from executive functioning and processing speed theories. Cogent Psychol. 2(1), 1109782 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2015.1109782CrossRef

60.

Molyneux, L., Coddington, M.: Aggregation, clickbait and their effect on perceptions of journalistic credibility and quality. J. Pract. 14(4), 429–446 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2019.1628658CrossRef

61.

Prensky, M.: Digital natives, digital immigrants part 2: Do they really think differently? On the Horizon 9(6), 1–6 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424843CrossRef

62.

Moravec, P.L., Minas, R.K., Dennis, A.R.: Fake news on social media: people believe what they want to believe when it makes no sense at all. MIS Q. 43(4), 1343–1360 (2019). https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2019/15505CrossRef

63.

Bago, B., Rand, D.G., Pennycook, G.: Fake news, fast and slow: Deliberation reduces belief in false (but not true) news headlines. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 149(8), 1608–1613 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000729CrossRef

64.

Pennycook, G., Rand, D.G.: Lazy, not biased: Susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning. Cognition (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.06.011CrossRef

65.

Pennycook, G., Rand, D.G.: The psychology of fake news. Trends Cogn. Sci. 25(5), 388–402 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2021.02.007CrossRef

66.

Pennycook, G., McPhetres, J., Zhang, Y., Lu, J.G., Rand, D.G.: Fighting COVID-19 misinformation on social media: experimental evidence for a scalable accuracy-nudge intervention. Psychol. Sci. 31(7), 770–780 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620939054CrossRef

67.

Pennycook, G., Epstein, Z., Mosleh, M., Arechar, A.A., Eckles, D., Rand, D.G.: Shifting attention to accuracy can reduce misinformation online. Nature 592(7855), 590–595 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03344-2CrossRef

68.

Lorenz-Spreen, P., Lewandowsky, S., Sunstein, C.R., Hertwig, R.: How behavioural sciences can promote truth, autonomy and democratic discourse online. Nat. Hum. Behav. 4(11), 1102–1109 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0889-7CrossRef

Titel: Better safe than sorry: a study on older adults’ credibility judgments and spreading of health misinformation
verfasst von: Jia Zhou
Honglian Xiang
Bingjun Xie
Publikationsdatum: 04.08.2022
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: Universal Access in the Information Society / Ausgabe 3/2023
Print ISSN: 1615-5289
Elektronische ISSN: 1615-5297
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-022-00899-3

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2023

A user-guided personalization methodology to facilitate new smart home occupancy

Responsive inclusive design (RiD): a new model for inclusive software development

Accessibility evaluation of university hospital websites in Turkey

If online learning works for you, what about deaf students? Emerging challenges of online learning for deaf and hearing-impaired students during COVID-19: a literature review

Making universal digital access universal: lessons from COVID-19 in Singapore

Developing a model to evaluate and improve user experience with hand motions in virtual reality environments

Premium Partner