To explore the scientific value of information elements in health news, this article reports on common information elements that are associated with scientific value, according to the findings of surveys conducted in the United States and Taiwan. The design of two further studies in Taiwan reflects an effort to understand whether scientific information elements benefit only health conscious people, through empowered-get-more-empowered effects. A survey-based analysis of perceptions and an experimental test of causal effects of information exposure reveal that health conscious people seek health information, value scientific information elements in it, are persuaded by them, and act on advice.
AndreassenH. K.Bujnowska-FedakM. M.ChronakiC. E.DumitruR. C.PuduleI.SantanaS.VossH.WynnR. (2007). European citizens’ use of e-health services: A study of seven countries. BMC Public Health, 7(1), Article 53. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-7-53
2.
AroraR.StonerC.AroraA. (2006). Using framing and credibility to incorporate exercise and fitness in individuals’ lifestyle. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 23(4), 199–207. https://doi.org/10.1108/07363760610674329
BasuA.DuttaM. J. (2008). The relationship between health information seeking and community participation: The roles of health information orientation and efficacy. Health Communication, 23(1), 70–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410230701807121
5.
BigsbyE.HovickS. R. (2018). Understanding associations between information seeking and scanning and health risk behaviors: An early test of the structural influence model. Health Communication, 33(3), 315–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2016.1266575
6.
BrechmanJ.LeeC. J.CappellaJ. N. (2009). Lost in translation? A comparison of cancer-genetics reporting in the press release and its subsequent coverage in the press. Science Communication, 30(4), 453–474. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547009332649
7.
BrewerP. R. (2013). The trappings of science: Media messages, scientific authority, and beliefs about paranormal investigators. Science Communication, 35(3), 311–333. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547012454599
8.
BrodieM.HamelE. C.AltmanD. E.BlendonR. J.BensonJ. M. (2003). Health news and the American public, 1996–2002. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 28(5), 927–950. https://doi.org/10.1215/03616878-28-5-927
9.
BrommeR.ScharrerL.StadtlerM.HömbergJ.TorspeckenR. (2015). Is it believable when it’s scientific? How scientific discourse style influences laypeople’s resolution of conflicts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(1), 36–57. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21172
10.
CattaneoL. B.ChapmanA. R. (2010). The process of empowerment: A model for use in research and practice. American Psychologist, 65(7), 646–659. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018854
11.
CesarioJ.GrantH.HigginsE. T. (2004). Regulatory fit and persuasion: Transfer from “feeling right.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(3), 388–404. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.3.388
12.
ChaikenS. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 39(5), 752–766.
13.
ChangC. (2015a). Inaccuracy in health research news: A typology and predictions of scientists’ perceptions of the accuracy of research news. Journal of Health Communication, 20(2), 177–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2014.917746
14.
ChangC. (2015b). Motivated processing: How people perceive news covering novel or contradictory health research findings. Science Communication, 37(5), 602–634. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547015597914
15.
ChangC. (2016). Behavioral recommendations in health research news as cues to action: Self-relevancy and self-efficacy processes. Journal of Health Communication, 21(8), 954–968. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2016.1204377
16.
ChangC. (2020a). Cross-country comparison of effects of early government communication on personal empowerment during the COVID-19 pandemic in Taiwan and the United States. Health Communication. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2020.1852698
17.
ChangC. (2020b). Self-control-centered empowerment model: Health consciousness and health knowledge as drivers of empowerment-seeking through health communication. Health Communication, 35(12), 1497–1508. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2019.1652385
18.
ClarkF.IllmanD. L. (2006). A longitudinal study of the New York Times Science Times section. Science Communication, 27(4), 496–513. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547006288010
19.
CritchleyC. R. (2008). Public opinion and trust in scientists: The role of the research context, and the perceived motivation of stem cell researchers. Public Understanding of Science, 17(3), 309–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662506070162
20.
Dutta-BergmanM. J. (2004). Primary sources of health information: Comparisons in the domain of health attitudes, health cognitions, and health behaviors. Health Communication, 16(3), 273–288. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327027HC1603_1
ElliotA. J.ThrashT. M. (2002). Approach-avoidance motivation in personality: Approach and avoidance temperaments and goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(5), 804–818. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.5.804
23.
EttemaJ. S.BrownJ. W.LuepkerR. V. (1983). Knowledge gap effects in a health information campaign. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47(4), 516–527.
24.
EvansW. A.KrippendorfM.JaeH. Y.PoslusznyP.ThomasS. (1990). Science in the prestige and national tabloid presses. Social Science Quarterly, 71(1), 105–117.
GoldenbergM. J. (2016). Public misunderstanding of science? Reframing the problem of vaccine hesitancy. Perspectives on Science, 24(5), 552–581.
27.
GriffinR. J.DunwoodyS.NeuwirthK. (1999). Proposed model of the relationship of risk information seeking and processing to the development of preventive behaviors. Environmental Research, 80(2), S230–S245. https://doi.org/10.1006/enrs.1998.3940
28.
GuentherL.JoubertM. (2017). Science communication as a field of research: Identifying trends, challenges and gaps by analysing research papers. Journal of Science Communication, 16(2), 1–19.
29.
HaardJ.SlaterM. D.LongM. (2004). Scientese and ambiguous citations in the selling of unproven medical treatments. Health Communication, 16(4), 411–426. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327027hc1604_2
30.
HarrisP. R.SillenceE.BriggsP. (2011). Perceived threat and corroboration: Key factors that improve a predictive model of trust in internet-based health information and advice. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 13(3), Article e51. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.1821
31.
HayesA. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
32.
HayesM.RossI. E.GasherM.GutsteinD.DunnJ. R.HackettR. A. (2007). Telling stories: News media, health literacy and public policy in Canada. Social Science & Medicine, 64(9), 1842–1852. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.01.015
33.
HinnantA.Len-RíosM. E. (2009). Tacit understandings of health literacy: Interview and survey research with health journalists. Science Communication, 31(1), 84–115. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547009335345
34.
HinnantA.Len-RíosM. E.OhH. J. (2012). Are health journalists’ practices tied to their perceptions of audience? An attribution and expectancy-value approach. Health Communication, 27(3), 234–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2011.578331
35.
HongH. (2011). An extension of the extended parallel process model (EPPM) in television health news: The influence of health consciousness on individual message processing and acceptance. Health Communication, 26(4), 343–353. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2010.551580
36.
HornikR.ParvantaS.MelloS.FreresD.KellyB.SchwartzJ. S. (2013). Effects of scanning (routine health information exposure) on cancer screening and prevention behaviors in the general population. Journal of Health Communication, 18(12), 1422–1435. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2013.798381
37.
JacobsW.AmutaA. O.JeonK. C. (2017). Health information seeking in the digital age: An analysis of health information seeking behavior among US adults. Cogent Social Sciences, 3(1), 1302785. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2017.1302785
38.
JayantiR. K.BurnsA. C. (1998). The antecedents of preventive health care behavior: An empirical study. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 26(1), 6–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070398261002
39.
JohnsonJ. D. (1997). Cancer-related information seeking. Hampton Press.
40.
KeilF. C. (2012). Running on empty? How folk science gets by with less. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(5), 329–334. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721412453721
41.
KellyB. J.NiederdeppeJ.HornikR. C. (2009). Validating measures of scanned information exposure in the context of cancer prevention and screening behaviors. Journal of Health Communication, 14(8), 721–740. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730903295559
42.
KrenzC. (1980). Role of quantification in scientific communication. Differential responses by lay and scientist subjects [Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers, 3462, University of Montana]. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/3462
Len-RíosM. E.HinnantA. (2014). Health literacy and numeracy: A comparison of magazine health messages. Howard Journal of Communications, 25(3), 235–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/10646175.2014.922909
45.
LeungJ. S. C.WongA. S. L.YungB. H. W. (2017). Evaluation of science in the media by non-science majors. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 7(3), 219–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2016.1206983
46.
LewisN. (2017). Information seeking and scanning. In RösslerP.HoffnerC. A.van ZoonenL. (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of media effects (pp. 1–10). John Wiley.
47.
McClellandD. C. (1985). Human motivation. Cambridge University Press.
48.
NicholasD.HuntingtonP.GunterB.WitheyR.RussellC. (2003). The British and their use of the web for health information and advice: A survey. Aslib Proceedings, 55(5/6), 261–276. https://doi.org/10.1108/00012530310498842
49.
NiederdeppeJ.HornikR. C.KellyB. J.FroschD. L.RomantanA.StevensR. S.BargF. K.WeinerJ.SchwartzJ. S. (2007). Examining the dimensions of cancer-related information seeking and scanning behavior. Health Communication, 22(2), 153–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410230701454189
50.
NisbetM. C.ScheufeleD. A.ShanahanJ.MoyP.BrossardD.LewensteinB. V. (2002). Knowledge, reservations, or promise? A media effects model for public perceptions of science and technology. Communication Research, 29(5), 584–608. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365002236196
51.
ParascandolaM. (2000). Health in the news: What happens when researchers and journalists collide. Research Practitioner, 1(1), 1–29.
52.
PellechiaM. G. (1997). Trends in science coverage: A content analysis of three US newspapers. Public Understanding of Science, 6(1), 49–68. https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/6/1/004
53.
PettyR. E.BriñolP.LoerschC.McCaslinM. J. (2009). The need for cognition. In LearyM. R.HoyleR. H. (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 318–329). Guilford Press.
54.
PowellJ.InglisN.RonnieJ.LargeS. (2011). The characteristics and motivations of online health information seekers: Cross-sectional survey and qualitative interview study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 13(1), Article e20. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.1600
55.
RamírezA. S.FreresD.MartinezL. S.LewisN.BourgoinA.KellyB. J.LeeC. R.NaglerJ. S.Schwartz HornikR. C. (2013). Information seeking from media and family/friends increases the likelihood of engaging in healthy lifestyle behaviors. Journal of Health Communication, 18(5), 527–542. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2012.743632
56.
RenahyE.ParizotI.ChauvinP. (2010). Determinants of the frequency of online health information seeking: Results of a web-based survey conducted in France in 2007. Informatics for Health and Social Care, 35(1), 25–39. https://doi.org/10.3109/17538150903358784
Roskos-EwoldsenD. R.BichselJ.HoffmanK. (2002). The influence of accessibility of source likability on persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 137–143. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.2001.1492
59.
ShimM.KellyB.HornikR. (2006). Cancer information scanning and seeking behavior is associated with knowledge, lifestyle choices, and screening. Journal of Health Communication, 11(S1), 157–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730600637475
60.
SteedeG. M.MeyersC.LiN.IrlbeckE.GearhartS. (2019). A content analysis of antibiotic use in livestock in national US newspapers. Journal of Applied Communications, 103(1), Article 6. https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.2237
61.
StroobantJ.De DobbelaerR.RaeymaeckersK. (2018). Tracing the sources: A comparative content analysis of Belgian health news. Journalism Practice, 12(3), 344–361. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2017.1294027
62.
SuleskiJ.IbarakiM. (2010). Scientists are talking, but mostly to each other: A quantitative analysis of research represented in mass media. Public Understanding of Science, 19(1), 115–125. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662508096776
63.
TakahashiB.TandocE. C.Jr. (2016). Media sources, credibility, and perceptions of science: Learning about how people learn about science. Public Understanding of Science, 25(6), 674–690. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515574986
64.
TakahashiY.OhuraT.IshizakiT.OkamotoS.MikiK.NaitoM.AkamatsuR.SugimoriH.YoshiikeN.MiyakiK.ShimboT.NakayamaT. (2011). Internet use for health-related information via personal computers and cell phones in Japan: A cross-sectional population-based survey. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 13(4), Article e110. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.1796
65.
TalA.WansinkB. (2016). Blinded with science: Trivial graphs and formulas increase ad persuasiveness and belief in product efficacy. Public Understanding of Science, 25(1), 117–125. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662514549688
66.
TannerA.FriedmanD. B. (2011). Authorship and information sourcing for health news on local TV web sites: An exploratory analysis. Science Communication, 33(1), 3–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547010364926
67.
ThiebachM.Mayweg-PausE.JucksR. (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
68.
ThommE.BrommeR. (2012). “It should at least seem scientific!” Textual features of “scientificness” and their impact on lay assessments of online information. Science Education, 96(2), 187–211. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20480
69.
TichenorP. J.DonohueG. A.OlienC. N. (1970). Mass media flow and differential growth in knowledge. Public Opinion Quarterly, 34(2), 159–170. https://doi.org/10.1086/267786
70.
ViswanathK.EmmonsK. M. (2006). Message effects and social determinants of health: Its application to cancer disparities. Journal of Communication, 56(Suppl. 1), S238–S264. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00292.x
71.
WangZ.WaltherJ. B.PingreeS.HawkinsR. P. (2008). Health information, credibility, homophily, and influence via the Internet: Web sites versus discussion groups. Health Communication, 23(4), 358–368. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410230802229738
72.
WilsonE. J.SherrellD. L. (1993). Source effects in communication and persuasion research: A meta-analysis of effect size. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 21(2), 101–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02894421
73.
WongD. K. K.CheungM. K. (2019). Online health information seeking and ehealth literacy among patients attending a primary care clinic in Hong Kong: A cross-sectional survey. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 21(3), Article e10831. https://doi.org/10.2196/10831
74.
ZaboskiB. A.TherriaultD. J. (2019). Faking science: Scientificness, credibility, and belief in pseudoscience. Educational Psychology, 40(7), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2019.1694646
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
