.png){kind=icon}
.png){kind=icon}
Return
Seeing is Believing? Credibility and Behavioral Intentions Toward Evidence-Based and Misleading Health Information
.png){kind=icon}
PRE
AI
T
D
D
C
A
J
L
M
DOI：10.1177/08901171261468506.png)
.png){kind=icon}
Original request for help.png){kind=icon}
Share.png){kind=icon}
Save
Abstract
En 中文
<jats:sec>
<jats:title>Purpose</jats:title>
<jats:p>To examine how adults respond to real-world health videos that vary in credibility.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec>
<jats:title>Design</jats:title>
<jats:p>Randomized, within-subjects online experiment.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec>
<jats:title>Setting</jats:title>
<jats:p>Online U.S. survey.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec>
<jats:title>Sample</jats:title>
<jats:p>179 adults recruited from an online panel.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec>
<jats:title>Intervention</jats:title>
<jats:p>Participants viewed one misleading and one evidence-based health video, in randomized order.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec>
<jats:title>Measures</jats:title>
<jats:p>Before viewing, participants reported trust in traditional and social media. After each video, they rated perceived information credibility (PIC) and perceived source credibility (PSC), relevance, and behavioral intention to adopt the recommended behavior. Demographic data were also collected.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec>
<jats:title>Analysis</jats:title>
<jats:p>
Paired-samples
<jats:italic toggle="yes">t</jats:italic>
-tests and hierarchical linear regressions examined responses to evidence-based vs misleading videos and associations among the variables.
</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec>
<jats:title>Results</jats:title>
<jats:p>
The evidence-based video was rated higher for relevance (
<jats:italic toggle="yes">t</jats:italic>
(178) = −4.93,
<jats:italic toggle="yes">P</jats:italic>
< .001), PSC (
<jats:italic toggle="yes">t</jats:italic>
(178) = −11.36,
<jats:italic toggle="yes">P</jats:italic>
< .001), PIC (
<jats:italic toggle="yes">t</jats:italic>
(178) = −10.61,
<jats:italic toggle="yes">P</jats:italic>
< .001), and intention (
<jats:italic toggle="yes">t</jats:italic>
(178) = 5.73,
<jats:italic toggle="yes">P</jats:italic>
< .001). For both videos, PSC and relevance were positively associated with intention. Trust in traditional media was related to higher PSC (
<jats:italic toggle="yes">b</jats:italic>
= .43,
<jats:italic toggle="yes">P</jats:italic>
< .001) and PIC (
<jats:italic toggle="yes">b</jats:italic>
= .35,
<jats:italic toggle="yes">P</jats:italic>
< .001) of the evidence-based content, whereas trust in social media was related to higher PSC (
<jats:italic toggle="yes">b</jats:italic>
= .46,
<jats:italic toggle="yes">P</jats:italic>
< .001) and PIC (
<jats:italic toggle="yes">b</jats:italic>
= .33,
<jats:italic toggle="yes">P</jats:italic>
= .022) of the misleading content. Higher education was associated with a better ability to distinguish between the PSC and PIC of the two videos (
<jats:italic toggle="yes">p</jats:italic>
s < .01).
</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec>
<jats:title>Conclusions</jats:title>
<jats:p>Findings highlight psychological and contextual factors shaping engagement with online health information and the importance of speaker credibility and platform trust in promoting informed health decision-making.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
Journal
A
IF:
2.4
Papers:
190
Citations:
0
Organization
Cited Papers