| With the development of Web 2.0,Internet users have gradually changed from passive information consumers to users who actively create content on social media platforms such as WeChat,Weibo,or Zhihu.Social media is popular globally and is an important channel for people to obtain health information.However,unlike in the case of the health information released by authoritative institutions such as hospitals and medical centers,the "user-generated content" on social media does not involve traditional checking mechanisms such as professional editing,as a result of which user-generated information ability,creation intention,and judgment of information authenticity are uneven,rendering the credibility of information uncertain.Health information is one type of information that the public pays the most attention to,but it is also one of the areas frequently prone to misinformation and rumors.It can be difficult for people to find reliable information sources and authentic information when they need it.The existence of health mis(dis)information will lead people to develop the wrong lifestyle,delay seeking treatment for illnesses,and do harm to personal health.There are many reasons behind the public health tragedy caused by health mis(dis)information,such as "too little,too late" corrective health information(health information intended to correct the public's false beliefs)that is full of scientific terms and low-quality content,and the lack of rational reasoning by the media and the public.The impact of health mis(dis)information does not go away if it is ignored;doing so only worsens the situation.Therefore,in addition to reducing or even eliminating false health information,necessary measures should be taken to correct people's incorrect ideas and eliminate the influence of false health information as much as possible.This study does the following:(1)It uses grounded theory analysis to examine users'emotions,attitudes,and behaviors after receiving the correct type of health information;and uses the stimulus organism response framework to explain the influence path of refuting health information.This study does not focus on the transmission mechanism of the mis(dis)information or the psychological cognitive characteristics of people's acceptance of it,but focuses on corrective health information(such as rumor-refuting),which is the opposite of health mis(dis)information(such as rumors),analyzing obstacles to and reasons for changes in public attitude and behavior,to improve the effectiveness of information communication.The results show that,after receiving external information stimulation,users evaluate and form their overall perception of its quality through the usefulness of its suggestions,the comprehensibility of the information content,the adequacy and rationality of the science behind it,and the attractiveness of the topics.In addition,the information's source is an important determinant of its authenticity.When cognitive conflict occurs,the public utilizes the opinions of trusted others to refute(or to convince themselves of)the authenticity of the information;further,they also use their own personal experiences or lessons to refute corrective health information.Their original knowledge reserve will affect the user's grasp of the information content,and the explanation of scientific principles will be more acceptable only if it is consistent with the basic theoretical knowledge they have mastered.Eventually,users follow a series of evaluation processes that can create four types of responses:The first is believing the corrective health information and expressing a willingness to make changes to one's actions accordingly.The second involves believing the corrective health information but,for reasons such as habits and psychological actions,being reluctant to make any changes.The third response is maintaining one's original beliefs,discounting the corrective health information,and refusing to make any changes of behavior.The fourth response is maintaining a skeptical or open attitude:thinking that the original cognitive information(health mis(dis)information)is correct,but admitting that this cognition is based on a perspective,rather than scientific evidence.Users whose who take the fourth response are willing to engage in scientific discussion.Further,they tend to choose conservative and healthy methods of doing things.Therefore,social media should be used to communicate information with the public.Discussions should be conducted based on scientific information,to enable members of the public with false beliefs or open attitudes to understand the correct information.Social media platforms can be used to shorten the time gap between rumors and rumor-debunking information,and effective discussions can be used to guide the public to think rationally before official rumors are debunked.When a pandemic occurs,the rapid evolution of the epidemic situation does not permit the immediate availability of certain scientific data,and it is necessary for professionals such as doctors to provide factual information to the public in a simple and transparent manner to avoid misunderstandings.All sectors of society should take action to make use of social media,the "portal" for public participation and discussion,and strive to provide authentic information and suggestions through social media channels such as WeChat,Weibo,Twitter,and Facebook.(2)This study constructs a theoretical model based on the elaboration likelihood model to identify credibility-oriented determinants that refute misinformation from three dimensions,that is,the information itself,information source,and information receiver.For this purpose,this study collected valid data through a questionnaire survey.This research model was evaluated using a partial least-squares structural equation model,and the combined effects of environmental stimuli(dimensions of information and source)were assessed using fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis.Different from previous research on health information adoption,the key to correction is to change the original belief of the information receiver,which is knowledge persuasion under the condition that the cognitive conflict of the information receiver is likely to be high.Moreover,corrective health information may be more dependent on scientific knowledge and is more difficult for the public to cognitively process.In the process of correcting health mis(dis)information,there is still a gap in the research on how the cognitive conflict and knowledge level of information receivers will affect the processing of corrective health information.In addition,this study further studies multiple situations in which different variables are combined to achieve a certain effect,solves the complex causal relationship caused by the interdependence of independent variables,and interprets the same result through a variety of scheme combinations.The results show that both perceived information quality and perceived source reliability can significantly affect the perceived credibility of health mis(dis)information rebuttals.The influence of the information itself on the perceived credibility of health mis(dis)information rebuttals is greater than that of the information source.The receivers'perception of the overall quality,usefulness,and understandability of information offsets the deficiencies of information sources to a certain extent.Further,the relevance,understandability,and usefulness of information have significant effects on perceived information quality;however,information adequacy does not have any significant impact on perceived information quality.The expertise and authority of the source significantly affect the perceived credibility of information.However,the information receivers'cognitive conflict and knowledge level weaken the influence of perceived information quality on the perceived credibility of health mis(dis)information rebuttals.By contrast,cognitive conflict strengthens the influence of perceived source credibility on the perceived credibility of health mis(dis)information rebuttals,while knowledge level has no significant moderating effect on the relationship between perceived source credibility and the perceived credibility of health mis(dis)information rebuttals.Therefore,it is necessary to improve the quality of corrective health information,and to replace false health information with high-quality,accurate,easy-to-digest,engaging,and easy-to-share corrective health information.Information producers should refer to points made in real medical reports and by authoritative experts,then improve the understandability of that information(such as making it clear,readable,easy to understand),its relevance(such as making it engaging and matching the audience and the concerned topic),and its usefulness(such as making feasible and practical suggestions),to improve the quality of the information.Information disseminators should timeously identify and filter bad information,and promote the health knowledge released by trusted providers.Authoritative experts and influencers should speak out,and opinion leaders in social media should influence the dissemination of information.Influencers with a large number of followers(such as fans)are encouraged to share corrective or high-quality information.In addition,social media can improve the identification and popularity of reliable information sources.It can distinguish the credibility of information publishers by using marks such as credit ratings,so that users can directly visit account subjects with high credibility to read health information published by authoritative official accounts,thereby reducing the probability that users will be exposed to health mis(dis)information.(3)It constructs an evolutionary game model of the main actors involved in health mis(dis)information governance,such as information producers,disseminators,and receivers.It examines the dynamic change in the behavioral strategy choice of tripartite subjects,analyzes the evolution path and stability strategy of health mis(dis)information governance,and analyzes the influence of key factors on the result of strategy evolution.The evolution process is visually displayed through simulation analysis,and the factors influencing the governance effect of health mis(dis)information are analyzed.The joint participation of and close cooperation among multiple subjects governs the health mis(dis)information in social media.This study makes a breakthrough in the study of single-transmission links and receiving links.The intention was to govern health mis(dis)information in social media by means of win-win interests and systematic autonomy,and to make their own interests consistent with social interests through adaptive learning and optimal decision-making of participants.The results show that the initial strategy will affect the evolution of the tripartite game.The more participants choose to produce true health information and improve their credibility and identification ability,the easier it will be for the system to reach the ideal state(information producers produce true health information,information transmitters have high credibility,and information receivers have strong identification ability).Health mis(dis)information with different hazard levels promotes the evolution of the health mis(dis)information governance system in different directions.The harmfulness of the mis(dis)information can encourage information receivers to improve their ability to recognize true health information and reliable information sources;however,the effect of accurate health information's value on receivers is related to the vigilance they show toward sources with low credibility and the receivers'compliance with the true information.Disseminators with high credibility should ensure the authenticity of the health information they disseminate.The source vigilance of information receivers prompts the disseminators to improve their credibility.Receivers' ability to distinguish mis(dis)information from authentic information encourages producers to produce authentic health information.Therefore,the health mis(dis)information governance system should carry out hierarchical management of information.Active information disseminators should focus on the selection of accurate,high-value health information to disseminate,and expose mis(dis)information.Passive information disseminators(such as companies simply providing platforms)should focus on identifying and filtering more harmful health mis(dis)information.New technologies such as artificial intelligence can be used to build a mature information governance system to reduce the cost of information governance.In addition,receivers should be aware that they may have mental limitations.Confidence in their existing knowledge should not be a barrier to accepting new ideas.Receivers should recognize that they may overestimate their level of knowledge and ability to understand health information.At the same time,they should improve their self-identification ability,such as by searching for more information and comparing data from different sources,using tools to verify the authenticity of pictures or videos,and actively seeking knowledge about unfamiliar topics.At the system level,fixing the information ecosystem should be done as a group;scientists,health information professionals,and journalists should take action to help the general public,such as improving their ability to identify authentic information and reliable information sources.Social scientists,psychologists,computer scientists,medical professionals,practitioners,and Internet consumers should work collaboratively against false health information. |
PDF Full Text Request