Cover of book: Vertrauen in Gesundheitsangebote im Internet
Buy in shop
, to see if you have full access to this publication.
Monograph No access

Vertrauen in Gesundheitsangebote im Internet

Einfluss von Informationsquellen und wissenschaftlichen Unsicherheiten auf die Rezeption von Online-Informationen
Authors:
Publisher:
 2016

Bibliographic data

Edition
1/2016
Copyright Year
2016
ISBN-Print
978-3-8487-3176-3
ISBN-Online
978-3-8452-7544-4
Publisher
Nomos, Baden-Baden
Series
Gesundheitskommunikation | Health Communication
Volume
11
Language
German
Pages
331
Product Type
Monograph

Table of contents

ChapterPages
  1. Titelei/Inhaltsverzeichnis No access 1 - 12
  2. Herausforderungen des Internets und Vertrauen in Online-Informationsangebote als Forschungsproblem No access 13 - 23
      1. Kriterien zur Eingrenzung einer Vertrauenssituation No access
      2. Die Rolle von Vertrauen in sozialen Interaktionen No access
    2. Abgrenzung von funktionalen Äquivalente No access
      1. Vertrauenserwartungen No access
      2. Bewertung der Vertrauenswürdigkeit und Annahmen über die Interessen des Vertrauensnehmers No access
      3. Vertrauensbereitschaft No access
      4. Vertrauenshandlung und Vertrauen als handlungsleitender Mechanismus No access
    4. Fazit und Übertragung auf Organisationen als Informationsquellen No access
    1. Klassifikation von Online-Angeboten No access
    2. Vertrauenssituation und Vertrauensprozess bei Organisationen als Informationsquellen im Online-Kontext No access
    3. Bedeutung von Vertrauen bei Online-Quellen No access
    4. Alternative Mechanismen zu Vertrauen im Online-Kontext No access
    5. Fazit No access
    1. Einflüsse dargestellter wissenschaftlicher Unsicherheiten auf Vertrauenswürdigkeitsbewertungen und Vertrauen No access
    2. Zusammenhang zwischen wissenschaftlichen Unsicherheiten und den Interessen des Vertrauensnehmers No access
    3. Fazit No access
  6. Zwischenfazit, Ableitung der Forschungsfragen und Anwendung auf Gesundheitsinformationen No access 176 - 183
    1. Forschungsfragen No access
      1. Design und Untersuchungsmaterial No access
      2. Hypothesen No access
      3. Stichprobe No access
      4. Messung zentraler Konstrukte und weiterer Variablen No access
      5. Ablauf der Untersuchung No access
    3. Ergebnisse No access
    4. Diskussion und Schlussfolgerungen No access
    1. Forschungsfragen No access
      1. Design und Untersuchungsmaterial No access
      2. Hypothesen No access
      3. Stichprobe No access
      4. Messung zentraler Konstrukte No access
      5. Ablauf der Untersuchung No access
    3. Ergebnisse No access
    4. Diskussion und Schlussfolgerungen No access
    1. Forschungsfragen No access
      1. Pretest des Untersuchungsmaterials 1: Quellen No access
      2. Pretest des Untersuchungsmaterials 2: Texte No access
      1. Design und Untersuchungsmaterial No access
      2. Hypothesen No access
      3. Stichprobe No access
      4. Messung zentraler Konstrukte und weiterer Variablen No access
      5. Ablauf der Untersuchung No access
    4. Ergebnisse No access
    5. Diskussion No access
  10. Abschlussdiskussion No access 292 - 316
  11. Literatur No access 317 - 331

Bibliography (260)

  1. International Telecommunication Union (ITU). (2014). Key ICT indicators for developed and developing countries and the world. [Exceltabelle]. Abgerufen auf https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/stat/ Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  2. Allam, A., Schulz, P.J., & Nakamoto, K. (2014). The impact of search engine selection and sorting criteria on vaccination beliefs and attitudes: Two experiments manipulating Google output. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 16(4), e100-140. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  3. Althoff, J. (2008). Der Faktor Glaubwürdigkeit in Wahlkämpfen: Aufbau, Verlust und Verteidigung durch professionalisierte Kommunikationsstrategien. Berlin: Lit. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  4. Avery, E. J. (2010). The role of source and factors audiences rely on in evaluating credibility of health information. Public Relations Review, 36, 81-83. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  5. Babrow, A. S., & Kline, K. N. (2000). From "reducing" to "coping with" uncertainty: Reconceptualizing the central challenge in breast self-exams. Social Science & Medicine, 51(12), 1805-1816. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  6. Baier, A. (1986). Trust and antitrust. Ethics, 96(2), 231-260. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  7. Baker, L., Wagner, T. H., Singer, S., & Bundorf, M. K. (2003). Use of the internet and E-mail for health care information: Results from a national survey. Journal of the American Medical Association, 289(18), 2400-2406. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  8. Barber, B. (1983). The logic and limits of trust. New Brunswick (NJ): Rutgers University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  9. Beldad , A., de Jong, M., & Steehouder, M. (2010). How shall I trust the faceless and the intangible? A literature review on the antecedents of online trust. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 857-869. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  10. Bentele, G. (1994). Öffentliches Vertrauen: Normative und soziale Grundlage für Public Relations. In W. Armbrecht, & U. Zabel (Eds.), Normative Aspekte der Public Relations: Grundlagen und Perspektiven. Eine Einführung (S. 131-158). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  11. Bentele, G., & Seidenglanz, R. (2008). Vertrauen und Glaubwürdigkeit. In R. Fröhlich, P. Szyszka, & G. Bentele (Eds.), Handbuch der Public Relations: Wissenschaftliche Grundlagen und berufliches Handeln. Mit Lexikon (S. 346-361). Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  12. Bernhardt, J. M., & Felter, E. M. (2004). Online pediatric information seeking among mothers of young children: Results from a qualitative study using focus groups. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 6(1), e7. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  13. Bierhoff, H. W., & Rohmann, E. (2010). Psychologie des Vertrauens. In M. Maring (Ed.), Vertrauen: Zwischen sozialem Kitt und der Senkung von Transaktionskosten (S. 71-90). Karlsruhe: KIT Scientific Publ. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  14. Blöbaum, B., & Nölleke, D. (2012). "If you doubt leave it out!" Journalists’ processing of uncertain scientific information. Beitrag auf der First International Conference on Journalism Studies, Santiago de Chile. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  15. Bodemer, N., Müller, S. M, Okan, Y., Garcia-Retamero, R., & Neumeyer-Gromen, A. (2012). Do the media provide transparent health information? A cross- cultural comparison of public information about the HPV vaccine. Vaccine, 30, 3747-3756. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  16. Boon, S. D., & Holmes, J. G. (1991). The dynamics of interpersonal trust: Resolving uncertainty in the face of risk. In R. A. Hinde & J. Groebel (Eds.), Co-operation and prosocial behaviour (S. 190-211). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  17. Bortz, J. (2005). Statistik für Human- und Sozialwissenschaftler (6 ed.). Heidelberg: Springer Medizin Verlag. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  18. Bråten, I., Britt, M. A., Strømsø, H. I., & Rouet, J. F. (2011). The role of epistemic beliefs in the comprehension of multiple expository texts: Toward an integrated model. Educational Psychologist, 46(1), 48-70. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  19. Brenkert, G. G. (1998). Trust, morality and international business. Business Ethics Quarterly, 8(2), 293-317. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  20. Brewer, P. R., & Ley, B. L. (2011). Multiple exposures: Scientific controversy, the media, and public responses to Bisphenol A. Science Communication, 33(1), 76-97. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  21. Briggs, P., Burford, B., De Angeli, A., & Lynch, P. (2002). Trust in online advice. Social Science Computer Review, 20, 321-332. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  22. Bromme, R., & Goldman, S. R. (2014). The public's bounded understanding of science. Educational Psychologist, 49(2), 59-69. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  23. Bromme, R., Kienhues, D., & Porsch, T. (2010). Who knows what and who can we believe? Epistemological beliefs are beliefs about knowledge (mostly) to be attained from others. In L. D. Bendixen & F. C. Feucht (Eds.), Personal Epistemology in the Classroom: Theory, Research, and Implications for Practice (S. 163-194). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  24. Brossard, D. (2013). New media landscapes and the science information consumer. PNAS Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(3), 14096–14101. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  25. Brossard, D., Scheufele, D. A., Kim, E., & Lewenstein. B. V. (2009). Religiosity as a perceptual filter: Examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 18(5), 546-558. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  26. Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung.(2012). Fragen und Antworten zur Nanotechnologie. Abgerufen auf der Webseite des Bundesinstituts für Risikobewertung http://www.bfr.bund.de /de/fragen_und_antworten_zur_nanotechnologie-8552.html Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  27. Butler, J. K. (1991). Toward understanding and measuring conditions of trust: Evolution of a conditions of trust inventory. Journal of Management, 17(3), 643-663. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  28. Butler, J. K., & Cantrell, R. S. (1984). A behavioral decision theory approach to modeling dyadic trust in superiors and subordinates. Psychological Reports, 55(1), 19-28. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  29. Cacciatore, M. A., Scheufele, D. A., & Corley, E. A. (2011). From enabling technology to applications: The evolution of risk perceptions about nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 20(3), 385-404. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  30. Carlisle, J. E., Feezell, J.T., Michaud, K. E. H., Smith, E. R. A. N., & Smith, L. (2010). The public’s trust in scientific claims regarding offshore oil drilling. Public Understanding of Science, 19(5), 514-527. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  31. Castell, S., Charlton, A., Clemence, M., Pettigrew, N., Pope, S., Quigley, A. ..., & Silman, T. (2014). Public Attitudes to Science 2014. Main Report. Abgerufen auf der Webseite von Ipsos Mori Social Research Institute https://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/ Polls/pas-2014-main-report.pdf. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  32. Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), 752-756. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  33. Chaiken, S., & Maheswaran, D. (1994). Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(3), 460-473. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  34. Chatterjee, S. C., & Chaudhuri, A. (2005). Are trusted brands important? The Marketing Management Journal, 15(1), 1-16. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  35. Childs, S. (2004). Developing health website quality assessment guidelines for the voluntary sector: Outcomes from the Judge Project. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 21, 14-26. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  36. Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge u.a.: The Belknap Press of Havard University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  37. Coleman, J. S. (1991). Grundlagen der Sozialtheorie. Band 1: Handlungen und Handlungssysteme. München: Oldenbourg. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  38. Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 909-927. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  39. Corritore, C. L., Kracher, B., & Wiedenbeck, S. (2003). On-line trust: Concepts, evolving themes, a model. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58, 737-758. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  40. Couper, M. P., Singer, E., Levin, C. A., Fowler, F.J., Fagerlin, A., & Zikmund-Fisher, B. J. (2010). Use of the Internet and ratings of information sources for medical decisions: Results from the DECISIONS survey. Medical Decision Making, 30, 106-114. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  41. Critchley, C. R. (2008). Public opinion and trust in scientists: The role of the research context, and the perceived motivation of stem cell researchers. Public Understanding of Science, 17, 309-327. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  42. Cummings, L. (2014). The “trust” heuristic: Arguments from authority in public health. Health Communication, 29(10), 1043-1056. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  43. Cummings, L., & Bromiley, P. (1996). The organizational trust inventory (OTI): Development and validation. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (S. 302-330). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  44. Currall, S. C., & Judge, T. A. (1995). Measuring trust between organizational boundary role persons. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 64(2), 151-170. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  45. Damm, O., Nocon, M., Roll, S., Vauth, C., Willich, S. N., & Greiner, W. (2009). Impfung gegen humane Papillomaviren (HPV) zur Prävention HPV 16/18 induzierter Zervixkarzinome und derer Vorstufen. Abgerufen auf portal.dimdi.de/de/hta/hta_berichte/hta234_bericht Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  46. _de.pdf Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  47. Deutsch, M. (1958). Trust and suspicion. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2(4), 265-279. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  48. Deutsch, M. (1960). The effect of motivational orientation upon trust and suspicion. Human relations, 13, 123-139. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  49. Dietz, G., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2006). Measuring trust inside organisations. Personnel Review, 35(5), 557-588. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  50. Douglas, H. (2004). The Irreducible Complexity of Objectivity. Synthese, 138(3), 453-473. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  51. Dreiskämper, D. (2015). Die Vertrauenswürdigkeit der Anti-Doping Arbeit von Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  52. Sportverbänden.(Dissertation, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  53. Dutta-Bergman, M. J. (2004). The impact of completeness and web use motivation on the credibility of e-health information. Journal of Communication, 54, 253-269. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  54. Ebeling, M. F. E. (2008). Mediating uncertainty: Communicating the financial risks of nanotechnologies. Science Communication, 29(3), 335-361. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  55. Endreß, M. (2002). Vertrauen. Bielefeld: transcript Verl. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  56. Endreß, M. (2010). Vertrauen: Soziologische Perspektiven. In M. Maring (Ed.), Vertrauen: Zwischen sozialem Kitt und der Senkung von Transaktionskosten (S. 91-114). Karlsruhe: KIT Scientific Publ. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  57. Endreß, M. (2012). Vertrauen und Misstrauen: Soziologische Überlegungen. In C. Schilcher, M. Will-Zocholl, & M. Ziegler (Eds.), Vertrauen und Kooperation in der Arbeitswelt. Wiesbaden: Springer Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  58. Eysenbach, G. (2003). Qualität von Gesundheitsinformationen im World Wide Web. Bundesgesundheitsblatt – Gesundheitsforschung – Gesundheitsschutz, 46(4), 292-299. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  59. Eysenbach, G. (2008). Credibility of health information and digital media: New perspectives and implications for youth. In M. J. Metzger & A. J. Flanagin (Eds.), Digital Media, Youth, and Credibility (S. 123-154). Cambridge: The MIT Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  60. Eysenbach, G., & Jadad, A. R. (2001). Evidence-based patient choice and consumer health informatics in the Internet age. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 3(2), e19. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  61. Eysenbach, G., Powell, J., Kuss, O., & Sa, E. R. (2002). Empirical studies assessing the quality of health information for consumers on the world wide web: A systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Association, 287(20), 2691-2700. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  62. Eysenbach, G., & Köhler, C. (2002). How do consumers search for and appraise health information on the world wide web? Qualitative study using focus groups, usability tests, and in-depth interviews. British Medical Journal, 324, 573-577. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  63. Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3 ed.). London: Sage Publications. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  64. Fischhoff, B. (1995). Risk perception and communication unplugged: Twenty years of process. Risk Analysis, 15(2), 137-145. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  65. Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. J. (2000). Perceptions of Internet information credibility. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 77(3), 515-540. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  66. Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. J. (2007). The role of site features, user attributes, and information verification behaviors on the perceived credibility of web-based information. New Media & Society, 9(2), 319-342. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  67. Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. J. (2008). Digital media and youth: Unparalleled opportunity and unprecedented responsibility. In M. J. Metzger & A. J. Flanagin (Eds.), Digital media, youth, and credibility (S. 5-28). Cambridge: The MIT Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  68. Fleishman-Hillard, & Harris Interactive (2008). Digital Influence Index Study: Understanding the role of the Internet in the lives of consumers in the UK, Germany and France. Abgerufen auf http://technomarketer.typepad.com/FH/DII_KeyFindings.pdf. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  69. Fogg B. J., Marshall J., Laraki O., Osipovich, A., Varma, C., Fang, N., Paul, J. ..., & Treinen, M. (2001). What makes web sites credible? A report on a large quantitative study. Paper presented at the CHI 2001 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Seattle. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  70. Folker, A. P., & Sandøe, P. (2008). Leaping "out of the doubt"-nutrition advice: Values at stake in communicating scientific uncertainty to the public. Health Care Analysis, 16, 176-191. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  71. Fox, S., & Rainie, L. (2002). Vital decisions: How Internet users decide what information to trust when they or their loves ones are sick. Abgerufen auf der Webseite des Pew Research Center http://www.pewinternet.org/2002/05/22/vital-decisions-a-pew-internet-health-report/ Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  72. Fox, S. (2011). The Social Life of Health Information. Abgerufen auf der Webseite des Pew Research Centers http://www.pewinternet.org/2011/05/12/the-social-life-of-health-information-2011/ Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  73. Fox, S., & Duggan, M. (2013). Health online 2013. Abgerufen auf der Webseite des Pew Research Centers http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/01/15/health-online-2013/ Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  74. Frewer, L. J., Howard, C., Hedderley, D., & Shepherd, R. (1996). What determines trust in information about food-related risks? Underlying psychological constructs. Risk Analysis 16(4), 473-486. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  75. Frewer, L. J., Scholderer, J., & Bredahl, L. (2003). Communicating about the risks and benefits of genetically modified foods: The mediating role of trust. Risk Analysis 23(6), 1117-1133. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  76. Gabarro, J. (1978). The development of trust, influence, and expectations. In A. G. Athos & J. J. Gabarro (Eds.), Interpersonal behavior: Communication and understanding in relationships. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  77. Gambetta, D. (1988). Foreword. In D. Gambetta (Ed.), Trust: Making and breaking cooperative relations (S. IX-X). New York: Basil Blackwell. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  78. Gambetta, D. (2001). Können wir dem Vertrauen vertrauen? In M. Hartmann & C. Offe (Eds.), Vertrauen: Die Grundlage des sozialen Zusammenhalts (S. 204-237). Frankfurt am Main: Campus-Verl. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  79. Gaskell, G., Stares, S., Allansdottir, A., Allum, N., Castro, P, Esmer, Y., Fischler, C. ..., & Wagner, W. (2010). Europeans and biotechnology in 2010: Winds of change? Abgerufen auf der Webseite der European Commission https://ec.europa.eu/research/swafs/pdf/ Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  80. pub_archive/europeans-biotechnology-in-2010_en.pdf Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  81. Gefen D., Karahanna, E., & Straub D. W. (2003). Trust and TAM in online shopping: An integrated model. MIS Quarterly, 27(1), 51-90. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  82. Gefen, D., & Straub, D. W. (2004). Consumer trust in B2C e-Commerce and the importance of social presence: Experiments in e-Products and e-Services. Omega, 32(6), 407-424. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  83. Gefen, D., Benbasat, I., & Pavlou, P. A. (2008). A research agenda for trust in online environments. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(4), 275-286. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  84. Giddens, A. (1995). Konsequenzen der Moderne. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  85. Giffin, K. (1967). The contribution of studies of source credibility to a theory of interpersonal trust in the communication process. Psychological Bulletin, 68(2), 104-120. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  86. Gillespie, N. (2003). Measuring trust in working relationships: The behavioral trust inventory. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Meeting, Seattle. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  87. Gitlow, S. (2000). The online community as a healthcare resource. In D. B. Nash, M. P. Manfredi, B. Bozarth, & S. Howell (Eds.), Connecting with the new healthcare customer: Defining your strategy (113-133). Maryland: Aspen Publishers. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  88. Glenton, C., Nilsen, E. S., & Carlsen, B. (2006). Lay perceptions of evidence-based information: A qualitative evaluation of a website for back pain sufferers. BMC Health Services Research, 34(6), o.S. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  89. Govier, T. (1994). Is it a jungle out there? Trust, distrust and the construction of social reality. Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review/Revue canadienne de philosophie, 33(2), 237-252. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  90. Grabner-Kräuter, S., & Kaluscha, E. A. (2003). Empirical research in on-line trust: A review and critical assessment. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58, 783-812. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  91. Greßler, S., Gazsó, A., Simkó, M., Fiedeler, U., & Nentwich, M. (2009). Nanotechnologie in Kosmetika. nano trust dossiers (Dossier Nr. 8). Abgerufen auf der Webseite des Instituts für Technikfolgen-Abschätzung der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften http://www.oeaw.ac.at/ita/projekte/nanotrust/dossiers Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  92. Griffiths, K. M., & Christensen, H. (2000). Quality of web based information on treatment of depression: Cross sectional survey. British Medical Journal, 321, 1511–1515. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  93. Gronke, P., & Cook, T. E. (2007). Disdaining the media: The American public's changing attitudes toward the news. Political Communication, 24(3), 259-281. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  94. Grünberg, P. (2014). Vertrauen in das Gesundheitssystem. Wie unterschiedliche Erfahrungen unsere Erwartungen prägen. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  95. Guenther, T., & Möllering, G. (2010). A framework for studying the problem of trust in online settings. In D. Latusek & A. Gerbasi (Eds.), Trust and technology in a ubiquitous modern environment: Theoretical and methodological perspectives (S. 16-34). Hershey: IGI Global. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  96. Hamilton, J. G., Hutson S. P., Moser R. P., Kobrin S. C., Frohnmayer A. E., Alter B. P., & Han P. K. (2013). Sources of uncertainty and their association with medical decision making: Exploring mechanisms in fanconi anemia. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 46(2), 204-216. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  97. Han, P. K. J., Klein, W. M. P., Lehman, T. C., Massett, H., Lee, S. C., & Freedman, A. N. (2009). Laypersons' responses to the communication of uncertainty regarding cancer risk estimates. Medical Decision Making, 29, 391-403. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  98. Han, P. K. J., Klein, W. M. P., & Arora, N. K. (2011). Varieties of uncertainty in health care : A conceptual taxonomy. Medical Decision Making, 31, 828-838. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  99. Hansen, D. L., Derry, H. A., Resnick, P. J., & Richardson, C. R. (2003). Adolescents searching for health information on the internet: An observational study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 5(4), e25. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  100. Hardin, R. (2001). Conceptions and explanations of trust. In K. S. Cook (Ed.), Trust in society (S. 3-39). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  101. Hardin, R. (2002). Trust and Trustworthiness. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  102. Hardin, R. (2004). Distrust: Manifestations and Management. In R. Hardin (Ed.), Distrust (S. 3-33). New York: The Russell Sage Foundation. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  103. Hargittai, E., Fullerton, L., Menchen-Trevino, E., & Thomas, K. Y. (2010). Trust online: Young adults' evaluation of web content. International Journal of Communication, 4, 468-494. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  104. Harris, P. R., Sillence, E., & Briggs, P. (2011). Perceived threat and corroboration: Key factors that improve a predictive model of trust in Internet-based health information and advice. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 13(3), e51. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  105. Hartmann, M. (2010). Die Komplexität des Vertrauens. In M. Maring (Ed.), Vertrauen: Zwischen sozialem Kitt und der Senkung von Transaktionskosten (Vol. 3, S. 15-26). Karlsruhe: KIT Scientific Publ. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  106. Hofer, B. K. (2004). Epistemological understanding as a metacognitive process: Thinking aloud during online searching. Educational Psychologist, 39(1), 43-55. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  107. Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (2002). Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing. Mahwah, NJ: Psychology Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  108. Hoffjann, O. (2011). Vertrauen in Public Relations. Publizistik, 56, 65-84. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  109. Holmes-Rovner, M., Kroll, J., Schmitt, N., Rovner, D. R., Breer, M. L., Rothert, M. L. ..., & Talarczyk, G. (1996). Patient satisfaction with health care decisions: The satisfaction with decision scale. Medical Decision Making, 16(1), 58-64. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  110. Horrigan, J., & Rainie, L. (2006). The Internet’s growing role in life’s major moments. Abgerufen auf der Webseite des Pew Research Center http://www.pewinternet.org/2006/04/ Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  111. 19/the-internets-growing-role-in-lifes-major-moments/ Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  112. Hovland, C. I., & Weiss, W. (1951). The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 15(4), 635-650. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  113. Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., Irving, L., & Kelley, H. (1953). Communication and persuasion: Psychological studies of opinion change. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  114. Hu, Y., & Sundar, S. (2010). Effects of online health sources on credibility and behavioral intentions. Communication Research, 37(1), 105-132. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  115. Iding, M. K., Crosby M. E., Auernheimer, B., & Klemm, E. B. (2009). Web site credibility: Why do people believe what they believe? Instructional Science 37(1), 43-63. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  116. Jarvenpaa, S. L., Knoll, K., & Leidner, D. E. (1998). Is anybody out there? Antecedents of trust in global virtual teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14(4), 29-64. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  117. Jensen, J. D. (2008). Scientific uncertainty in news coverage of cancer research: Effects of hedging on scientists' and journalists' credibility. Human Communication Research, 34, 347-369. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  118. Jensen, J. D., & Hurley, R. J. (2010). Conflicting stories about public scientific controversies: Effects of news convergence and divergence on scientists’ credibility. Public Understanding of Science, 20(10), 1-16. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  119. Jensen, J. D., Carcioppolo, N., King, A. J., Bernat, J. K., Davis, L., Yale, R., & Smith, J. (2011). Including limitations in news coverage of cancer research: Effects of news hedging on fatalism, medical skepticism, patient trust, and backlash. Journal of Health Communication, 16, 486-503. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  120. Johnson, B. B., & Slovic, P. (1995). Presenting uncertainty in health risk assessment: Initial studies of its effects on risk perception and trust. Risk Analysis, 15(4), 485-494. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  121. Johnson, B. B., & Slovic, P. (1998). Lay views on uncertainty in environmental health risk assessment. Journal of Risk Research, 1(4), 261–279. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  122. Johnson, T. J., & Kaye, B. K. (2000). Using is believing: The influence of reliance on the credibility of online political information among politically interested Internet users. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 77(4), 865-879. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  123. Kammerer, Y., & Gerjets, P. (2012). Effects of search interface and Internet-specific epistemic beliefs on source evaluations during Web search for medical information: An eye-tracking study. Behaviour & Information Technology, 31(1), 83-97. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  124. Kelton, K., Fleischmann, K. R., & Wallace, W. A. (2008). Trust in digital information. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(3), 363-374. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  125. Khechine, H., Pascot, D., & Premont, P. (2008). Use of health-related information from the Internet by English-speaking patients. Health Informatics Journal, 14(1), 17-28. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  126. Kienhues, D., Bromme, R., & Stahl, E. (2008). Changing epistemological beliefs: The unexpected impact of a short-term intervention. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 545-565. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  127. Kienhues, D., Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2011). Dealing with conflicting or consistent medical information on the web: When expert information breeds laypersons’ doubts about experts. Learning and Instruction, 21, 193-204. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  128. Kieserling, A. (2012). Vertrauen: Ein Mechanismus der Reduktion sozialer Komplexität (1968). In O. Jahraus, A. Nassehi, M. Grizelj, I. Saake, C. Kirchmeier & J. Müller (Eds.), Luhmann-Handbuch: Leben - Werk - Wirkung (S. 140-144). Stuttgart: Metzler. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  129. Kim, P., Eng, T. R., Deering, M. J., & Maxfield, A. (1999). Published criteria for evaluating health related web sites: Review. British Medical Journal, 318, 647-649. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  130. Kiousis, S. (2001). Public trust or mistrust? Perceptions of media credibility in the information age. Mass Communication & Society, 4(4), 381-403. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  131. Koch, T., Peter, C., & Obermaier, M. (2013). Optimisten glaubt man nicht: Wie sich valenzbasiertes Framing auf die Glaubwürdigkeit von Aussagen und deren Kommunikator auswirkt. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft, 61(4), 551-567. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  132. Kohring, M. (2001). Vertrauen in Medien - Vertrauen in Technologie (Arbeitsbericht Nr. 196): Akademie für Technikfolgenabschätzung in Baden-Württemberg. Abgerufen auf der Webseite der Universität Stuttgart elib.uni-stuttgart.de/opus/volltexte/2004/1886/ Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  133. pdf/AB196.pdf Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  134. Kohring, M. (2004). Vertrauen in Journalismus: Theorie und Empirie. Konstanz: UVK-Verl.-Ges. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  135. Kohring, M. (2006). Zum Verhältnis von Wissen und Vertrauen: Eine Typologie am Beispiel öffentlicher Kommunikation. In K. Pühringer & S. Zielmann (Eds.), Vom Wissen und Nicht-Wissen einer Wissenschaft. Kommunikationswissenschaftliche Domänen, Darstellungen und Defizite. (S. 121-134). Berlin: Lit Verlag. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  136. Kohring, M. (2007). Vertrauen statt Wissen – Qualität im Wissenschaftsjournalismus. In J. Lublinski, G. Kienzlen & V. Stollorz (Eds.), Fakt, Fiktion, Fälschung: Trends im Wissenschaftsjournalismus (S. 25-38). Konstanz: UVK Verl.-Ges. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  137. Kohring, M. (2010). Vertrauen in Medien? Eine Kritik der Medienglaubwürdigkeitsforschung nebst weiterführenden Überlegungen zu einer Theorie des Vertrauens in journalistische Kommunikation und deren gesellschaftlicher Relevanz. In M. K. W. Schweer (Ed.), Vertrauensforschung 2010: A State of the Art (Vol. 9). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  138. Kohring, M. (2010a). Vertrauen: Ein Blankoscheck auf Zukunft. In J. Westerbarkey (Ed.), EndZeitKommunikation: Diskurse der Temporalität (S. 155-163). Münster/Hamburg: Lit. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  139. Kohring, M., Marcinkowski, F., Donk, A., Metag, J., & Friedemann, A. (2011). Das Bild der Nanotechnologie in deutschen Printmedien. Eine frameanalytische Langzeitstudie. Publizistik, 56, 199-219. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  140. Kramer, R. M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 569-598. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  141. Kruglanski, A. W. (1990). Motivations for judging and knowing: Implications for causal attribution. In E. T. Higgins & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (Vol. 2, S. 333-368). New York: Guilford Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  142. Kuhn, K. M. (2000). Message format and audience values: Interactive effects of uncertainty information and environmental attitudes on perceived risk. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20(1), 41-51. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  143. Kulkarni, G., Ratchford, B. T., & Kannan, P. K. (2012). The impact of online and offline information sources on automobile choice behavior. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 26(3), 167-175. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  144. Lagan, B. M., Sinclair, M., & Kernohan, W. G. (2010). Internet use in pregnancy informs women’s decision making: A web-based survey. Birth, 37(2), 106-115. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  145. Lagerspetz, O. (1998). Trust: The tacit demand. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  146. Larzelere, R. E., & Huston, T. L. (1980). The dyadic trust scale: Toward understanding interpersonal trust in close relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 42(3), 595-604. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  147. Lee, J. N., & Choi, B. (2011). Effects of initial and ongoing trust in IT outsourcing: A bilateral perspective. Information & Management, 48(2-3), 96-105. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  148. Levi, M., & Stoker, L. (2000). Political trust and trustworthiness. Annual Review of Political Science, 3, 475-507. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  149. Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., Seifert, C. M., Schwarz, N., & Cook, J. (2012). Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(3), 106-131. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  150. Lewicki, R. J., & Bunker, B. B. (1996). Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (S. 114-139). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  151. Lewicki, R. T., McAllister, D. J., & Bies, R. J. (1998). Trust and distrust: New relationships and realities. The Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 438-458. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  152. Lewis, J. D., & Weigert, A. (1985). Trust as a social reality. Social Forces, 63(4), 967-985. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  153. Liu, M.., & Wang, C. (2010). Explaining the influence of anger and compassion on negotiators' interaction goals: An assessment of trust and distrust as two distinct mediators. Communication Research, 37(4), 443-472. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  154. Löffelholz, M. (2004). Ein privilegiertes Verhältnis: Theorien zur Analyse der Inter-Relationen von Journalismus und Öffentlichkeitsarbeit. In M. Löffelholz (Ed.), Theorien des Journalismus: Ein diskursives Handbuch. (S. 471-486). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  155. Lorigo, L., Pan, B., Hembrooke, H., Joachims, T., Granka, L., & Gay, G. (2006). The influence of task and gender on search and evaluation behavior using Google. Information Processing and Management, 42(4), 1123-1131. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  156. Lucassen, T., & Schraagen, J. M. (2013). The influence of source cues and topic familiarity on credibility evaluation. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1387-1392. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  157. Luhmann, N. (1979). Trust and Power. Chichester: Wiley. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  158. Luhmann, N. (1984). Die Wirtschaft der Gesellschaft als autopoetisches System. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 13(4), 308-327. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  159. Luhmann, N. (1989). Vertrauen: Ein Mechanismus der Reduktion von Komplexität (3. ed.). Stuttgart: Ferdinand Enke Verlag. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  160. Luhmann, N. (2000). Familiarity, confidence, trust: Problems and alternatives. In D. Gambetta (Ed.), Trust: Making and breaking cooperative relations [Elektronische Version]. Abgerufen auf http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.23.8075 &rep=rep1&type=pdf Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  161. Luhmann, N. (2001). Vertrautheit, Zuversicht, Vertrauen: Probleme und Alternativen. In M. Hartmann & C. Offe (Eds.), Vertrauen: Die Grundlage des sozialen Zusammenhalts (S. 143-160). Frankfurt: Campus-Verl. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  162. Luo, W., & Najdawi, M. (2004). Trust-building measures: A review of consumer health portals. Communications of the ACM, 47(1), 109-113. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  163. Machill, M., Beiler, M., & Zenker, M. (2008). Search-engine research: A European-American overview and systematization of an interdisciplinary and international research field. Media, Culture & Society, 30(5), 591-608. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  164. Madden, K., Nan, X., Briones, R., & Waks, L. (2012). Sorting through search results: A content analysis of HPV vaccine information online. Vaccine 30(25), 3741-3746. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  165. Maier, M., & Taddicken, M. (2013). Audience perspectives on science communication (Editorial). Journal of Media Psychology, 25(1), 1-2. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  166. Marcinkowski, F., Kohring, M., Friedemann, A. & Donk, A. (2008). Risikowahrnehmung beim Thema Nanotechnologie: Analyse der Medienberichterstattung. Abgerufen auf der Webseite des Bundesinstituts für Risikobewertung http://www.bfr.bund.de/cm/350/ risikowahrnehmung_beim_thema_nanotechnologie.pdf Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  167. Marshall, L. A., & Williams, D. (2006). Health information: Does quality count for the consumer? How consumers evaluate the quality of health information across a variety of media. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 38(3), 141-156. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  168. Mason, L., Boldrin, A., & Ariasi, N. (2010). Searching the Web to learn about a controversial topic: Are students epistemically active? Instructional Science, 38, 607-633. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  169. Mason, L., & Ariasi, N. (2010). Critical thinking about biology during web page reading: Tracking students’ evaluation of sources and information through eye fixations. In L. Verschaffel, E. de Corte, T. de Jong & J. Elen (Eds.), Use of representations in reasoning and problem solving: Analysis and improvement (pp. 55-73). London: Routledge. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  170. Matthes, J., & Kohring, M. (2003). Operationalisierung von Vertrauen in Journalismus. Medien und Kommunikationswissenschaft, 51(1), 5-23. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  171. Maxim, L., & Mansier, P. (2014). How is scientific credibility affected by communicating uncertainty? The case of endocrine disrupter effects on male fertility. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal, 20(1), 201-223. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  172. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoormann, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709-734. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  173. Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (1999). The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for management: A field quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(1), 123-136. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  174. Mayring, P. (2010). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken (Vol. 11). Basel: Beltz Verlag. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  175. McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. The Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 24-59. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  176. McEvily, B., & Tortoriello, M. (2011). Measuring trust in organisational research: Review and recommendations. Journal of Trust Research, 1(1), 23-63. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  177. McKnight, D. H., Chervany, N.L. (1996). The meanings of trust. Abgerufen auf http://misrc.umn.edu/workingpapers/fullpapers/1996/9604_040100.pdf . Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  178. McKnight, D. H., Cummings, L. L., & Chervany, N. L. (1998). Initial Trust Formation in New Organizational Relationships. The Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 473-490. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  179. McKnight, D. H., & Chervany, N. L. (2001). Trust and distrust definitions: One bite at a time. In R. Falcone, M. Singh & Y. H. Tan (Eds.), Trust in cyber-societies (S. 27-54). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  180. McKnight, D. H., Choudhury, V. & Kacmar, C. (2002a). Developing and validating trust measures for E-Commerce: An integrative typology. Information Systems Research, 13(3), 334-359. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  181. McKnight, D. H., Choudhury, V. & Kacmar, C. (2002b). The impact of initial consumer trust on intentions to transact with a web site: A trust building model. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 11(3), 297-323. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  182. Mende, A., Oehmichen, E., & Schröter, C. (2013). Gestaltwandel und Aneignungsdynamik des Internets: Befunde aus den ARD/ZDF-Onlinestudien 1997 bis 2012. Media Perspektiven, 1, 33-49. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  183. Merton, R. K. (1942). Science and technology in a democratic order. Journal of Legal and Political Sociology, 1, 115-126. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  184. Metzger, M. J., Flanagin, A. J., & Medders, R. B. (2010). Social and heuristic approaches to credibility evaluation online. Journal of Communication, 60(3), 413-439. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  185. Meyerson, D., Weick, K. E., & Kramer, R. M. (1996). Swift trust and temporary groups. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (S.166-195). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  186. Michaels, D., & Monforton, C. (2005). Manufacturing uncertainty: Contested science and the protection of the public's health and environment. American Journal of Public Health, 95(1), 39-48. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  187. Misztal, B. A. (1998). Trust in modern societies: The search for the bases of social order (2 ed.). Cambridge: Polity Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  188. Möllering, G. (2001). The nature of trust: From Georg Simmel to a theory of expectation, interpretation and suspension. Sociology, 35(2), 403-420. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  189. Möllering, G., & Sydow, J. (2005). Kollektiv, kooperativ, reflexiv: Vertrauen und Glaubwürdigkeit in Unternehmungen und Unternehmungsnetzwerken. In B. Dernbach & M. Meyer (Eds.), Vertrauen und Glaubwürdigkeit: Interdisziplinäre Perspektiven (S. 64-93). Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  190. Möllering, G. (2006). Trust: Reason, Routine, Reflexivity. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  191. Möllering, G. (2013). Process views of trusting and crises. In R. Bachmann & A. Zaheer (Eds.), Handbook of advances in trust research (S. 285-305). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  192. Muir, B. M. (1994). Trust in automation: Part I. Theoretical issues in the study of trust and human intervention in automated systems. Ergonomics, 37(11), 1905-1922. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  193. Müller, J. (2013). Mechanisms of trust: News media in democratic and authoritarian regimes. Frankfurt am Main: Campus-Verl. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  194. Nawratil, U. (1999). Glaubwürdigkeit als Faktor im Prozess medialer Kommunikation. In P. Rössler & W. Wirth (Eds.), Glaubwürdigkeit im Internet. Fragestellungen, Modelle, empirische Befunde (Vol. 32, S. 15-31). München: Verlag Reinhard Fischer. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  195. Neuberg, S. L., Judice, T. N., & West, S. G. (1997). What the Need for Closure Scale measures and what it does not: Toward differentiating among related epistemic motives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 72(6), 1396–1412. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  196. Neuberger, C. (2009). Internet, Journalismus und Öffentlichkeit: Analyse des Medienumbruchs. In C. Neuberger, C. Nuernbergk & Rischke, M. (Eds.), Journalismus im Internet. Profession – Partizipation – Technisierung (S. 19-106). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  197. Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175-220. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  198. Norman, C. D., & Skinner, H. A. (2006). eHEALS: The eHealth literacy scale. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 8(4), e27. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  199. O’Connor, A. M. (1995). Validation of a decisional conflict scale. Medical Decision Making, 15(1), 25-30. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  200. Offe, C. (1996). Modernity and the State: East, West. Cambridge: MIT Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  201. Peterson, G., Aslani, P., & Williams, K. A. (2003). How do consumers search for and appraise information on medicines on the Internet: A qualitative study using focus groups. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 5(4), e33. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  202. Politi, M. C., Han, P. K. J., & Col, N. F. (2007). Communicating the uncertainty of harms and benefits of medical interventions. Medical Decision Making, 27(5), 681-695. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  203. Pollach, I. (2005). Corporate self-presentation on the WWW: Strategies for enhancing usability, credibility and utility. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 10(4), 285-301. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  204. Popper, K. (1961). The logic of scientific discovery. New York: Science Editions. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  205. Preisendörfer, P. (1995). Vertrauen als soziologische Kategorie: Möglichkeiten und Grenzen einer entscheidungstheoretischen Fundierung des Vertrauenskonzepts. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 24(4), 263-272. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  206. Quandt, T. (2012). What’s left of trust in a network society? An evolutionary model and critical discussion of trust and societal communication. European Journal of Communication, 27(1), 7-21. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  207. Quintana, Y., Feightner, J. W., Wathen, C. N., Sangster, L. M., & Marshall, J. N. (2001). Preventive health information on the Internet: Qualitative study of consumer perspectives. Canadian Family Physician, 47, 1759-1765. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  208. Rabinovich, A., Morton, T. A., & Birney, M. E. (2012). Communicating climate science: The role of perceived communicator’s motives. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 32(1), 11-18. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  209. Rabinovich, A., & Morton, T. A. (2012). Unquestioned answers or unanswered questions: Beliefs about science guide responses to uncertainty in climate change risk communication. Risk Analysis, 32(6), 992-1002. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  210. Rains, S. A., & Donnerstein Karmikel, C. (2009). Health information-seeking and perceptions of website credibility: Examining Web-use orientation, message characteristics, and structural features of websites. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 544-553. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  211. Retzbach, A., Marschall, J., Rahnke, M., Otto, L., & Maier, M. (2011). Public understanding of science and the perception of nanotechnology: The roles of interest in science, methodological knowledge, epistemological beliefs, and beliefs about science. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 13(12), 6231-6244. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  212. Retzbach, A., & Maier, M. (2015). Communicating scientific uncertainty: Media effects on public engagement with science. Communication Research, 42(3), 429-456. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  213. Retzbach, J., Retzbach, A., Maier, M., Otto, L., & Rahnke, M. (2013). Effects of repeated exposure to science TV shows on beliefs about scientific evidence and interest in science. Journal of Media Psychology, 25(1), 3–13. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  214. Retzbach, J., Otto, L., & Maier, M. (2015). Measuring the perceived uncertainty of scientific evidence and its relationship to engagement with science. Public Understanding of Science, Vorab Online-Publikation, 1-18. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  215. Ripperger, T. (2003). Ökonomik des Vertrauens. (2 ed.). Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  216. Roets, A., & Van Hiel, A. (2011). Item selection and validation of a brief, 15-item version of the Need for Closure Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(1), 90-94. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  217. Rosenvinge, J. H., Laugerud, S., & Hjortdahl, P. (2003). Trust in health websites: A survey among Norwegian Internet users. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, 9(3), 161-166. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  218. Rossmann, C. (2010). Gesundheitskommunikation im Internet: Erscheinungsformen, Potentiale, Grenzen. In W. Schweiger & K. Beck (Eds.), Handbuch Online-Kommunikation (S. 338-363). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  219. Rotter, J. B. (1980). Interpersonal trust, trustworthiness, and gullibility. American Psychologist, 35(1), 1-7. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  220. Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393-404. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  221. Salméron, L., Kammerer, Y. & García-Carrión, P. (2013). Searching the Web for conflicting topics: Page and user factors. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2161–2171. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  222. Schoorman, F. D., Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (2007). An integrative model of organizational trust: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 344-354. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  223. Seligman, A. B. (2000). The problem of trust (2 ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  224. Sherif, M., & Hovland, C.I. (1961). Social judgement: Assimilation and contrast effects in communication and attitude change. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  225. Sillence, E., Briggs, P., Harris, P., & Fishwick, L. (2007a). How do patients evaluate and make use of online health information? Social Science and Medicine, 64(9), 1853-1862. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  226. Sillence, E., Briggs, P., Harris, P., & Fishwick, L. (2007b). Going online for health advice: Changes in usage and trust practices over the last five years. Interacting with Computers, 19(3), 397-406. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  227. Simmel, G. (1996). Philosophie des Geldes (Vol.11; 4 ed.). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  228. Simmel, G. (1999). Soziologie: Untersuchungen über die Formen der Vergesellschaftung. Frankfurt am Main. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  229. Siow, T. R., Soh, I. P. T., Sreedharan, S., Das De, S., Tan, P. P., Seow, A., & Lun, K.C. (2003). The Internet as a source of health information among Singaporeans: Prevalence, patterns of health surfing and impact on health behavior. Annals of the Academy of Medicine Singapore, 32(6), 807-813. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  230. Sitkin, S. B., & Roth, N. L. (1993). Explaining the limited effectiveness of legalistic "remedies" for trust/distrust. Organization Science, 4(3), 367-392. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  231. Smith, D. (2011). Health care consumer’s use and trust of health information sources. Journal of Communication in Healthcare, 4(3), 200-210. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  232. Soh, H., Reid, L. N., & King, K. W. (2007). Trust in different advertising media. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 84(3), 455-476. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  233. Song, J., & Zahedi, F. M. (2007). Trust in health infomediaries. Decision Support Systems, 43(2), 390-407. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  234. Sperber, D., Clément, F., Heintz, C., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., Origgi, G., & Wilson, D. (2010). Epistemic Vigilance. Mind & Language, 25(4), 359-393. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  235. Stahl, E., & Bromme, R. (2007). The CAEB: An instrument for measuring connotative aspects of epistemological beliefs. Learning and Instruction, 17(6), 773-785. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  236. Sundar, S., & Nass, C. (2001). Conceptualizing sources in online news. Journal of Communication, 51(1), 52-72. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  237. Tang, E., & Lee, W. (2006). Singapore Internet users' health information search: Motivation, perception of information sources, and self-efficacy. In M. Murero & R. E. Rice (Eds.), The Internet and Health Care. Theory, Research, and Practice (S. 107-126). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  238. Terwel, B. W., Harinck, F., Ellemers, N., & Daamen, D. D. L. (2009). How organizational motives and communications affect public trust in organizations: The case of carbon dioxide capture and storage. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(2), 290-299. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  239. Thompson, J. W. (1963). The importance of opposites in human relations. Human Relations, 16, 161-169. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  240. Thon, F. M., & Jucks, R. (submitted). Believing in expertise: How author’s credentials and language use influence the credibility of online health information. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  241. Tseng, S., & Fogg, B. J. (1999). Credibility and computing technology. Communications of the ACM, 42(5), 39-44. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  242. Twenge, J. M., Campbell, W. K., & Carter, N. T. (2014). Declines in trust in others and confidence in institutions among American adults and late adolescents,1972-2012. Psychological Science, 25(10), 1914-1923.. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  243. Upshur, R. E. G. (2000). Seven characteristics of medical evidence. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 6(2), 93-97. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  244. Van der Heijden, H., Verhagen, T., & Creemers, M. (2003). Understanding online purchase intentions: Contributions from technology and trust perspectives. European Journal of Information Systems, 12, 41-48. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  245. Van Eimeren, B., & Frees, B. (2014). Ergebnisse der ARD/ZDF-Onlinestudie 2014: 79 Prozent der Deutschen online – Zuwachs bei mobiler Internetnutzung und Bewegtbild. Media Perspektiven, 7-8, 378-396. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  246. Vandermoere, F., Blanchemanche, S., Bieberstein, A., Marette, S., & Roosen, J. (2010). The morality of attitudes toward nanotechnology: About God, techno-scientific progress, and interfering with nature. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 12(2), 373-381. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  247. Warren, M. E. (1999). Democracy and trust. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  248. Weaver, J. B., Thompson, N., Weaver, S. S., & Hopkins, G. L. (2008). Profiling characteristics of individual's using Internet health information in health care non-adherence decisions. Beitrag auf der 136. Jahrestagung der American Public Health Association, San Diego. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  249. Webster, D. M., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1994). Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(6), 1049-1062. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  250. Westphal, S. & Blöbaum, B. (2016). Trust as an action: About the overrated significance of trust in information sources in a digitized world. In B. Blöbaum (Ed.), Trust and communication in a digitized world: Models and concepts of trust research (S. 113-124). Cham: Springer International Publishing. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  251. Westphal, S., Hendriks, F., & Malik, M. (2015). Vertrauenswürdigkeit ohne Vertrauen? Wie die Kommunikation wissenschaftlicher Unsicherheiten die Bewertungen und Entscheidungen von Rezipienten beeinflusst. In M. S. Schäfer, S. Kristiansen, & H. Bonfadelli, (Eds.), Wissenschaftskommunikation im Wandel (S. 340-364). Köln: Herbert von Halem Verlag. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  252. Whitener, E. M., Brodt, S. E., Korsgaard, M. A., & Werner, J. M. (1998). Managers as initiators of trust: An exchange relationship framework for understanding managerial trustworthy behavior. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 513-530. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  253. Wicks, A. C., Berman, S. L., & Jones, T. M. (1999). The structure of optimal trust: Moral and strategic implications. Academy of Management Review, 24(1), 99-116. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  254. Winter, S. (2013). Lost in Information? Sozialpsychologische Aspekte der Selektion und Rezeption von journalistischen Online-Angeboten. (Dissertation). Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  255. Winter, S., Krämer, N. C., Appel, J., & Schielke, K. (2010). Information selection in the blogosphere: The effect of expertise, community rating, and age. Beitrag auf der Tagung Proceedings of the 32nd annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Austin, TX. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  256. Winter, S. & Krämer, N. C. (2012). Selecting science information in Web 2.0: How source cues, message sidedness, and need for cognition influence users’ exposure to blog posts. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18(1), 80-96. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  257. Wirtz, M., & Kutschmann, M. (2007). Analyse der Beurteilerübereinstimmung für kategoriale Daten mittels Cohens Kappa und alternativer Maße. Rehabilitation, 46(6), 370-377. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  258. Wolling, J. (2004). Qualitätserwartungen, Qualitätswahrnehmungen und die Nutzung von Fernsehserien: Ein Beitrag zur Theorie und Empirie der subjektiven Qualitätsauswahl von Medienangeboten. Publizistik, 49(2), 171-193. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  259. Ye, Y. (2010). Correlates of consumer trust in online health information: Findings from the health information national trends survey. Journal of Health Communication: International Perspectives, 16(1), 34-49. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444
  260. Zehr, S. C. (2000). Public representations of scientific uncertainty about global climate change. Public Understanding of Science, 9(2), 85-103. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845275444

Similar publications

from the series "Gesundheitskommunikation | Health Communication"
Cover of book: Framing-Effekte im Alter
Monograph No access
Anne Reinhardt
Framing-Effekte im Alter
Cover of book: „Mensch Opa, du bist noch so fit!“
Monograph No access
Paula Stehr, Constanze Rossmann, Johanna Geppert, Hanna Lütke Lanfer, Tabea Kremer
„Mensch Opa, du bist noch so fit!“
Cover of book: Gesundheitskommunikation und Digitalisierung
Edited Book No access
Anja Kalch, Anna Wagner
Gesundheitskommunikation und Digitalisierung
Cover of book: Evidenzbasierte | evidenzinformierte Gesundheitskommunikation
Edited Book Full access
Paula Stehr, Dorothee Heinemeier, Constanze Rossmann
Evidenzbasierte | evidenzinformierte Gesundheitskommunikation
Cover of book: Medienhype 'Hirndoping'?
Monograph No access
Markus Schäfer
Medienhype 'Hirndoping'?

Notice

This work is protected by copyright and may only be used in accordance with the provisions of the Terms of Use and License Agreement. Any use of the work beyond this is expressly prohibited and will be prosecuted.

Give feedback

We welcome your feedback on content and features. Your message helps us to continuously improve our service.

Rating
Attach images
or drag and drop
PNG or JPG (max. 3 MB)

Login

Forgotten your password?
Login via your Institution (SSO, Shibboleth, OpenAthens)
Don't have an account yet?
Register now

Cite publication

Download: RIS BibTex