When people read medical research news on the Internet, they are confronted not only with information from the article itself but often also with comments written by other users about the article. Moreover, Internet users have the opportunity to write their own comments. In an experimental study we found that the actual scientific tentativeness of the research findings reported in a health news article as well as the empirical and the anecdotal evidence provided in other users’ skeptical comments influenced how the participants perceived scientific tentativeness and, in turn, how much they addressed this tentativeness in their own comments.
BaeslerE. J. (1997). Persuasive effects of story and statistical evidence. Argumentation and Advocacy, 33, 170-175.
2.
BakerM. (2017). Reproducibility: Check your chemistry. Nature, 548, 485-488.
3.
BientzleM.CressU.KimmerleJ. (2014). Epistemological beliefs and therapeutic health concepts of physiotherapy students and professionals. BMC Medical Education, 14, 208.
4.
BientzleM.CressU.KimmerleJ. (2015). The role of tentative decisions and health concepts in assessing information about mammography screening. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 20, 670-679.
5.
BlanckeS.BoudryM.PigliucciM. (2017). Why do irrational beliefs mimic science? The cultural evolution of pseudoscience. Theoria, 83, 78-97.
6.
BondM. E.PerkinsS. N.RamirezC. (2012). Students’ perceptions of statistics: An exploration of attitudes, conceptualizations, and content knowledge of statistics. Statistics Education Research Journal, 11, 6-25.
7.
BrittM. A.RichterT.RouetJ. F. (2014). Scientific literacy: The role of goal-directed reading and evaluation in understanding scientific information. Educational Psychologist, 49, 104-122.
8.
BrommeR.GoldmanS. R. (2014). The public’s bounded understanding of science. Educational Psychologist, 49, 59-69.
9.
BrommeR.JucksR.RundeA. (2005). Barriers and biases in computer-mediated expert-layperson-communication. In BrommeR.HesseF.W.SpadaH. (Eds.), Barriers and biases in computer-mediated knowledge communication (pp. 89-118). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/0-387-24319-4_5
10.
BrommeR.ThommE.WolfV. (2015). From understanding to deference: Laypersons’ and medical students’ views on conflicts within medicine. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 5, 68-91.
11.
BronsteinJ. M.TagliatiM.AltermanR. L.LozanoA. M.VolkmannJ.StefaniA.. . . PahwaR. (2011). Deep brain stimulation for Parkinson disease: An expert consensus and review of key issues. Archives of Neurology, 68, 165.
12.
BroomellS. B.KaneP. B. (2017). Public perception and communication of scientific uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 146, 286-304.
13.
BrossardD. (2013). New media landscapes and the science information consumer. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America, 110, 14096-14101. doi:10.1073/pnas.1212744110
14.
CarsonA. (2015). Behind the newspaper paywall—lessons in charging for online content: A comparative analysis of why Australian newspapers are stuck in the purgatorial space between digital and print. Media, Culture & Society, 37, 1022-1041.
15.
ChenX. L.XiongY. Y.XuG. L.LiuX. F. (2013). Deep brain stimulation. Interventional Neurology, 1, 200-212.
16.
ChinnD. (2011). Critical health literacy: A review and critical analysis. Social Science & Medicine, 73, 60-67.
17.
ChungD. S. (2008). Interactive features of online newspapers: Identifying patterns and predicting use of engaged readers. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 658-679.
18.
ChungD. S.YooC. Y. (2008). Audience motivations for using interactive features: Distinguishing use of different types of interactivity on an online newspaper. Mass Communication and Society, 11, 375-397.
19.
ColemanR.ThorsonE.WilkinsL. (2011). Testing the effect of framing and sourcing in health news stories. Journal of Health Communication, 16(9), 941-954.
20.
DekkerS.LeeN. C.Howard-JonesP.JollesJ. (2012). Neuromyths in education: Prevalence and predictors of misconceptions among teachers. Frontiers in Psychology, 429, 1-8. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00429
21.
De WitJ. B. F.DasE.VetR. (2008). What works best: Objective statistics or a personal testimonial? An assessment of the persuasive effects of different types of message evidence on risk perception. Health Psychology, 27, 110-115.
22.
DunwoodyS. (1999). Scientists, journalists, and the meaning of uncertainty. In FriedmannS. M.DunwoodyS.RogersC. L. (Eds.), Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science (pp. 59-79). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
23.
DunwoodyS. (2014). Science journalism: Prospects in the digital age. In BucchiM.TrenchB. (Eds.), Routledge handbook of public communication of science and technology (2nd ed., pp. 27-39). New York, NY: Routledge.
24.
DunwoodyS.KohlP. A. (2017). Using weight-of-experts messaging to communicate accurately about contested science. Science Communication, 39, 338-357.
25.
EbelingM. F.2008. Mediating uncertainty: Communicating the financial risks of nanotechnologies. Science Communication. 29, 335-361.
26.
EntmanR. M.MatthesJ.PellicanoL. (2009). Nature, sources, and effects of news framing. In Wahl-JorgensenK.HanitzschT. (Eds.), The handbook of journalism studies (pp. 175-190). New York, NY: Routledge
27.
ErnstE. (2012). Bogus arguments for unproven treatments. International Journal of Clinical Practice, 66, 238-240.
28.
FeinkohlI.FlemmingD.CressU.KimmerleJ. (2016a). The impact of epistemological beliefs and cognitive ability on recall and critical evaluation of scientific information. Cognitive Processing, 17, 213-223.
29.
FeinkohlI.FlemmingD.CressU.KimmerleJ. (2016b). The impact of personality factors and preceding user comments on the processing of research findings on deep brain stimulation: A randomized controlled experiment in a simulated online forum. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 18, e59.
30.
FisslerT.BientzleM.CressU.KimmerleJ. (2015). The impact of advice seekers’ need salience and doctors’ communication style on attitude and decision making: A web-based mammography consultation role play. JMIR Cancer, 1, e10.
31.
FlemmingD.FeinkohlI.CressU.KimmerleJ. (2015). Individual uncertainty and the uncertainty of science: The impact of perceived conflict and general self-efficacy on the perception of tentativeness and credibility of scientific information. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1859.
32.
FlemmingD.FeinkohlI.CressU.KimmerleJ. (in press). User comments about research findings: How conflictual information in online science journalistic articles influences laypeople’s understanding of scientific tentativeness. Communications.
33.
GrayN. J.KleinJ. D.NoyceP. R.SesselbergT. S.CantrillJ. A. (2005). Health information-seeking behaviour in adolescence: The place of the internet. Social Science & Medicine, 60, 1467-1478.
34.
HattisD. (1989). Scientific uncertainties and how they affect risk communication. In CovelloV. T.McCallumD.PavlovaM. (Eds.), Effective risk communication: The role and responsibility of government and nongovernmental organizations (pp. 117-126). New York, NY: Plenum.
35.
Hatley MajorL.ColemanR. (2012). Source credibility and evidence format: Examining the effectiveness of HIV/AIDS messages for young African Americans. Journal of Health Communication, 17, 515-531.
36.
Herculano-HouzelS. (2002). Do you know your brain? A survey on public neuroscience literacy at the closing of the decade of the brain. Neuroscience, 8, 98-110.
37.
HoekenH. (2001). Anecdotal, statistical, and causal evidence: Their perceived and actual persuasiveness. Argumentation, 15, 425-437.
38.
HoekenH.HustinxL. (2009). When is statistical evidence superior to anecdotal evidence in supporting probability claims? The role of argument type. Human Communication Research, 35, 491-510.
39.
HoggM. A.ReidS. A. (2006). Social identity, self-categorization, and the communication of group norms. Communication Theory, 16, 7-30. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2006.00003.x
HoltonA.LeeN.ColemanR. (2014). Commenting on health: A framing analysis of user comments in response to health articles online. Journal of Health Communication, 19, 825-837.
42.
HoustonJ. B.HansenG. J.NisbettG. S. (2011). Influence of user comments on perceptions of media bias and third-person effect in online news. Electronic News, 5, 79-92. doi:10.1177/1931243111407618
43.
HsuehM.YogeeswaranK.MalinenS. (2015). “Leave your comment below”: Can biased online comments influence our own prejudicial attitudes and behaviors?Human Communication Research, 41, 557-576. doi:10.1111/hcre.12059
44.
JansenB. J.ZhangM.SobelK.ChowduryA. (2009). Twitter power: Tweets as electronic word of mouth. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60, 2169-2188. doi:10.1002/asi.21149
45.
JenniK.LoewensteinG. (1997). Explaining the identifiable victim effect. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 14, 235-257.
46.
JirschitzkaJ.KimmerleJ.HalatchliyskiI.HanckeJ.MeurersD.CressU. (2017). A productive clash of perspectives? The interplay between articles’ and authors’ perspectives and their impact on Wikipedia edits in a controversial domain. Plos ONE, 12, e0178985.
47.
KammererY.BråtenI.GerjetsP.StrømsøH. I. (2013). The role of Internet-specific epistemic beliefs in laypersons’ source evaluations and decisions during Web search on a medical issue. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 1193-1203.
48.
KazoleasD. C. (1993). A comparison of the persuasive effectiveness of qualitative versus quantitative evidence: A test of explanatory hypotheses. Communication Quarterly, 41, 40-50.
KennedyS. H.GiacobbeP.RizviS. J.PlacenzaF. M.NishikawaY.MaybergH. S.LozanoA. M. (2011). Deep brain stimulation for treatment-resistant depression: Follow-up after 3 to 6 years. American Journal of Psychiatry, 168, 502-510.
51.
KimmerleJ.BientzleM.CressU. (2014). Personal experiences and emotionality in health-related knowledge exchange in Internet forums: A randomized controlled field experiment comparing responses to facts vs personal experiences. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 16, e277.
52.
KimmerleJ.BientzleM.CressU. (2017). “Scientific evidence is very important for me”: The impact of behavioral intention and the wording of user inquiries on replies and recommendations in a health-related online forum. Computers in Human Behavior, 73, 320-327.
53.
KimmerleJ.CressU. (2009). Visualization of group members’ participation: How information-presentation formats support information exchange. Social Science Computer Review, 27, 243-261.
54.
KimmerleJ.FlemmingD.FeinkohlI.CressU. (2015). How laypeople understand the tentativeness of medical research news in the media: An experimental study on the perception of information about deep brain stimulation. Science Communication, 37, 173-189.
55.
KimmerleJ.GerbingK.-K.CressU.ThielA. (2012). Exchange of complementary and alternative medical knowledge in sport-related Internet fora. Sociology of Sport Journal, 29, 348-364.
56.
KreuterM. W.FarrellD. W.OlevitchL. R.BrennanL. K. (2013). Tailoring health messages: Customizing communication with computer technology. New York, NY: Routledge.
57.
KreuterM. W.WrayR. J. (2003). Tailored and targeted health communication: Strategies for enhancing information relevance. American Journal of Health Behavior, 27, S227-S232.
58.
KsiazekT. B.PeerL.LessardK. (2016). User engagement with online news: Conceptualizing interactivity and exploring the relationship between online news videos and user comments. New Media & Society, 18, 502-520.
59.
LangerE. J.BlankA.ChanowitzB. (1978). The mindlessness of ostensibly thoughtful action: The role of “placebic” information in interpersonal interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 635.
60.
LeeE.-J. (2006). When and how does depersonalization increase conformity to group norms in computer-mediated communication?Communication Research, 33, 423-447.
LombardiD.SeyranianV.SinatraG. M. (2014). Source effects and plausibility judgments when reading about climate change. Discourse Processes, 51, 75-92.
63.
MaierM.MildeJ.PostS.GüntherL.RuhrmannG.BarkelaB. (2016). Communicating scientific evidence: Scientists’, journalists’ and audiences’ expectations and evaluations regarding the representation of scientific uncertainty. Communications, 41, 239-264.
64.
MarchiR. (2012). With Facebook, blogs, and fake news, teens reject journalistic “objectivity.”Journal of Communication Inquiry, 36, 246-262.
65.
MatthesJ. (2009). What’s in a frame? A content analysis of media framing studies in the world’s leading communication journals, 1990-2005. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 86, 349-367.
66.
MetzgerM. J.FlanaginA. J. (2013). Credibility and trust of information in online environments: The use of cognitive heuristics. Journal of Pragmatics, 59, 210-220.
67.
MetzgerM. J.FlanaginA. J.MeddersR. B. (2010). Social and heuristic approaches to credibility evaluation online. Journal of Communication, 60, 413-439.
68.
MunafòM. R.NosekB. A.BishopD. V.ButtonK. S.ChambersC. D.du SertN. P.. . . IoannidisJ. P. (2017). A manifesto for reproducible science. Nature Human Behaviour, 1, Article No. 0021.
69.
NambisanP. (2011). Information seeking and social support in online health communities: Impact on patients’ perceived empathy. Journal of theAmerican Medical Informatics Association, 18, 298-304.
70.
NoarS. M.BenacC. N.HarrisM. S. (2007). Does tailoring matter? Meta-analytic review of tailored print health behavior change interventions. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 673-693.
71.
ParkH. S.LevineT. R.Kingsley WestermanC. Y.OrfgenT.ForeggerS. (2007). The effects of argument quality and involvement type on attitude formation and attitude change: A test of dual-process and social-judgment predictions. Human Communication Research, 33, 81-102.
72.
PetersH. P.DunwoodyS. (2016). Scientific uncertainty in media content: Introduction to this special issue. Public Understanding of Science, 25, 893–908.
73.
SchlaepferT. E.BewernickB. H.KayserS.MädlerB.CoenenV. A. (2013). Rapid effects of deep brain stimulation for treatment-resistant major depression. Biological Psychiatry, 73, 1204-1212.
74.
SchlaepferT. E.LiebK. (2005). Deep brain stimulation for treatment of refractory depression. Lancet, 366, 21-23.
75.
SekhonH.EnnewC.KharoufH.DevlinJ. (2014). Trustworthiness and trust: Influences and implications. Journal of Marketing Management, 30, 409-430.
76.
ShererM.RogersR. W. (1984). The role of vivid information in fear appeals and attitude change. Journal of Research in Personality, 18, 321-334.
77.
StockingH. (1999). How journalists deal with scientific uncertainty. In FriedmannS. M.DunwoodyS.RogersC. L. (Eds.), Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science (pp. 23-41). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
78.
SuL.AkinH.BrossardD.ScheufeleD. A.XenosM. A.2015. Science news consumption patterns and their implications for public understanding of science. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 92, 597-616.
79.
ThorsonK.VragaE.EkdaleB. (2010). Credibility in context: How uncivil online commentary affects news credibility. Mass Communication and Society, 13, 289-313.
80.
TichenorP. J. (1979). Teaching and the “journalism of uncertainty.”Journal of Environmental Education, 10, 5-8.
81.
UbelP. A.JepsonC.BaronJ. (2001). The inclusion of patient testimonials in decision aids: Effects on treatment choices. Medical Decision Making, 21, 60-68.
82.
WaltherJ. B.DeAndreaD.KimJ.AnthonyJ. C. (2010). The influence of online comments on perceptions of antimarijuana public service announcements on YouTube. Human Communication Research, 36, 469-492. doi:10.1111/j.14682958.2010.01384.x
83.
WanyonyiK. L.Themessl-HuberM.HumphrisG.FreemanR. (2011). A systematic review and meta-analysis of face-to-face communication of tailored health messages: Implications for practice. Patient Education and Counseling, 85, 348-355.
84.
WojcieszakM.KimN. (2015). How to improve attitudes toward disliked groups: The effects of narrative versus numerical evidence on political persuasion. Communication Research. doi:10.1177/0093650215618480
85.
WinterS.KrämerN. C. (2016). Who’s right: The author or the audience? Effects of user comments and ratings on the perception of online science articles. Communications, 41, 339-360.
