Dealing with conflicting or consistent medical information on the web: When expert information breeds laypersons' doubts about experts

Reading information about a scientific phenomenon on webpages varying for reliability: an eye-movement analysis

“…Overall, implicit source evaluation appears to be especially important from the perspective of effective lifelong learning, since adults increasingly rely on the Web as an informational source for critical decisions, for example regarding their health (Kienhues et al 2011).…”

Choosing and using multiple information sources: Some new findings and emergent issues

“…The Kienhues et al (2011) study suggests that working with multiple sources may alter epistemic beliefs. However, there are also a host of questions about the role of epistemic beliefs in more authentic multiple source contexts where decisions need to be made about what sites to gather and select and not just about which ones to read from a pre-selected set.…”

“…Such epistemic beliefs tend to be correlated with knowledge, that is, more sophisticated epistemic beliefs are associated with knowing more about a topic or discipline. Kienhues, Stadtler, and Bromme (2011) take up the interesting question of how exposure to multiple sources that contain conflicting information as compared to consistent information impacts epistemic beliefs. This contrasts with the more typical study in which epistemic beliefs are used to predict characteristics of reading and problem solving.…”

“…This contrasts with the more typical study in which epistemic beliefs are used to predict characteristics of reading and problem solving. Kienhues et al (2011) argue that encountering conflicting information about a topic ought to increase one's belief in the tentative and preliminary nature of what is known about that topic (in this case treatment of high cholesterol) as well as scientific knowledge more generally. They also note that the opportunity to learn more about the topic might also impact epistemic beliefs, given that those with greater knowledge are more likely to believe in the complexity and vagueness of knowledge as well as its dynamic nature than are those with less knowledge.…”

“…In the Kienhues et al (2011) study, three groups of participants (conflicting sources, consistent sources, no sources) addressed the question of what advice to give a friend about treatment for high cholesterol. The two source groups were provided with 15 sites each and 30 min in which to examine them after which they wrote out their advice and answered several questions, including whether the answer to the question was actually determinable or not.…”