新冠疫情中科普网红的说服机制与反思:基于精细加工可能性模型的两组实验研究  

The Persuasive Mechanism of “Science Communication Influencer” in the Pandemic: Two Experimental Studies Based on The Elaboration Likelihood Model

作　　者：宫贺[1] 徐莹 黄苗红 GONG He;XU Ying;HUANG Miaohong(School of Journalism and Communication,Xiamen University;College of Communication and Information Science,University of Alabama)

机构地区：[1]厦门大学新闻传播学院 [2]美国阿拉巴马大学传播与信息科学学院

出　　处：《国际新闻界》2022年第5期110-133,共24页Chinese Journal of Journalism & Communication

基　　金：国家社会科学基金项目“健康中国命题下的社交媒介卷入与对话信任研究”(编号:20BXW088)的阶段性成果。

摘　　要：2020年新型冠状病毒肺炎(COVID-19)疫情爆发伊始,一篇发表在《新英格兰医学杂志》上的论文引发了关于“科学家应先防控疫情还是先发论文”的公共讨论,一位“科普网红”先后采取了两种信息呈现方式(长文章和视频),以相同内容分别在微信公众号和视频网站哔哩哔哩进行了科学回应,并指出“实验室,同样是他们拯救生命的战场”。本研究即以此为背景,基于精细加工可能性模型(Elaboration Likelihood Model,ELM)通过两组实验分别对“信源身份”和“信息呈现方式”的调节作用进行检验,以探究面对不同电子健康素养水平的受众,信息呈现方式与信源身份是否对科普信息的采纳程度产生影响。实验结果显示,长文章形式对于电子健康素养越高的参与者说服效果更强,而视频形式对于电子健康素养与信息采纳意愿的关系没有显著影响。较以往研究更进一步,本研究从中介路径检验中发现对于电子健康素养较高的参与者,长文章(相比于视频)更能显著提高他们对于内容本身的信任,进而提升科普信息采纳度。此外,与传统ELM理论不同的是,在电子健康素养对信息采纳度的影响中,网络科普意见领袖的信源专业身份显露与否没有显著区别。本文进而从公共突发事件中科普辟谣的现实情境出发,探讨对上述“信源悖论”的可能解释,亦探讨了研究的局限性,理论与应用价值。At the beginning of the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, a public discussion about “whether scientists should first prevent and control the epidemic or publish papers” was triggered by academic publish in the New England Journal of Medicine. During this discussion,a science communication influencer, named “Bi Dao” adopted two media types(long article and video) successively but with the same series of scientific evidence to persuade the public to accept his statement “the laboratory is also the battlefield to save lives”, and he used two different platforms to do the persuasion, the WeChat and the Bilibili, respectively. Based on the above background, two experiments were conducted and framed by the Elaboration Likelihood Model(ELM). The peripheral route, in here, was operationalized as “professional identity of the source”and manipulated, and the interplay between eHealth literacy and media type were studied. The results of the two experiments showed that the text format was more persuasive for audiences with higher eHealth literacy, while the video format had no significant effect on the relationship between e Health literacy and intentions to accept information;the professional identities of online science opinion leaders had no significant effect on the relationship between eHealth literacy and intention to accept information, which contradicted the traditional ELM hypothesis of the influence of sources as heuristic cue. The paper also discussed the limitations, theoretical and practical applications of the research, especially under the context of the pandemic and social mediated science communication.

关 键 词：科学传播 电子健康素养 信息呈现方式 信源身份 

分 类 号：G206[文化科学—传播学]