Debunking Mental Health Misperceptions in Short-Form Social Media Videos: An Experimental Test of Scientific Credibility Cues.

IF 3 3区 医学 Q1 COMMUNICATION Health Communication Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-22 DOI:10.1080/10410236.2023.2301201
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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
揭穿社交媒体短视频中的心理健康误解:科学可信度线索的实验测试。
近年来,社交媒体短视频已成为健康相关建议的重要来源。在本研究中,我们调查了在此类视频中,专家还是普通用户更能有效地揭穿 "应避免谈论自杀 "这一普遍误解。我们还探讨了 TikTok 和其他平台上的一种新趋势,即用户试图通过在视频背景中显示科学文章来支持自己的论点。为了测试来源类型(专家与普通用户)和科学参考文献(存在或不存在)的影响,我们进行了 2 × 2 受试者间加对照组实验(n = 956)。在每种条件下,参与者都会观看一段时长约为 30 秒的 TikTok 视频。我们的研究结果表明,在所有四个处理组中,参与者都减少了对主题的错误认知。与普通用户相比,专家在该主题上被评为更具权威性。然而,与普通用户相比,专家的可信度也较低。科学参考文献的加入并不会产生影响。因此,在短视频环境中,专家和普通用户可能具有相似的说服力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.20
自引率
10.30%
发文量
184
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.
期刊最新文献
Advancing the Integrative Theory of Communication Work: Developing and Validating a Measure of Communication Work Among U.S. Adults with Chronic Illnesses. The Impact of Healthcare Digitalization on Communication with Healthcare Providers: The Case of People Who are Hard of Hearing. Disclosing Sexual Dysfunction in Newly Established Romantic Relationships: An Experimental Test of Five Strategies from the Revelation Risk Model. Conspiracy Thinking, Conspiracy Beliefs, Denialism, Motivation, and COVID-19 Vaccination Intentions in Costa Rica. Cognitive Fatigue, Humor, and Physical Activity: A Field Experiment Testing Whether Humorous Messages Promote Walking in Cognitively Fatigued Individuals.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1