Manipulating Google's Knowledge Graph Box to Counter Biased Information Processing During an Online Search on Vaccination: Application of a Technological Debiasing Strategy
- PMID: 27255736
- PMCID: PMC4911515
- DOI: 10.2196/jmir.5430
Manipulating Google's Knowledge Graph Box to Counter Biased Information Processing During an Online Search on Vaccination: Application of a Technological Debiasing Strategy
Abstract
Background: One of people's major motives for going online is the search for health-related information. Most consumers start their search with a general search engine but are unaware of the fact that its sorting and ranking criteria do not mirror information quality. This misconception can lead to distorted search outcomes, especially when the information processing is characterized by heuristic principles and resulting cognitive biases instead of a systematic elaboration. As vaccination opponents are vocal on the Web, the chance of encountering their non‒evidence-based views on immunization is high. Therefore, biased information processing in this context can cause subsequent impaired judgment and decision making. A technological debiasing strategy could counter this by changing people's search environment.
Objective: This study aims at testing a technological debiasing strategy to reduce the negative effects of biased information processing when using a general search engine on people's vaccination-related knowledge and attitudes. This strategy is to manipulate the content of Google's knowledge graph box, which is integrated in the search interface and provides basic information about the search topic.
Methods: A full 3x2 factorial, posttest-only design was employed with availability of basic factual information (comprehensible vs hardly comprehensible vs not present) as the first factor and a warning message as the second factor of experimental manipulation. Outcome variables were the evaluation of the knowledge graph box, vaccination-related knowledge, as well as beliefs and attitudes toward vaccination, as represented by three latent variables emerged from an exploratory factor analysis.
Results: Two-way analysis of variance revealed a significant main effect of availability of basic information in the knowledge graph box on participants' vaccination knowledge scores (F2,273=4.86, P=.01), skepticism/fear of vaccination side effects (F2,273=3.5, P=.03), and perceived information quality (F2,273=3.73, P=.02). More specifically, respondents receiving comprehensible information appeared to be more knowledgeable, less skeptical of vaccination, and more critical of information quality compared to participants exposed to hardly comprehensible information. Although, there was no significant interaction effect between the availability of information and the presence of the warning, there was a dominant pattern in which the presence of the warning appeared to have a positive influence on the group receiving comprehensible information while the opposite was true for the groups exposed to hardly comprehensible information and no information at all. Participants evaluated the knowledge graph box as moderately to highly useful, with no significant differences among the experimental groups.
Conclusion: Overall, the results suggest that comprehensible information in the knowledge graph box positively affects participants' vaccination-related knowledge and attitudes. A small change in the content retrieval procedure currently used by Google could already make a valuable difference in the pursuit of an unbiased online information search. Further research is needed to gain insights into the knowledge graph box's entire potential.
Keywords: debiasing; health communication; information processing; information seeking; online health information search; search behavior; search engine; vaccination.
Conflict of interest statement
Conflicts of Interest: None declared.
Figures






Similar articles
-
The impact of search engine selection and sorting criteria on vaccination beliefs and attitudes: two experiments manipulating Google output.J Med Internet Res. 2014 Apr 2;16(4):e100. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2642. J Med Internet Res. 2014. PMID: 24694866 Free PMC article.
-
"I was Right about Vaccination": Confirmation Bias and Health Literacy in Online Health Information Seeking.J Health Commun. 2019;24(2):129-140. doi: 10.1080/10810730.2019.1583701. Epub 2019 Mar 21. J Health Commun. 2019. PMID: 30895889
-
Can cognitive biases during consumer health information searches be reduced to improve decision making?J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2009 Jan-Feb;16(1):54-65. doi: 10.1197/jamia.M2557. Epub 2008 Oct 24. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2009. PMID: 18952948 Free PMC article.
-
The impact of the web and social networks on vaccination. New challenges and opportunities offered to fight against vaccine hesitancy.Med Mal Infect. 2016 May;46(3):117-22. doi: 10.1016/j.medmal.2016.02.002. Epub 2016 Mar 14. Med Mal Infect. 2016. PMID: 26987960 Review.
-
Consumer Evaluation of the Quality of Online Health Information: Systematic Literature Review of Relevant Criteria and Indicators.J Med Internet Res. 2019 May 2;21(5):e12522. doi: 10.2196/12522. J Med Internet Res. 2019. PMID: 31045507 Free PMC article.
Cited by
-
Collective Value Promotes the Willingness to Share Provaccination Messages on Social Media in China: Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR Form Res. 2022 Oct 4;6(10):e35744. doi: 10.2196/35744. JMIR Form Res. 2022. PMID: 36067417 Free PMC article.
-
The Role of Information Boxes in Search Engine Results for Symptom Searches: Analysis of Archival Data.JMIR Infodemiology. 2022 Sep 14;2(2):e37286. doi: 10.2196/37286. eCollection 2022 Jul-Dec. JMIR Infodemiology. 2022. PMID: 37113445 Free PMC article.
-
What would happen if twitter sent consequential messages to only a strategically important subset of users? A quantification of the Targeted Messaging Effect (TME).PLoS One. 2023 Jul 27;18(7):e0284495. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0284495. eCollection 2023. PLoS One. 2023. PMID: 37498911 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Can biased search results change people's opinions about anything at all? a close replication of the Search Engine Manipulation Effect (SEME).PLoS One. 2024 Mar 26;19(3):e0300727. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0300727. eCollection 2024. PLoS One. 2024. PMID: 38530851 Free PMC article.
-
Can "Googling" correct misbelief? Cognitive and affective consequences of online search.PLoS One. 2021 Sep 22;16(9):e0256575. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0256575. eCollection 2021. PLoS One. 2021. PMID: 34550993 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Fox S, Duggan M. Health Online 2013. Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project; 2013. [2015-11-17]. http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/01/15/health-online-2013/
-
- Flash Eurobarometer 404 . European citizens' digital health literacy. A report to the European Commission. Brussels: 2014. Nov, [2015-11-17]. http://bookshop.europa.eu/en/european-citizens-digital-health-literacy-p... .
-
- Cline RJ, Haynes KM. Consumer health information seeking on the Internet: the state of the art. Health Educ Res. 2001 Dec;16(6):671–692. http://her.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=11780707 - PubMed
-
- Stern AM, Markel H. The history of vaccines and immunization: familiar patterns, new challenges. Health Aff (Millwood) 2005 May;24(3):611–621. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.24.3.611. http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=15886151 24/3/611 - DOI - PubMed
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
Research Materials
Miscellaneous