Understanding how people integrate conflicting health information: an epistemic cognition approach

Deroover, Kristine M. J.

Understanding how people integrate conflicting health information: an epistemic cognition approach

Deroover, Kristine M. J.

Permalink

Publication Type:: Thesis
Issue Date:: 2023

Open Access

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is open access.

Adobe PDF

Download thesisAdobe PDF (6.45 MB)

View statistics

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Deroover, Kristine M. J.
dc.date.accessioned	2025-04-11T03:25:26Z
dc.date.available	2025-04-11T03:25:26Z
dc.date.issued	2023
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/186827
dc.description	University of Technology Sydney. TD School.	en_US.UTF-8
dc.description.abstract	In an era marked by the proliferation of health-related information, individuals are frequently confronted with conflicting advice and divergent perspectives when making crucial health decisions. This thesis, "Understanding how people integrate conflicting health information: an epistemic cognition approach," comprises three interrelated studies aimed at unravelling the complexities of how people process and respond to conflicting health information. The first study conducts a comprehensive critical interpretive synthesis of existing literature on the processing of conflicting health information. It establishes an integrated model that transcends prior frameworks by amalgamating theoretical constructs from diverse disciplines. This study synthesises stages, pathways, and strategies, and models the determinants that influence the processing of conflicting health information. Key among these determinants are the individual's beliefs about knowledge, the construction of knowledge, and the reasons behind expert disagreements. This study underscores that awareness of the origins of disagreements promotes a balanced mental model of conflicting information, potentially enhancing decision-making. The second study addresses the underexplored realm of expert perspectives on disagreements in health information. By triangulating findings from a literature review, case studies and expert interviews, it presents a taxonomy of disagreements encompassing ten distinct types, categorised under three dimensions: informant-related, information-related, and uncertainty-related causes for disagreement. This taxonomy provides a valuable tool for understanding and addressing the diverse reasons behind expert disagreements, aiding in more effective communication and education in health and science. The third study employs a mixed methods approach, combining validated scales and content analysis, to investigate the intricate relationship between individuals' epistemic beliefs, explanations for expert disagreements, and their capacity to navigate conflicting health information through a Multiple Document Processing (MDP) task. The findings reveal that more adaptive epistemic beliefs correlate with better MDP task performance. Furthermore, an innovative intervention method is introduced, showing a promising trend in participants' perspectives showing more adaptive epistemic beliefs. Collectively, this thesis provides a holistic understanding of the challenges posed by conflicting health information. It underscores the importance of considering individuals' epistemic beliefs and their perspectives on how knowledge is constructed, as well as how experts may disagree when addressing this issue. Ultimately, this research informs strategies for enhancing health communication and promoting information literacy in the context of conflicting health information, contributing to more informed and effective health decision-making.	en_US.UTF-8
dc.format	Thesis (PhD)
dc.language.iso	en_US	en_US.UTF-8
dc.relation	https://opus.lib.uts.edu.au/bitstream/10453/186827/1/thesis.pdf
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.rights	The author owns the copyright in this thesis including all reproduction and reuse rights for the work. The work may not be altered without the permission of the copyright owner. Attribution is essential when quoting or paraphrasing from this thesis.
dc.rights	© 2023 Kristine M. J. Deroover
dc.rights	au.edu.uts.lib/cph
dc.title	Understanding how people integrate conflicting health information: an epistemic cognition approach	en_US.UTF-8
dc.type	Thesis
utslib.copyright.status	open_access	*

Abstract:

In an era marked by the proliferation of health-related information, individuals are frequently confronted with conflicting advice and divergent perspectives when making crucial health decisions. This thesis, "Understanding how people integrate conflicting health information: an epistemic cognition approach," comprises three interrelated studies aimed at unravelling the complexities of how people process and respond to conflicting health information. The first study conducts a comprehensive critical interpretive synthesis of existing literature on the processing of conflicting health information. It establishes an integrated model that transcends prior frameworks by amalgamating theoretical constructs from diverse disciplines. This study synthesises stages, pathways, and strategies, and models the determinants that influence the processing of conflicting health information. Key among these determinants are the individual's beliefs about knowledge, the construction of knowledge, and the reasons behind expert disagreements. This study underscores that awareness of the origins of disagreements promotes a balanced mental model of conflicting information, potentially enhancing decision-making. The second study addresses the underexplored realm of expert perspectives on disagreements in health information. By triangulating findings from a literature review, case studies and expert interviews, it presents a taxonomy of disagreements encompassing ten distinct types, categorised under three dimensions: informant-related, information-related, and uncertainty-related causes for disagreement. This taxonomy provides a valuable tool for understanding and addressing the diverse reasons behind expert disagreements, aiding in more effective communication and education in health and science. The third study employs a mixed methods approach, combining validated scales and content analysis, to investigate the intricate relationship between individuals' epistemic beliefs, explanations for expert disagreements, and their capacity to navigate conflicting health information through a Multiple Document Processing (MDP) task. The findings reveal that more adaptive epistemic beliefs correlate with better MDP task performance. Furthermore, an innovative intervention method is introduced, showing a promising trend in participants' perspectives showing more adaptive epistemic beliefs. Collectively, this thesis provides a holistic understanding of the challenges posed by conflicting health information. It underscores the importance of considering individuals' epistemic beliefs and their perspectives on how knowledge is constructed, as well as how experts may disagree when addressing this issue. Ultimately, this research informs strategies for enhancing health communication and promoting information literacy in the context of conflicting health information, contributing to more informed and effective health decision-making.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/186827