Why Do People Believe Health Misinformation and Who Is at Risk? A Systematic Review of Individual Differences in Susceptibility to Health Misinformation
Xiaoli Nan, Yuan Wang, Kathryn Thier
University of Maryland, College Park
阅读操作
确认中在文库中上传 PDF 后可生成中文音频讲解。
摘要与影响
Health misinformation poses a significant threat to public health. Understanding why people believe health misinformation and who are at risk is crucial for developing effective interventions to reduce the harmful impact of misinformation. We conducted a systematic review of published empirical research that examined individual differences in susceptibility to health misinformation by focusing on the psychological, demographic, and behavioral correlates of health misinformation susceptibility. To guide our review on psychological correlates, we developed an integrative psychological model of susceptibility to health misinformation based on one’s ability and motivation to reason. Our review suggests that susceptibility to health misinformation is driven by multiple psychological processes. Overall, subject knowledge, literacy and numeracy, analytical thinking (vs. intuitive thinking), and trust in science confers strong resistance to health misinformation, whereas conspiracy thinking, religiosity, conservative ideology, and conservative party identification are generally associated with more susceptibility to health misinformation. In terms of demographic correlates, our review indicates that older age and higher educational attainment tend to predict less susceptibility to health misinformation, whereas racial minority status is associated with more susceptibility to health misinformation. Behaviorally, relying on health professionals or scientists as information sources predicts less susceptibility to health misinformation, whereas social media use is associated with more susceptibility to health misinformation. We conclude by discussing the theoretical implications of our findings, as well as practical implications for designing effective interventions to combat health misinformation.
逐年被引趋势
关键指标
同类平均 = 1
同领域 · 同年份 · 同类型
Google Scholar 与 OpenAlex 的被引统计范围不同,数值存在差异属正常。
AI 辅助阅读
依据:摘要
可就本文提问;依据不足时会说明。
学术脉络
学科主题
社会科学Misinformation and Its Impacts
参考文献 112
此处列出前 3 条
引用本文 24
按被引量排序,此处列出前 3 条