1 / 19

Trustworthiness and Authoritativeness of YouTube Videos on Smokeless Tobacco

Trustworthiness and Authoritativeness of YouTube Videos on Smokeless Tobacco. Donghua Tao, Prajakta Adsul , Ricardo Wray, Keri Jupka , Carolyn Semar , Kathryn Goggins Saint Louis University. Introduction.

tatyana-diaz
Télécharger la présentation

Trustworthiness and Authoritativeness of YouTube Videos on Smokeless Tobacco

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Trustworthiness and Authoritativeness of YouTube Videos on Smokeless Tobacco Donghua Tao, PrajaktaAdsul, Ricardo Wray, Keri Jupka, Carolyn Semar, Kathryn Goggins Saint Louis University

  2. Introduction • YouTube™ is a popular social media website with the largest collection of user-generated videos accessible to anyone with Internet access. • Depictions of tobacco in YouTube™ videos has affected tobacco use behaviors of young adults as evident in past research. • The trustworthiness and authoritativeness of videos on YouTube™ remains unclear. • This study explored the attributes of YouTube™ videos about smokeless tobacco products (STP) and their relationship with videos’ trustworthiness and authoritativeness.

  3. Methods Search • 17 search terms with variations were used based on existing literature, to ensure comprehensive results. Chaw Chew Chewing Commercial Commercials Dip Dipping Dissolvable Leaf LozengePlug Roll Smokeless Snuff Snuffing Snus Twist

  4. Methods Sampling • 3603 unique videos were retrieved between October and December 2011 (from videos uploaded in the past 6 months) • Randomly sampled 433 videos • Of which, 278 were included based on inclusion criteria (inter-rater reliability for inclusion was achieved with Cohen’s Kappa >=0.8 )

  5. Methods Data Collecting • Each retrieved video was recorded with an open source video downloading software FreeStudio • The video page was screenshot with metadata, including number of views, ratings, number of times a video was selected as a favorite, and number of comments

  6. Methods – Data Analysis Numeric data – YouTube Metadata • SPSS 20.0 Textual data: coding • Predefined codebook, with questions about 1) video’s message content (e.g. pro or against STP), 2) production values (e.g. video quality), and 3) source factors (e.g. author/sponsor of the video, if the video references other videos) • Inter-coder reliability achieved with Krippendorf’s alpha of more than 0.8

  7. Results Video’s message content

  8. Results Video’s production value

  9. Results Source factor

  10. Results Metadata description

  11. Results - Correlations (Spearman’s rho) • Positive correlation between pro STP videos and No. of favorite (r=0.16, p<0.01)

  12. Results - Correlations (Spearman’s rho) • Positive correlation between professional-generated videos and ratings (r=0.18, p<0.01)

  13. Results - Correlations (Spearman’s rho) • Positive correlation between videos with author name, contact info, and referencing other videos, etc. & ratings (r=0.15, p<0.01)

  14. Results - Correlations (Spearman’s rho) • Positive correlation between videos with author name, contact info, and referencing other videos, etc. & No. of comments (r=0.19, p<0.01)

  15. Discussion • YouTube users like videos that favor STP use. • High quality (Professional-generated) videos received higher ratings -> Hypothesis 1: viewers are more likely to trust the information disseminated by high quality videos.

  16. Discussion • Videos with author or contact information, inviting feedback from viewers, and referencing other YouTube users received higher ratings and more comments than those without this information -> Hypothesis 2: viewers trust videos with author or contact information, inviting feedback from viewers, and referencing other YouTube users; and perceived they were more authoritative.

  17. Discussion – Research Implication Production value (quality of video) Source factors (e.g. video authors, referencing other videos, etc.) Trustworthiness and authoritativeness Persuasiveness Use & Apply Video metadata (# of views, # of comments, ratings, etc.)

  18. Discussion – Practical Implications • Evaluation criteria on health-related media materials • Medical librarians teach healthcare consumers how to evaluate online media information that is related to health and wellbeing (e.g. YouTube videos)? • Use online media as a tool to educate healthcare consumers healthy life styles and behaviors to promote health and wellbeing.

  19. Future Studies • Survey real YouTube users about these sampled STP videos on their perceptions on trustworthiness and authoritativeness of the videos. • Test the hypotheses. • Study influence of YouTube™ videos on young people’s health behavior. *An ongoing dissertation study on the influence of content of the comments on viewers of YouTube videos.

More Related