Motivated Processing of Health-Related Information in Online Environments

  • Joachim Kimmerle
  • Martina Bientzle
  • Ulrike Cress
  • Danny Flemming
  • Hannah Greving
  • Johannes Grapendorf
  • Claudia Sassenrath
  • Kai Sassenberg


Searching for and dealing with health-related information on the Internet is a self-regulated process. Accordingly, how health-related information is selected, perceived, and produced by individuals in online informational environments may be affected by people’s motivation. In this chapter, we examine how motivated information processing influences how people deal with health-related information online. After a general introduction to the topic, the chapter deals with two aspects of the role of motivated processing of health-related information: On the one hand, people’s motivation is fueled by particular concepts that they hold about health in general, about health-related knowledge, and about specific health topics. Accordingly, we analyze in the first part of the chapter how people’s individual health concepts influence their information processing, discuss the impact of people’s health-related epistemological beliefs, and examine in what way their previous opinions of a health-related topic affect how they handle information. On the other hand, people’s motivations in information processing are related to their emotions. Thus, we discuss in the second part of the chapter how health-related information on the Internet can be a source of fear for laypeople and how patients who have received a medical diagnosis process information in order to cope with the threat they experience from their illness. In our presentation of research results we also analyze how people’s motivated information processing interacts with characteristics of the information they encounter in online environments. Finally, we sum up our findings and point out implications for future research and practical applications.


Motivation Health Internet Health concepts Opinions Epistemological beliefs Threat Emotions 


  1. Albada, A., Ausems, M. G., Bensing, J. M., & van Dulmen, S. (2009). Tailored information about cancer risk and screening: A systematic review. Patient Education and Counseling, 77, 155–171. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2009.03.005 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Arbesman, S. (2012). The half-life of facts: Why everything we know has an expiration date. New York, NY: Penguin.Google Scholar
  3. Azevedo, R., Millar, G. C., Taub, M., Mudrick, N. V., Bradbury, A. E., & Price, M. J. (2017). Using data visualizations to foster emotion regulation during self-regulated learning with advanced learning technologies. In J. Buder & F. W. Hesse (Eds.), Informational environments: Effects of use, effective designs (pp. 225–247). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Batson, C. D., Dyck, J. L., Brandt, J. R., Batson, J. G., Powell, A. L., McMaster, M. R., & Griffitt, C. (1988). Five studies testing two new egoistic alternatives to the empathy-altruism hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 52–77. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.55.1.52 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Batson, C. D., & Shaw, L. L. (1991). Evidence for altruism: Toward a pluralism of prosocial motives. Psychological Inquiry, 2, 107–122. doi: 10.1207/s15327965pli0202_1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bensing, J. (2000). Bridging the gap: The separate worlds of evidence-based medicine and patient-centered medicine. Patient Education and Counseling, 39, 17–25. doi: 10.1016/S0738-3991(99)00087-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Bientzle, M., Cress, U., & Kimmerle, J. (2013). How students deal with inconsistencies in health knowledge. Medical Education, 47, 683–690. doi: 10.1111/medu.12198 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Bientzle, M., Cress, U., & Kimmerle, J. (2014a). Epistemological beliefs and therapeutic health concepts of physiotherapy students and professionals. BMC Medical Education, 14, 208. doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-14-208 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Bientzle, M., Cress, U., & Kimmerle, J. (2014b). The role of inconsistencies in collaborative knowledge construction. In Proceedings of the 11th international conference of the learning sciences (Vol. I, pp. 102–109). Boulder, CO: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  10. Bientzle, M., Cress, U., & Kimmerle, J. (2015). The role of tentative decisions and health concepts in assessing information about mammography screening. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 20, 670–679. doi: 10.1080/13548506.2015.1005017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bientzle, M., Fissler, T., Cress, U., & Kimmerle, J. (in press). The impact of physicians’ communication styles on evaluation of physicians and information processing: A randomized study with simulated video consultations on contraception with an intrauterine device. Health Expectations. It’s still in press. doi: 10.1111/hex.12521
  12. Bientzle, M., Griewatz, J., Kimmerle, J., Küppers, J., Cress, U., & Lammerding-Koeppel, M. (2015). Impact of scientific versus emotional wording of patient questions on doctor-patient communication in an Internet forum: A randomized controlled experiment with medical students. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 17, e268. doi: 10.2196/jmir.4597 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Blaney, P. H. (1986). Affect and memory: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 229–246. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.99.2.229 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Blascovich, J., & Tomaka, J. (1996). The biopsychosocial model of arousal regulation. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 1–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bornstein, B. H., & Emler, A. C. (2001). Rationality in medical decision making: A review of the literature on doctors’ decision-making biases. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 7, 97–107. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2753.2001.00284.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Bower, G. H. (1981). Mood and memory. American Psychologist, 36, 129–148. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.36.2.129 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 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, 48–70. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2011.538647 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Brand-Gruwel, S., Wopereis, I., & Walraven, A. (2009). A descriptive model of information problem solving while using internet. Computers & Education, 53, 1207–1217. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.06.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bromme, R., & Goldman, S. R. (2014). The public’s bounded understanding of science. Educational Psychologist, 49, 59–69.Google Scholar
  20. Buder, J., Buttliere, B., & Cress, U. (2017). The role of cognitive conflicts in informational environments: Conflicting evidence from the learning sciences and social psychology? In J. Buder & F. W. Hesse (Eds.), Informational environments: Effects of use, effective designs (pp. 53–74). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  21. Burakgazi, S. G., & Yildirim, A. (2014). Accessing science through media: Uses and gratifications among fourth and fifth graders for science learning. Science Communication, 36, 168–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ditto, P. H., & Lopez, D. F. (1992). Motivated skepticism: Use of differential decision criteria for preferred and nonpreferred conclusions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 568–584. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.568 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ditto, P. H., Scepansky, J. A., Munro, G. D., Apanovitch, A. M., & Lockhart, L. K. (1998). Motivated sensitivity to preference-inconsistent information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 53–69. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.53 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Domenech, J., Sánchez-Zuriaga, D., Segura-Ortí, E., Espejo-Tort, B., & Lisón, J. F. (2011). Impact of biomedical and biopsychosocial training sessions on the attitudes, beliefs, and recommendations of health care providers about low back pain: A randomised clinical trial. Pain, 152, 2557–2563. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2011.07.023 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Doumit, G., Gattellari, M., Grimshaw, J., & O’Brien, M. (2007). Local opinion leaders: Effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database System Review, 1.Google Scholar
  26. Feinkohl, I., Flemming, D., Cress, U., & Kimmerle, J. (2016a). The impact of epistemological beliefs and cognitive ability on recall and critical evaluation of scientific information. Cognitive Processing, 17, 213–223. doi: 10.1007/s10339-015-0748-z CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Feinkohl, I., Flemming, D., Cress, U., & Kimmerle, J. (2016b). The impact of personality factors and preceding user comments on the processing of research findings on deep brain stimulation: A randomized controlled experiment in a simulated online forum. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 18, e59.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Fischer, P., Greitemeyer, T., & Frey, D. (2008). Self-regulation and selective exposure: The impact of depleted self-regulation resources on confirmatory information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 382–395. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.94.3.382 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Fissler, T., Bientzle, M., Cress, U., & Kimmerle, J. (2015). The impact of advice seekers’ need salience and doctors’ communication style on attitude and decision making: A web-based mammography consultation role play. JMIR Cancer, 1, e10. doi: 10.2196/cancer.4279 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Flemming, D., Feinkohl, I., Cress, U., & Kimmerle, J. (2015). Individual uncertainty and the uncertainty of science: The impact of perceived conflict and general self-efficacy on the perception of tentativeness and credibility of scientific information. Frontiers in Psychology, 6. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01859
  31. Gilbert, F., & Ovadia, D. (2011). Deep brain stimulation in the media: Over-optimistic media portrayals call for a new strategy involving journalists and scientists in the ethical debate. Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, 5(16). doi: 10.3389/fnint.2011.00016
  32. Ginsberg, J., Mohebbi, M. H., Patel, R. S., Brammer, L., Smolinski, M. S., & Brilliant, L. (2009). Detecting influenza epidemics using search engine query data. Nature, 457, 1012–1014. doi: 10.1038/nature07634 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Graesser, A. C., Lippert, A., & Hampton, D. (2017). Successes and failures in building learning environments to promote deep learning: The value of conversational agents. In J. Buder & F. W. Hesse (Eds.), Informational environments: Effects of use, effective designs (pp. 273–298). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  34. Greitemeyer, T. (2014). I am right, you are wrong: How biased assimilation increases the perceived gap between believers and skeptics of violent video game effects. PLoS One, 9, e93440. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0093440 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. Greving, H., & Sassenberg, K. (2015). Counter-regulation online: Threat biases retrieval of information during Internet search. Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 291–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Greving, H., & Sassenberg, K. (2016). When positive information is preferred: Counter-regulating threat during Internet search. Unpublished manuscript, Leibniz-Institut für Wissensmedien, Tübingen, Germany.Google Scholar
  37. Greving, H., Sassenberg, K., & Fetterman, A. (2015). Counter-regulating on the internet: Threat elicits preferential processing of positive information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 21, 287–299.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Hart, W., Albarracín, D., Eagly, A. H., Brechan, I., Lindberg, M. J., & Merrill, L. (2009). Feeling validated versus being correct: A meta-analysis of selective exposure to information. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 555–588.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. Hawkins, R. P., Kreuter, M., Resnicow, K., Fishbein, M., & Dijkstra, A. (2008). Understanding tailoring in communicating about health. Health Education Research, 23, 454–466. doi: 10.1093/her/cyn004 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. Hofer, B. K. (2001). Personal epistemology research: Implications for learning and teaching. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 353–383. doi: 10.1023/A:1011965830686 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hróbjartsson, A., Thomsen, A. S. S., Emanuelsson, F., Tendal, B., Hilden, J., Boutron, I., … Brorson, S. (2012). Observer bias in randomised clinical trials with binary outcomes: Systematic review of trials with both blinded and non-blinded outcome assessors. British Medical Journal, 344, e1119. doi: 10.1136/bmj.e1119 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Jacobson, M. J., & Spiro, R. J. (1995). Hypertext learning environments, cognitive flexibility, and the transfer of complex knowledge: An empirical investigation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 12, 301–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Jordan, J. E., Buchbinder, R., Briggs, A. M., Elsworth, G. R., Busija, L., Batterham, R., & Osborne, R. H. (2013). The health literacy management scale (HeLMS): A measure of an individual’s capacity to seek, understand, and use health information within the healthcare setting. Patient Education and Counseling, 91, 228–235.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Kimmerle, J., Bientzle, M., & Cress, U. (2017). “Scientific evidence is very important for me”: The impact of behavioral intention and the wording of user inquiries on replies and recommendations in a health-related online forum. Computers in Human Behavior, 73, 320–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kimmerle, J., & Cress, U. (2013). The effects of TV and film exposure on knowledge about and attitudes toward mental disorders. Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 931–943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kimmerle, J., Flemming, D., Feinkohl, I., & Cress, U. (2015). How laypeople understand the tentativeness of medical research news in the media: An experimental study on the perception of information about deep brain stimulation. Science Communication, 37, 173–189. doi: 10.1177/1075547014556541 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kimmerle, J., Thiel, A., Gerbing, K. K., Bientzle, M., Halatchliyski, I., & Cress, U. (2013). Knowledge construction in an outsider community: Extending the communities of practice concept. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 1078–1090. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2012.09.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Koranyi, N., & Rothermund, K. (2012). Automatic coping mechanisms in committed relationships: Increased interpersonal trust as a response to stress. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 180–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kreuter, M. W., & Wray, R. J. (2003). Tailored and targeted health communication: Strategies for enhancing information relevance. American Journal of Health Behavior, 27, 227–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kruglanski, A. W. (1999). Motivation, cognition, and reality: Three memos for the next generation of research. Psychological Inquiry, 10, 54–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kruglanski, A. W., Bélanger, J. J., Chen, X., Köpetz, C., Pierro, A., & Mannetti, L. (2012). The energetics of motivated cognition: A force-field analysis. Psychological Review, 119, 1–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Kunda, Z. (1999). Social cognition: Making sense of people. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  53. Larson, J. S. (1999). The conceptualization of health. Medical Care Research and Review, 56, 123–136. doi: 10.1177/107755879905600201 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Makoul, G. (2011). Physician understanding of patient health beliefs. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 26, 574–574. doi: 10.1007/s11606-011-1691-z CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  55. Miles, S. H. (2005). The Hippocratic oath and the ethics of medicine. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Molden, D. C., & Higgins, E. T. (2005). Motivated thinking. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 295–320). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Moreno, J. P., & Johnston, C. A. (2013). The role of confirmation bias in the treatment of diverse patients. American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine, 7, 20–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Moynihan, R., Bero, L., Ross-Degnan, D., Henry, D., Lee, K., Watkins, J., … Soumerai, S. B. (2000). Coverage by the news media of the benefits and risks of medications. New England Journal of Medicine, 342, 1645–1650.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Muis, K. R. (2004). Personal epistemology and mathematics: A critical review and synthesis of research. Review of Educational Research, 74, 317–377. doi: 10.3102/00346543074003317 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Muis, K. R., Bendixen, L. D., & Haerle, F. C. (2006). Domain-generality and domain-specificity in personal epistemology research: Philosophical and empirical reflections in the development of a theoretical framework. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 3–54. doi: 10.1007/s10648-006-9003-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Muse, K., McManus, F., Leung, C., Meghreblia, B., & Williams, J. M. G. (2012). Cyberchondriasis: Fact or fiction? A preliminary examination of the relationship between health anxiety and searching for health information on the Internet. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 26, 189–196.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2, 175–220. doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Norr, A. M., Oglesby, M. E., Raines, A. M., Macatee, R. J., Allan, N. P., & Schmid, N. B. (2015). Relationships between cyberchondria and obsessive-compulsive symptom dimensions. Psychiatry Research, 230, 441–446.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Patel, V. L., Arocha, J. F., & Kushniruk, A. W. (2002). Patients’ and physicians’ understanding of health and biomedical concepts: Relationship to the design of EMR systems. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 35, 8–16. doi: 10.1016/S1532-0464(02)00002-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Goldman, R. (1981). Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 847–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Pieschl, S., Stahl, E., & Bromme, R. (2008). Epistemological beliefs and self-regulated learning with hypertext. Metacognition and Learning, 3, 17–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Piko, B. F., & Bak, J. (2006). Children’s perceptions of health and illness: Images and lay concepts in preadolescence. Health Education Research, 21, 643–653. doi: 10.1093/her/cyl034 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Racine, E., Waldman, S., Palmour, N., Risse, D., & Illes, J. (2007). ‘Currents of hope’: Neurostimulation techniques in U.S. and U.K. print media. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 16, 312–316.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Roex, A., & Degryse, J. (2007). Introducing the concept of epistemological beliefs into medical education: The hot-air-balloon metaphor. Academic Medicine, 82, 616–620. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3180556abd CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Rothermund, K. (2011). Counter-regulation and control-dependency. Social Psychology, 42, 56–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Rothermund, K., Gast, A., & Wentura, D. (2011). Incongruency effects in affective processing: Automatic motivational counter-regulation or mismatch-induced salience? Cognition and Emotion, 25, 413–425.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Rouet, J. F. (2006). The skills of document use: From text comprehension to Web-based learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  73. Sassenberg, K., & Greving, H. (2016). Internet searching about disease elicits a positive perception of own health when severity of illness is high: A longitudinal questionnaire study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 18(3), e56.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  74. Sassenberg, K., Landkammer, F., & Jacoby, J. (2014). The influence of regulatory focus and group vs. individual goals on the evaluation bias in the context of group decision making. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 54, 153–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Sassenberg, K., Sassenrath, C., & Fetterman, A. K. (2015). Threat≠ prevention, challenge≠ promotion: The impact of threat, challenge and regulatory focus on attention to negative stimuli. Cognition and Emotion, 29, 188–195.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Sassenberg, K., & Wiesing, U. (2016). Internet-informierte Patienten–Empirische Evidenz für einseitige Informationsverarbeitung und ihre medizinethischen Implikationen. Zeitschrift für Medizinische Ethik, 62, 299–311.Google Scholar
  77. Sassenrath, C., Greving, H., & Sassenberg, K. (2016a). Are you concerned? Using patients as protagonists in reports on medical treatments affects recipients’ affective experiences and memory performance stronger than using doctors as protagonists. Unpublished manuscript, Leibniz-Institut für Wissensmedien, Tübingen, Germany.Google Scholar
  78. Sassenrath, C., Greving, H., & Sassenberg, K. (2016b). The impact of communication channel on affect and memory. Unpublished data, Leibniz-Institut für Wissensmedien, Tübingen, Germany.Google Scholar
  79. Sassenrath, C., Sassenberg, K., & Greving, H. (2017). It has to be first-hand: The effect of first-person testimonials in medical communication on recipients’ emotions and memory. Cogent Medicine, 4(1), 1354492.Google Scholar
  80. Bromme, R., & Goldman, S. R. (2014). The public’s bounded understanding of science. Educational Psychologist, 49, 59–69.Google Scholar
  81. Schwager, S., & Rothermund, K. (2014). On the dynamics of implicit emotion regulation: Counter-regulation after remembering events of high but not of low emotional intensity. Cognition and Emotion, 28, 971–992.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. Schweiger, S., Oeberst, A., & Cress, U. (2014). Confirmation bias in web-based search: A randomized online study on the effects of expert information and social tags on information search and evaluation. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 16, e94. doi: 10.2196/jmir.3044 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  83. Simeonsson, R. J., Scarborough, A. A., & Hebbeler, K. M. (2006). ICF and ICD codes provide a standard language of disability in young children. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 59, 365–373. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.09.009 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. Sinatra, G. M., Kienhues, D., & Hofer, B. K. (2014). Addressing challenges to public understanding of science: Epistemic cognition, motivated reasoning, and conceptual change. Educational Psychologist, 49, 123–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 755–769. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00214.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. van Deemter, K. (2010). Not exactly: In praise of vagueness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  87. White, R. W., & Horvitz, E. (2009). Cyberchondria: Studies of the escalation of medical concerns in web search. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 27(4), 23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. World Health Organization. (1992). International statistical classification of diseases and related health problems, tenth revision (ICD-10). Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
  89. World Health Organization. (2001). The international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF). Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joachim Kimmerle
    • 1
    • 2
  • Martina Bientzle
    • 1
  • Ulrike Cress
    • 1
    • 2
  • Danny Flemming
    • 1
  • Hannah Greving
    • 1
  • Johannes Grapendorf
    • 1
  • Claudia Sassenrath
    • 1
  • Kai Sassenberg
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Leibniz-Institut fuer Wissensmedien (IWM)TübingenGermany
  2. 2.Eberhard Karls University TübingenTübingenGermany

Personalised recommendations