研究论文

体验视角下用户生成内容可信度判断研究

  • 刘佳佳 ,
  • 韩毅 ,
  • 周剑
展开
  • 1 西南大学商贸学院, 重庆 402460;
    2 西南大学图书馆, 重庆 400715
刘佳佳,硕士研究生;韩毅,教授,博士,博士生导师;周剑,研究馆员,博士,通信作者,E-mail:zhoujcn100@163.com。

收稿日期: 2024-05-16

  修回日期: 2024-08-22

  网络出版日期: 2025-02-26

Research on User’s Credibility Judgment on User-Generated Content from User Experience

  • Liu Jiajia ,
  • Han Yi ,
  • Zhou Jian
Expand
  • 1 Business College of Southwest University, Chongqing 402460;
    2 Southwest University Library, Chongqing 400715
Liu Jiajia, master candidate; Han Yi, professor, PhD, doctoral supervisor; Zhou Jian, research librarian, PhD, corresponding author, E-mail: zhoujcn100@163.com

Received date: 2024-05-16

  Revised date: 2024-08-22

  Online published: 2025-02-26

摘要

[目的/意义] 基于用户体验视角,揭示用户对社交媒体信息可信度判断的处理路径,以及感知信息负荷、信息内容情绪效价、话题的熟悉程度和评论态度对其可信度判断的影响,为网络虚假信息提供治理思路。[方法/过程] 基于精细加工可能性模型(elaboration likelihood model,ELM)理论,采用2*3*2情景实验,利用网络问卷回收数据(N=791),并采用T检验、回归分析等统计方法分析数据。[结果/结论] 与感知低信息负荷UGC相比,用户对高信息负荷UGC具有更高的感知可信度;与积极情绪UGC相比,用户对消极和中性UGC具有更高的感知可信度;感知信息负荷与UGC情绪效价存在显著交互效应。负面评论会显著降低用户感知可信度;对用户高熟悉程度的话题,正面评论会显著降低消极和无情绪表达信息内容的感知可信度;对低熟悉程度的话题,正面评论显著降低无情绪表达UGC的感知可信度。

本文引用格式

刘佳佳 , 韩毅 , 周剑 . 体验视角下用户生成内容可信度判断研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2025 , 69(4) : 67 -76 . DOI: 10.13266/j.issn.0252-3116.2025.04.006

Abstract

[Purpose/Significance] Based on the perspective of user experience, this paper reveals the processing path of social media information credibility judgment, and the influence of perceived information load, emotional valence of information content, topic familiarity and comment attitude on their credibility judgment. It can provide some ideas for the management of online false information. [Method/Process] Based on ELM theory, 2*3*2 scenario experiment was adopted, and data were recovered by network questionnaire (N=791). Statistical methods such as T-test and regression analysis were used to analyze the data. [Result/Conclusion] Compared with UGC with low information load, users have higher perceived credibility for UGC with high information load. Compared with positive UGC, users have higher perceived credibility for negative and neutral UGC. A significant interaction effect exists between perceived information load and the emotional valence of UGC. Negative comments can significantly reduce user perceived credibility. For highly familiar topics, positive comments significantly reduce the perceived credibility of negative and emotionless content. For less familiar topics, positive comments significantly reduce the perceived credibility of emotionless UGC.

参考文献

[1] VALENTINE O. Top 10 reasons for using social media[EB/OL]. [2024-12-25]. https://blog.globalwebindex.net/chart-of-the-day/social-media/
[2] SCHEUFELE D, KRAUSE N. Science audiences, misinformation, and fake news[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2019, 116(16): 7662-7669.
[3] FLANAGIN A, METZGER M. Trusting expert-versus user-generated ratings online: the role of information volume, valence, and consumer characteristics[J]. Computers in human behavior, 2013, 29(4): 1626-1634.
[4] HOVLAND C, JANIS I, KELLEY H. Communication and persuasion[M]. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1953.
[5] EASTIN M S. Credibility assessments of online health information: the effects of source expertise and knowledge of content[J]. Journal of computer-mediated communication, 2001, 6(4): JCMC643.
[6] YIN C, ZHANG X. Incorporating message format into user evaluation of microblog information credibility: a nonlinear perspective[J]. Information processing & management, 2020, 57(6): 102345.
[7] 宋之杰, 刘绍山, 石蕊, 等. 基于眼动追踪技术的突发事件微博信息可信度影响因素研究[J]. 情报杂志, 2017, 36(1): 101-107. (SONG Z J, LIU S S, SHI R, et al. Research on the influencing factors of the microblog unconventional emergency information credibility based on the eye-movement technology[J]. Journal of intelligence, 2017, 36(1): 101-107.)
[8] 薛传业, 夏志杰, 张志花, 等. 突发事件中社交媒体信息可信度研究[J]. 现代情报, 2015, 35(4): 12-16. (XUE C Y, XIA Z J, ZHANG Z H, et al. Social media information credibility in emergencies[J]. Journal of modern information, 2015, 35(4): 12-16.)
[9] FLANAGIN A J, WINTER S, METZGER M J. Making sense of credibility in complex information environments: the role of message sidedness, information source, and thinking styles in credibility evaluation online[J]. Information, communication & society, 2018, 23(7): 1038-1056.
[10] CHOI W, STVILIA B. Web credibility assessment: conceptualization, operationalization, variability, and models[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2015, 66(12): 2399-2414.
[11] MIN X, WANG R, CHAN-OLMSTED S. Factors affecting YouTube influencer marketing credibility: a heuristic-systematic model[J]. Journal of media business studies, 2018, 15(3): 188-213.
[12] CHEUNG M Y, LUO C, SIA C L, et al. Credibility of electronic word-of-mouth: Informational and normative determinants of on-line consumer recommendations[J]. International journal of electronic commerce, 2009, 13(4): 9-38.
[13] SAVOLAINEN R. Assessing the credibility of Covid-19 vaccine mis/disinformation in online discussion[J]. Journal of information science, 2023, 49(4): 1096-1110.
[14] 曹树金, 常倞玮. 社交媒体中的突发公共卫生事件信息可信度影响因素研究——以微信为例[J]. 现代情报, 2020, 40(9): 3-14. (CAO S J, CHANG J W. Research on the influencing factors of information credibility of public health emergencies in social media: take WeChat as an example[J]. Journal of modern information, 2020, 40(9): 3-14.)
[15] SHARIFF S M, ZHANG X, SANDERSON M. On the credibility perception of news on Twitter: readers, topics and features[J]. Computers in human behavior, 2017, 75: 785-796.
[16] BORAH P, XIAO X. The importance of ‘likes’: the interplay of message framing, source, and social endorsement on credibility perceptions of health information on Facebook[J]. Journal of health communication, 2018, 23(4): 399-411.
[17] OSATUYI B. Information sharing on social media sites[J]. Computers in human behavior, 2013, 29(6): 2622-2631.
[18] 王孝盼, 张淼, 吴懿, 等. 社交媒体中健康信息可信度的影响因素研究: 先验知识的调节作用[J]. 信息资源管理学报, 2024, 14(1): 55-67. (ZHAGN X P, ZHANG M, WU Y, et al. Exploring the antecedents of health information credibility at social media platforms: the moderating role of prior knowledge[J]. Journal of information resources management, 2024, 14(1): 55-67.)
[19] FOGG BJ, TSENG S. The elements of computer credibility[C]//SIGCHI. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. New York: Association for Computing Machinery, 1999: 80-87.
[20] LI R, SUH A. Factors influencing information credibility on social media platforms: evidence from Facebook pages[J]. Procedia computer science, 2015, 72: 314-328.
[21] 宋士杰, 赵宇翔, 宋小康, 等. 互联网环境下失真健康信息可信度判断的影响因素研究[J]. 中国图书馆学报, 2019, 45(4): 72-85. (SONG S J, ZHAO Y X, SONG X K, et al. Investigating the influential factors of consumer's credibility judgment on health misinformation[J]. Journal of library science in China, 2019, 45(4): 72-85.)
[22] HEIDE B V D, LIM Y S. On the conditional cueing of credibility heuristics: the case of online influence[J]. Communication research, 2016, 43(5): 672-693.
[23] GHANEM B, ROSSO P, RANGEL F. An emotional analysis of false information in social media and news articles[J]. ACM transactions on Internet technology, 2020, 20(2): 1-18.
[24] MARTEL C, PENNYCOOK G, RAND D G. Reliance on emotion promotes belief in fake news[J]. Cognitive research: principles and implications, 2020, 5(47): 1-20.
[25] ZHOU J, XIANG H, XIE B. Better safe than sorry: a study on older adults’ credibility judgments and spreading of health misinformation[J]. Universal access in the information society, 2023, 22(3): 957-966.
[26] 蔡淑琴, 秦志勇, 李翠萍, 等. 面向负面在线评论的情感强度对有用性的影响研究[J]. 管理评论, 2017, 29(2): 79-86. (CAI S Q, QIN Z Y, LI C P, et al. Study on the usefulness of negative online reviews at different emotional intensity[J]. Management review, 2017, 29(2): 79-86.)
[27] BAUM J, RAHMAN R A. Negative news dominates fast and slow brain responses and social judgments even after source credibility evaluation[J]. Neuro image, 2021, 244: 118572.
[28] 罗跃嘉, 黄宇霞, 李新影, 等. 情绪对认知加工的影响:事件相关脑电位系列研究[J]. 心理科学进展, 2006, 14(4): 505-510. (LUO Y J, HUANG Y X, LI X Y, et al. Effects of emotion on cognitive processing: series of event-related potentials study[J]. Advances in psychological science, 2006, 14(4): 505-510.)
[29] TURNER M M, CHOUNG H, BUI Q H M, et al. Reversing the antibiotic resistance “yelp effect” through the use of emotionally framed responses to negative reviews of providers: questionnaire study[J]. JMIR formative research, 2022, 6(3): e26122.
[30] ZHOU C, LI K, LU Y. Linguistic characteristics and the dissemination of misinformation in social media: the moderating effect of information richness[J]. Information processing & management, 2021, 58(6): 102679.
[31] WADDELL T F. What does the crowd think? how online comments and popularity metrics affect news credibility and issue importance[J]. New media & society, 2018, 20(8): 3068-3083.
[32] NAAB T K, HEINBACH D, ZIEGELE M, et al. Comments and credibility: how critical user comments decrease perceived news article credibility[J]. Journalism studies, 2020, 21(6): 783-801.
[33] GAO Q, TIAN Y, TU M. Exploring factors influencing Chinese user’s perceived credibility of health and safety information on Weibo[J]. Computers in human behavior, 2015, 45: 21-31.
[34] KIM A, DENNIS A R, et al. Says who? the effects of presentation format and source rating on fake news in social media[J]. MIS quarterly, 2019, 43(3): 1025-1039.
[35] LUCASSEN T, MUILWIJK R, NOORDZIJ M L, et al. Topic familiarity and information skills in online credibility evaluation[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2013, 64(2): 254-264.
[36] KAHNEMAN D. Thinking, fast and slow[M]. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011.
[37] PETTY R E, CACIOPPO J T. Communication and persuasion: central and peripheral routes of attitude change [M]. New York: Springer, 1986.
[38] PETTY R E, CACIOPPO J T. The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion[J]. Advances in experimental social psychology, 1986(19): 123-205.
[39] 曾忠禄. 基于注意力理论的竞争对手分析模型[J]. 情报理论与实践, 2013, 36(12): 11-16. (ZENG Z L. A competitor analysis model based on the theory of attention[J]. Information studies: theory & application, 2013, 36(12): 11-16.)
[40] BERMES A. Information overload and fake news sharing: a transactional stress perspective exploring the mitigating role of consumers’ resilience during Covid-19[J]. Journal of retailing and consumer services, 2021, 61: 102555.
[41] LAATO S, ISLAM A K M N, ISLAM M N, et al. What drives unverified information sharing and cyberchondria during the Covid-19 pandemic?[J]. European journal of information systems, 2020, 29(3): 288-305.
[42] 王志军. 试论最小努力原则在图书馆服务中的应用[J]. 图书情报工作, 2001(6): 79-81. (WANG Z J. On the application of the principle of least effort in library service[J]. Library and information service, 2001(6): 79-81.)
[43] 刘国亮, 张汇川, 刘子嘉. 移动社交媒体用户不持续使用意愿研究——整合错失焦虑与社交媒体倦怠双重视角[J]. 情报科学, 2020, 38(12): 128-133. (LIU G L, ZHANG H C, LIU Z J. Research on discontinuous use intention of mobile users: integration of fear of missing out and social media fatigue[J]. Information science, 2020, 38(12): 128-133.)
[44] 喻国明, 钱绯璠, 陈瑶, 等. “后真相”的发生机制: 情绪化文本的传播效果——基于脑电技术范式的研究[J]. 西安交通大学学报(社会科学版), 2019, 39(4): 73-78, 2. (YU G M, QIAN F F, CHEN Y, et al. The mechanism of "post-truth": the communication effect of emotional texts: a study based on electroencephalography[J]. Journal of Xi'an Jiaotong University (Social sciences), 2019, 39(4): 73-78, 2.)
[45] BAUMEISTER R F, BRATSLAVSKY E, FINKENAUER C, et al. Bad is stronger than good[J]. Review of general psychology, 2001, 5(4): 323-370.
[46] CHEN J, LIN Y, TANG X, et al. Fostering netizens to engage in rumour-refuting messages of government social media: a view of persuasion theory[J]. Behaviour & information technology, 2023, 43(10): 1-25.
[47] LI Z, ZHANG Q, DU X, et al. Social media rumor refutation effectiveness: evaluation, modelling and enhancement[J]. Information processing & management, 2021, 58(1): 102420.
[48] 付熙雯, 郑磊. 开放政府数据的价值: 研究进展与展望[J]. 图书情报工作, 2020, 64(9): 122-132. (FU X W, ZHENG L. The value of open government data: insights from literature and a research agenda[J]. Library and information service, 2020, 64(9): 122-132.)
[49] 刘萍, 杨宇. 学术搜索过程中用户认知负荷变化——以中国知网的实证研究为例[J]. 情报理论与实践, 2018, 41(5): 125-130. (LIU P, YANG Y. Users' cognitive load variation in the process of academic search: an empirical research of CNKI[J]. Information studies: theory & application, 2018, 41(5): 125-130.)
[50] 侯冠华, 董华, 刘颖, 等. 导航结构与认知负荷对老年读者数字图书馆用户体验影响的实证研究——以国家数字图书馆为例[J]. 图书情报工作, 2018, 62(13): 45-53. (HOU G H, DONG H, LIU Y, et al. Effects of navigation and cognitive load on digital library user experience: a case study of national digital library of China[J]. Library and information service, 2018, 62(13): 45-53.)
[51] 孙崇勇, 刘电芝. 认知负荷主观评价量表比较[J]. 心理科学, 2013, 36(1): 194-201. (SUN C Y, LIU D Z. A comparison of several subjective rating scales of cognitive load[J]. Journal of psychological science, 2013, 36(1): 194-201.)
[52] PAAS F G W C, MERRIËNBOER J J G V. Variability of worked examples and transfer of geometrical problem-solving skills: a cognitive-load approach[J]. Journal of educational psychology, 1994, 86(1): 122.
[53] LOEHRER SR P J, GREGER H A, WEINBERGER M, et al. Knowledge and beliefs about cancer in a socioeconomically disadvantaged population [J]. Cancer, 1991, 68(7): 1665-1671.
[54] CHUA A Y K, BANERJEE S. Intentions to trust and share online health rumors: an experiment with medical professionals[J]. Computers in human behavior, 2018, 87: 1-9.
[55] KLUCK J P, SCHAEWITZ L, KRÄMER N. Doubters are more convincing than advocates: the impact of user comments and ratings on credibility perceptions of false news stories on social media[J]. SCM studies in communication and media, 2019, 8(4): 446-470.
文章导航

/