skip to main content
10.1145/3025453.3025874acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Public Access

The Role of Explanations in Casual Observational Learning about Nutrition

Published:02 May 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

The ubiquity of internet-based nutrition information sharing indicates an opportunity to use social computing platforms to promote nutrition literacy and healthy nutritional choices. We conducted a series of experiments with unpaid volunteers using an online Nutrition Knowledge Test. The test asked participants to examine pairs of photographed meals and identify meals higher in a specific macronutrient (e.g., carbohydrate). After each answer, participants received no feedback on the accuracy of their answers, viewed proportions of peers choosing each response, received correctness feedback from an expert dietitian with or without expert-generated explanations, or received correctness feedback with crowd-generated explanations. The results showed that neither viewing peer responses nor correctness feedback alone improved learning. However, correctness feedback with explanations (i.e., modeling) led to significant learning gains, with no significant difference between explanations generated by experts or peers. This suggests the importance of explanations in social computing-based casual learning about nutrition and the potential for scaling this approach via crowdsourcing.

References

  1. Sofiane Abbar, Yelena Mejova, Ingmar Weber. 2015. You tweet what you eat: Studying food consumption through Twitter. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 3197--3206. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2702123.2702153Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Elena Agapie, Lucas Colusso, Sean A. Munson and Gary Hsieh. 2016. Plansourcing: Generating behavior change plans with friends and crowds. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 119--133. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2818048.2819943Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Lisa R. Anderson and Charles A. Holt. 2008. Information cascade experiments. Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, 335--343. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1574-0722(07)00039-X Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. American Dietetic Association. 2011. Nutrition and you: Trends 2011 survey, public opinion on food and nutrition: 20 years of insights. Retrieved September 15, 2016 from http://www.eatright.org/nutritiontrendsGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. American Public Health Association. 2016. What is Public Health? Retrieved September 15, 2016 from www.apha.orgGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Albert Bandura Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1: 1--26. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Albert Bandura, Richard H. Walters. 1977. Social learning theory. Prentice Hall, Oxford, England.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Nancy D. Berkman, Stacey L. Sheridan, Katrina E. Donahue, David J. Halpern and Karen Crotty Low. 2011. health literacy and health outcomes: An updated systematic review. Annals of Internal Medicine, 155, 2: 97--107. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Benjamin Samuel Bloom. 1956. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. NY: D. McKay Co., Inc.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Elena T. Carbone and Jamie M. Zoellner. 2012. Nutrition and health literacy: A systematic review to inform nutrition research and practice. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 112, 2: 254--265. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Yubo Chen, Qi Wang and Jinhong Xie. 2011. Online social interactions: A natural experiment on word of mouth versus observational learning. Journal of Marketing Research, 48, 2: 238--254. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Isobel R. Contento. 2007. Nutrition Education: Linking Research, Theory, and Practice. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Edward L. Deci and Richard M. Ryan. 2010. Intrinsic motivation. In Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology (4th ed.), Irving B. Weiner and W. Edward Craighead (eds.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, 1--2. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Allison E. Doub, Aron Levin, Charles Edward Heath and Kristie LeVangie. 2015. Mobile app-etite: Consumer attitudes towards and use of mobile technology in the context of eating behaviour. Journal of Direct, Data and Digital Marketing Practice, 17, 2: 114--129. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Ryan Drapeau, Lydia B. Chilton, Jonathan Bragg and Daniel S. Weld. 2016. Microtalk: Using argumentation to improve crowdsourcing accuracy. In Proceedings of the 4th AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing (HCOMP).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Daniel A. Epstein, Felicia Cordeiro, James Fogarty, Gary Hsieh and Sean A. Munson. 2016. Crumbs: Lightweight daily food challenges to promote engagement and mindfulness. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Feng Gao, Enrico Costanza and mc schraefel. 2012. Honey= sugar means unhealthy: Investigating how people apply knowledge to rate food's healthiness. Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Conference on Ubiquitous Computing, 71--80. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2370216.2370228Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Laura Germine, Ken Nakayama, Bradley C. Duchaine, Christopher F. Chabris, Garga Chatterjee and Jeremy B. Wilmer. 2012. Is the web as good as the lab? Comparable performance from web and lab in cognitive/perceptual experiments. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 5: 847--857. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Laura Germine, Ken Nakayama, Eric Loken, Bradley Duchaine, Christopher Chabris, Garga Chatterjee and Jeremy Wilmer. 2010. Downloadable science: Comparing data from internet and lab-based psychology experiments. Journal of Vision, 10, 7: 682682.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Heather Gibbs and Karen Chapman-Novakofski. 2012. A review of health literacy and its relationship to nutrition education. Topics in Clinical Nutrition, 27, 4: 325--333. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Ralph Haefner. 1932. Casual learning of word meanings. The Journal of Educational Research, 25, 45: 267--277. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Sture Holm. 1979. A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian journal of statistics: 65--70.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Yuheng Hu, Lydia Manikonda and Subbarao Kambhampati. 2014. What we instagram: A first analysis of instagram photo content and user types. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Angela A. Hung and Charles R. Plott. 2001. Information cascades: Replication and an extension to majority rule and conformity-rewarding institutions. The American economic review, 91, 5: 1508--1520. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Jean-Fabrice Lebraty and Katia Lobre-Lebraty. The dangers of crowdsourcing. 2013. The dangers of Crowdsourcing. In Crowdsourcing. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 97--100. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Lena Mamykina, Andrew D. Miller, Yevgeniy Medynsky, Catherine Grevet, Patricia R. Davidson, Michael A. Terry, Elizabeth D. Mynatt. 2011. Examining the Impact of Social Tagging on Sensemaking in Nutrition Management, in the Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2011 http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1978942.1979037Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Lena Mamykina, Thomas N. Smyth, Jill P. Dimond and Krzysztof Z. Gajos. 2016. Learning from the crowd: Observational learning in crowdsourcing communities. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2635--2644. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2858036.2858560Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Michael K. Paasche-Orlow and Michael S. Wolf. 2007. The causal pathways linking health literacy to health outcomes. American Journal of Health Behavior, 31, Supplement 1: S19-S26. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Katharina Reinecke and Krzysztof Z. Gajos. Labinthewild: Conducting large-scale online experiments with uncompensated samples. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, 1364--1378. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2675133.2675246Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. S. C. Ratzan and R. M. Parker. 2000. Introduction. In National Library of Medicine Current Bibliographies in Medicine: Health Literacy, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services., Bethesda, MD.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. D. Schacter, D. Gilbert, D. Wegner and M.K. Nock. 2014. Psychology. NY: Worth Publishers.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Tracy L. Scott, Julie A. Gazmararian, Mark V. Williams and David W. Baker. 2002. Health literacy and preventive health care use among medicare enrollees in a managed care organization. Medical Care, 40, 5: 395--404. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Sanket Sharma and Munmun De Choudhury. 2015. Detecting and characterizing nutritional information of food and ingestion content in instagram. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web, 115--116. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2740908.2742754Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Inge Spronk, Charina Kullen, Catriona Burdon and Helen O'Connor. 2014. Relationship between nutrition knowledge and dietary intake. British Journal of Nutrition, 111, 10: 1713--1726. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Roumen Vesselinov and John Grego. 2012. Duolingo effectiveness study. City University of NY,Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Luis von Ahn. 2013. Duolingo: Learn a language for free while helping to translate the web. In Proceedings of the 2013 international conference on Intelligent user interfaces, 1--2. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2449396.2449398Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Anita Williams Woolley, Christopher F. Chabris, Alex Pentland, Nada Hashmi and Thomas W. Malone. 2010. Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science, 330, 6004: 686--688. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Keiji Yanai and Yoshiyuki Kawano. 2014. Twitter food photo mining and analysis for one hundred kinds of foods. In Advances in Multimedia Information Processing -- PCM 2014: 15th Pacific-Rim Conference on Multimedia, Kuching, Malaysia, December 1--4, 2014, Proceedings, 22--32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978--3--319--13168--9_3Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Juanjuan Zhang and Peng Liu. 2012. Rational herding in microloan markets. Management science, 58, 5: 892912.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Jamie Zoellner, Carol Connell, Wendy Bounds, LaShaundrea Crook and Kathy Yadrick. 2009. Peer reviewed: Nutrition literacy status and preferred nutrition communication channels among adults in the lower mississippi delta. Preventing Chronic Disease, 6, 4: A128.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Conferences
    CHI '17: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
    May 2017
    7138 pages
    ISBN:9781450346559
    DOI:10.1145/3025453

    Copyright © 2017 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 2 May 2017

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article

    Acceptance Rates

    CHI '17 Paper Acceptance Rate600of2,400submissions,25%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader