Überprüfen, teilen, widersprechen oder ignorieren? Der Umgang mit falschen Informationen
Authors/Creators
-
1.
ZBW – Leibniz-Informationszentrum Wirtschaft
- 2. Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
- 3. Grenzenlos Digital e.V.
Description
Was bewegt Menschen eigentlich dazu, falsche Informationen im Gesundheitskontext zu verbreiten und ist eine wissenschaftliche Erscheinung ein Treiber für die Verbreitung falscher Gesundheitsinformationen? Diese Fragen standen im Mittelpunkt des vom Bundesministeriums für Bildung und Forschung geförderten Projekts „Desinformationsverhalten verstehen“, kurz DESIVE², der ZBW - Leibniz-Informationszentrum Wirtschaft in Kiel, des Vereins Grenzenlos Digital e.V. und der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin.
Im Vortrag stellen wir die Ergebnisse aus über 65 qualitativen Interviews, über 300 Tagebucheinträgen zu Situationen, in denen Proband*innen Gesundheitsinformation geteilt oder erhalten haben, sowie Daten aus Experimenten zur wissenschaftlichen Anmutung von Gesundheitsinformationen vor.
Abstract (English)
What actually motivates people to spread false information in the health context and is a scientific phenomenon a driver for the spread of false health information? These questions were the focus of the project ‘Understanding Disinformation Behaviour’, DESIVE² for short, funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research, the ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics in Kiel, the association Grenzenlos Digital e.V. and the Humboldt University of Berlin.
In the presentation, we will present the results from over 65 qualitative interviews, over 300 diary entries on situations in which test subjects shared or received health information, as well as data from experiments on the scientific impression of health information.
Files
Desive2_Vorstellung_BBK24.pdf
Files
(5.4 MB)
| Name | Size | Download all |
|---|---|---|
|
md5:08e4f01aeae58a0df3617b830777fc8c
|
5.4 MB | Preview Download |
Additional details
Additional titles
- Subtitle (German)
- Berliner Bibliothekswissenschaftliches Kolloquium 2024
Funding
Dates
- Other
-
2024-11-12Presented on
References
- Bressel, P., Dewitz, L. & Greifeneder, E. (2023). Exploring Information Behavior Patterns in Response to False and Misleading Health Information. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 60: 73-85. https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.770
- Dewitz, L., Bressel, P. & Greifeneder, E. (2023). Unveiling the Sources of False Health Information. Where do People Get False Health Information from? In: W. Semar (Hrsg.): Nachhaltige Information — Information für Nachhaltigkeit. Tagungsband des 17. Internationalen Symposiums für Informationswissenschaft (ISI 2023), Chur, Schweiz, 7.—9. November 2023. Glückstadt: Verlag Werner Hülsbusch, S. 267—293. https://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10009338
- Dewitz, L. (2023), Engaging Participants in Online Interviews: Lessons Learned from Implementing a Participatory Visual Approach in Two Explorative Health Information Behavior Studies. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 60: 98-110. https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.772
- Gruber, D., & Dickerson, J. A. (2012). Persuasive images in popular science: Testing judgments of scientific reasoning and credibility. Public Understanding of Science, 21(8), 938–948. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662512454072
- Hahn, O., Lemke, S., Mazarakis, A., & Peters, I. (2020). Which visual elements make texts appear scientific? An empirical analysis. Proceedings of the Conference on Mensch und Computer, 61–65. https://doi.org/10.1145/3404983.3410014
- Jonas, M., Kerwer, M., Chasiotis, A., & Rosman, T. (2024). Indicators of trustworthiness in lay-friendly research summaries: Scientificness surpasses easiness. Public Understanding of Science, 33(1), 37–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625231176377
- Kessler, S., Reifegerste, D., & Guenther, L. (2016). Die Evidenzkraft von Bildern in der Wissenschaftskommunikation. In Wissenschaftskommunikation zwischen Risiko und (Un-)Sicherheit (S. 171–192). Herbert von Halem Verlag.
- Eriksson, K. (2012). The nonsense math effect. Judgment and Decision Making, 7(6), 746–749.
- Tal, A., & Wansink, B. (2016). Blinded with science: Trivial graphs and formulas increase ad persuasiveness and belief in product efficacy. Public Understanding of Science, 25(1), Art. 1. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662514549688
- Thiebach, M., Mayweg-Paus, E., & Jucks, R. (2015). "Probably true" says the expert: How two types of lexical hedges influence students' evaluation of scientificness. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 30(3), 369–384. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-014-0243-4
- Thomm, E., & Bromme, R. (2012). "It should at least seem scientific!" Textual features of "scientificness" and their impact on lay assessments of online information. Science Education, 96(2), Art. 2. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20480
- Zaboski, B. A., & Therriault, D. J. (2020). Faking science: Scientificness, credibility, and belief in pseudoscience. Educational Psychology, 40(7), Art. 7. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2019.1694646