Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Barriers and Biases in Computer-Mediated Expert-Layperson-Communication

An overview and insights into the field of medical advice

  • Chapter
Barriers and Biases in Computer-Mediated Knowledge Communication

Part of the book series: Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Series ((CULS,volume 5))

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Alpay, L., Giboin, A., & Dieng, R. (1998). Accidentology: an example of problem solving by multiple agents with multiple representations. In M. W. Van Someren, P. Reimann, H. P. A. Boshuizen, & T. de Jong (Eds.), Learning with multiple representations (pp. 152–174). Amsterdam: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartels, M. (1992). Personzentrierte Gestaltung von Texten und Auswirkungen auf Verstehen und Behalten. Jahrbuch personzentrierte Psychologie und Psychotherapie, Band 3, 144–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beredjiklian, P. K., Bozentka, D. J., Steinberg, D. R., & Bernstein, J. (2000). Evaluating the source and content of orthopaedic information on the Internet. The case of carpal tunnel syndrome. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surger, 82-A(11) 1540–1543.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bormuth, J. (1968). Cloze test readability: criterion reference scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 5, 189–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, S. E. (1998). The grounding problem in conversations with and through computers. In S. R. Fussell & R. J. Kreuz (Eds.), Social and cognitive approaches to interpersonal communication (pp. 201–225). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, S. E., & Ohaeri, J. O. (1999). Why do electronicconversations seem less polite? The costs and benefits of hedging? Paper presented at the International Joint Conference on Work Activities, Coordination, and Collaboration, San Frnacisco.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bromme, R., & Jucks, R. (2001). Wissensdivergenz und Kommunikation: Lernen zwischen Experten und Laien im Netz. In H. F. Hesse & F. Friedrich (Eds.), Partizipation und Interaktion im virtuellen Seminar (pp. 81–103). Münster: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bromme, R., & Jucks. R. (2002). Rezipientenorientierung bei der netzgestützten, schriftlichen Kommunikation zwischen Experten und Laien. Unveröff. Projektantrag an die DFG. Westf. Wilhelms-Universität Münster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bromme, R., Rambow, R., & Nückles, M. (2001). Expertise and estimating what other people know: the influence of professional experience and type of knowledge. Journal of experimental psychology: Applied, 7(4), 317–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. D. (1983). A closer look at cloze: validity and reliability. In J. W. Oiler (Eds.) Issues in language testing research (237–251). Rowles, Massachusetts: Newbury Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, P. M., & Dell, G. S. (1987). Adapting production to comprehension: The explicit mention of instruments. Cognitive Psychology, 19, 441–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruer, J. T. (1994). Schools for Thought: A Science of Learning in the Classroom von John T. Bruer: Bradford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buhl, H. M. (1996). Wissenserwerb und Raumreferenz. Tübingen: Niemayer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, D., Weinberger, A., Jucks, R., Spitulnik, M., &. Wallace, R. (in press). Designing Effective Science Inquiry in Text-Based Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Environments. International Journal of Research in Politics and Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, H. H. (1992). Arenas of language use. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition. (pp. 127–149).

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, H. H., & Marshall, C. R. (1981). Definite references and mutual knowledge. In A. K. Joshi, B. L. Webber, & I. A. Sag (Eds.), Elements of discourse understanding (pp. 10–63). Cambridge: University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, H. H., & Murphy, G. L. (1982). Audience design in meaning and reference. In J.-F. Le Ny & W. Kintsch (Eds.), Language and comprehension. (pp. 287–299): North Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, H. H., & Murphy, G. L. (1982). Audience design in meaning and reference. In J. F. LeNy & W. Kintsch (Eds.), Language and comprehension (pp. 287–299). Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, H. H., & Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22, 1–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duden Band 8 (1997). Die sinn-und sachverwandten Wörter. Mannheim: Dudenverlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eysenbach, G., & Diepgen, T. L. (1999). Patients looking for information on the internet and seeking teleadvice. Archives of Dermatology, 135, 151–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eysenbach, G., Powell, J., Kuss, O., & Eun-Ryoung, S. (2002). Empirical studies assessing the quality of health information for consumers on the World Wide Web. JAMA, 287(20), 2691–2700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fussell, S. R., & Krauss, R. M. (1991). Accuracy and bias in estimates of others’ knowledge. European Journal of Social Psychology, 21, 445–454.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fussell, S. R., & Krauss, R. M. (1992). Coordination of knowledge in communication: Effects of speakers’ assumptions about what others know. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(3), 378–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gemini Consulting (2001). Patient Relationship Management. Die Rolle des Patienten in der Life-Sciences-Industrie. Abgerufen am 19. März 2002, von http://www.de.cgey.com/servlet/PB/menu/1001426/index.html

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerrig, R. J., Brennan, S. & Ohaeri, J. O. (2000). Illusory transparency revisited. Discourse Processes, 29, 137–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, B. (2001). Testing reading comprehension of theoretical discourse with cloze. Journal of Research in Reading, Volume 24, 82–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groeben, N. (1982). Leserpsychologie: Textverständnis — Textverständlichkeit. Münster: Aschendorff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinds, P. J. (1999). The curse of expertise: The effects of expertise and debiasing methods on predictions of novice-performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 5(2), 205–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinds, P. J., Patterson, M., & Pfeffer, J. (2001). Bothered by abstraction: The effect of expertise on knowledge transfer and subsequent novice performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(6), 1232–1243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • HON (1997). HON Code of conduct for medical and health web sites, 1997, from http://hon.ch/Conduct.html

    Google Scholar 

  • Horton, W. S., & Keysar, B. (1996). When do speakers take into account common ground? Cognition, 59, 91–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isaacs, E. A., & Clark, H. H. (1987). References in conversation between experts and novices. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 116(1), 26–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jucks, R. (2001). Was verstehen Laien? Die Verständlichkeit von Fachtexten aus der Sicht von Computer-Experten. Münster: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jucks, R., Bromme, R. & Runde, A. (2003). Audience Design von Experten in der netzgestützten Kommunikation: Die Rolle von Heuristiken über das geteilte Vorwissen. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 211,(2), 60–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keysar, B. (1994). The illusory transparency of intention: Linguistic perspective taking in text. Cognitive Psychology, 26(2), 165–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keysar, B., Barr, D. J., Balin, J. A., & Paek, T. S. (1998). Definite reference and mutual knowledge: Process models of common ground in comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kobayashi, M. (2002). Cloze tests revisited: exploring item characteristics with special attention to scoring methods. The Modern Language Journal, 86, 571–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langer, I., Schulz v. Thun, F., & Tausch, R. (1993). Sich verständlich ausdrücken. München; Basel: Ernst Reinhard Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langer, I., Schulz v. Thun, F., Meffert, J. & Tausch, R. (1973). Merkmale der Verständlichkeit schriftlicher Informations-und Lehrtexte. Zeitschrift für experimentelle und angewandte Psychologie, 20, 269–286.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, L., Irvin, E., Guzman, J., & Bombardier, C. (1998). Surfing for back pain patients: The nature and the quality of back pain information on the internet. Spine, 26(5), 545–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowe, R. K. (1989). Search strategies and inference in the exploration of scientific diagrams. Educational Psychology, 9(1), 27–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowe, R. K. (1996). Background knowledge and the construction of a situational representation from a diagram. European Journal of Psychology and Education, 11(4), 377–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lumbelli, L., Paoletti, G., & Frausin, T. (1999). Improving the ability to detect comprehension problems: From revising to writing. Learning and Instruction, 9(2), 143–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nickerson, R. S. (1999). How we know-and sometimes misjudge-what others know: Imputing one's own knowlege to others. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 737–759.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piper, T. & Mc Eachern, W. R. (1988). Content bias in cloze as a general language proficiency indicator, English Quaterly, 21(1), 41–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polichak, J. W., & Gerrig, R. J. (1998). Common ground and everyday language use: Comments on Horton and Keysar (1996). Cognition, 66, 183–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • PricewaterhouseCoopers (2001). Gesundheitsportale 2001. Abgerufen am 07. Oktober 2002, von http://www.medical-communities.de/pdf/pricewaterhouse.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • Rambow, R. (2000). Experten-Laien-Kommunikation in der Architektur. Münster: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reimann, P. (1997). Lernprozesse beim Wissenserwerb mit Beispielen. Bern: Huber.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roßnagel, C. (1995). Ãœbung und Hörerorientierung beim monologischen Instruieren. Zur Differenzierung einer Grundannahme. Sprache & Kognition, 14, 16–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversations. Language, 50(4), 696–735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schober, M. F., & Clark, H. H. (1989). Understanding by addressees and overhearers. Cognitive Psychology, 21(2), 211–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schürer-Necker, E. (1991). Der Einfluß des emotionalen Gehaltes eines Textes auf seine Verständlichkeit. Zeitschrifi für experimentelle Psychologie, 38(1), 63–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Speck, A. (1993). Textproduktion im Dialog. Unveröffentlichte Dissertation, FU Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stehr, N. (1994). Arbeit, Eigentum und Wissen: Zur Theorie von Wissensgesellschaften. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suarez-Almazor, M. E., Kendall, C. J., & Dorgan, M. (2001). Surfing the net-information on the World Wide Web for persons with arthritis: patient empowerment or patient deceit? Journal of Rheumatology, 28(1), 1–2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suthers, D. D., & Hundhausen, C. D. (2002). The effects of representation on students’ elaborations in collaborative inquiry. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Computer support for collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL community (pp. 472–480). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, W. L. (1953). Cloze Procedure: a new tool for measuring readability. Journalism Quarterly, 30, 415–433.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, W. L. (1957). Cloze readability scores as indices of individual differences in comprehension and aptitude. Journal of Applies Psychology, 41, 19–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Bruggen, J. M, Boshuizen, H. P. A., & Kirschner, P. A. (2003). A cognitive framework for cooperative problem solving with argument visualization. In P. A. Kirschner, S. J. Buckingham Shum & C. S. Carr (Eds.), Visualizing argumentation: Software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making (pp. 25–47). London: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittwer, J., Bromme, R. & Jucks, R. (2004). Kann man dem Internet trauen, wenn es um die Gesundheit geht? Die Glaubwürdigkeitsbeurteilung medizinischer Fachinformationen im Internet durch Laien. Zeitschrift für Medienpsychologie, 2, 48–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Rainer Bromme
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Regina Jucks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anne Runde
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Münster, Germany

    Rainer Bromme

  2. University of Tübingen, Germany

    Friedrich W. Hesse

  3. University of Freiburg, Germany

    Hans Spada

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2005 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Bromme, R., Jucks, R., Runde, A. (2005). Barriers and Biases in Computer-Mediated Expert-Layperson-Communication. In: Bromme, R., Hesse, F.W., Spada, H. (eds) Barriers and Biases in Computer-Mediated Knowledge Communication. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Series, vol 5. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-24319-4_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation