Raffael Heiss, Leticia Bode, Zar Motik Adisuryo, Livia Brito, Ana Cuadra, Peng Gao, Yi Han, Megan Hearst, Kexin Huang, Andrea Kinyua, Tianan Lin, Yuwei Ma, Thomas Owen Manion, Youngjoo Roh, Ariana Salazar, Siqi Yue, Peizhen Zhang
{"title":"Debunking Mental Health Misperceptions in Short-Form Social Media Videos: An Experimental Test of Scientific Credibility Cues.","authors":"Raffael Heiss, Leticia Bode, Zar Motik Adisuryo, Livia Brito, Ana Cuadra, Peng Gao, Yi Han, Megan Hearst, Kexin Huang, Andrea Kinyua, Tianan Lin, Yuwei Ma, Thomas Owen Manion, Youngjoo Roh, Ariana Salazar, Siqi Yue, Peizhen Zhang","doi":"10.1080/10410236.2023.2301201","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In recent years, short-form social media videos have emerged as an important source of health-related advice. In this study, we investigate whether experts or ordinary users in such videos are more effective in debunking the common misperception that talking about suicide should be avoided. We also explore a new trend on TikTok and other platforms, in which users attempt to back up their arguments by displaying scientific articles in the background of their videos. To test the effect of source type (expert vs. ordinary user) and scientific references (present or absent), we conducted a 2 × 2 between-subject plus control group experiment (<i>n</i> = 956). In each condition, participants were shown a TikTok video that was approximately 30 seconds long. Our findings show that in all four treatment groups, participants reduced their misperceptions on the topic. The expert was rated as being more authoritative on the topic compared to the ordinary user. However, the expert was also rated as being less credible compared to the ordinary user. The inclusion of a scientific reference did not make a difference. Thus, both experts and ordinary users may be similarly persuasive in a short-form video environment.</p>","PeriodicalId":12889,"journal":{"name":"Health Communication","volume":" ","pages":"3059-3071"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Communication","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2023.2301201","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
In recent years, short-form social media videos have emerged as an important source of health-related advice. In this study, we investigate whether experts or ordinary users in such videos are more effective in debunking the common misperception that talking about suicide should be avoided. We also explore a new trend on TikTok and other platforms, in which users attempt to back up their arguments by displaying scientific articles in the background of their videos. To test the effect of source type (expert vs. ordinary user) and scientific references (present or absent), we conducted a 2 × 2 between-subject plus control group experiment (n = 956). In each condition, participants were shown a TikTok video that was approximately 30 seconds long. Our findings show that in all four treatment groups, participants reduced their misperceptions on the topic. The expert was rated as being more authoritative on the topic compared to the ordinary user. However, the expert was also rated as being less credible compared to the ordinary user. The inclusion of a scientific reference did not make a difference. Thus, both experts and ordinary users may be similarly persuasive in a short-form video environment.
期刊介绍:
As an outlet for scholarly intercourse between medical and social sciences, this noteworthy journal seeks to improve practical communication between caregivers and patients and between institutions and the public. Outstanding editorial board members and contributors from both medical and social science arenas collaborate to meet the challenges inherent in this goal. Although most inclusions are data-based, the journal also publishes pedagogical, methodological, theoretical, and applied articles using both quantitative or qualitative methods.