我該相信誰？線上評論者資訊對使用者選擇醫師的影響

Abstract

在線上評論尚未普及的年代，大眾多仰賴人際資源管道獲得關於醫師的資訊與推薦，隨著醫師評價網站的出現與能見度的提升，由陌生人撰寫的線上醫師評論也逐漸成為大眾進行醫師選擇決策時重要的參考依據。然而，為了保障病患的隱私，醫師評價網站多採匿名設計，過去即有相關研究發現，匿名性設計會讓使用者較不願意信任和採納評論者的意見。本研究奠基於社會訊息處理理論和社會臨場感理論，探討在匿名的醫師評價網站使用情境中，不同類型的社會線索（身份與經驗線索）會如何影響使用者的感知、信任，及選擇醫師的決策。 本研究採用2 x 2 x 2 的組內實驗設計，操縱的變項分別為評論者的身份線索（透露評論者興趣但維持一定匿名性的頭像與評論者的 ID）、經驗線索（評論者於特定主題的評論歷史）與評論效價（正負評）。共招募 80 位曾有使用線上評論經驗的受試者參與實驗。 研究結果發現身份線索對使用者感知評論者的信任未有直接影響，評論效價會影響使用者對評論者的情感信任，而經驗線索會顯著影響使用者對評論者的認知信任。唯有在正評的情形下，評論可信度才會影響使用者最終的選擇意向。本研究有趣的發現是：身份線索反映的匿名性高低和評論效價間存在交互作用，在正評的情況下，使用者較信任身份線索相對豐富的評論者，但在負評的情況下，使用者對匿名性較高的評論者有較高程度的信任。

With the emergence and popularity of physician review websites, online physician reviews written by strangers have gradually become another decision aid that might greatly impact people’s physician selection. However, unlike reviews in other domains, physician review websites are mostly anonymous to protect patient’s privacy. Previous studies have shown that anonymity makes users less willing to trust and adopt the opinions of reviewers. Without knowing the true identity of the viewers, the users are left with other judgmental cues to determine the credibility of the reviews. The users might infer the credibility of a review directly by its content, or indirectly by the social cues about the reviewer, which is the main focus of the study. Based on social information processing theory and social presence theory, we hypothesized that different levels of reviewer identity disclosure and review history would impact users’ affective and cognitive trust, respectively, which, in turn, would influence their doctor selection. A total of 80 participants took part in a 2x2x2 within-group experiment where the reviewer's identity disclosure, the reviewer’s review history, and the review valence (positive or negative reviews) were manipulated. An imaginary physician review website was created where the participant read reviews of different valences written by reviewers with different levels of disclosure and review history. Their judgment of the reviewer’s affective and cognitive trust, along with their choice of the physician were elicited to test the impact of different variables on the user’s judgment. The result showed that the identity cues did not have a direct effect on reviewers’ trust, and experience cues can significantly affect users' cognitive trust in reviewers. Review valence also affects users' affective trust. In the case of positive reviews, review credibility has an impact on the user’s choice of physician. Interestingly, it was found that the degree of identity cues provided and review valence had an interaction effect on the reviewer’s trust.