The Effect of Top-Level Domains and Advertisements on Health Web Site Credibility

Background Concerns over health information on the Internet have generated efforts to enhance credibility markers; yet how users actually assess the credibility of online health information is largely unknown. Objective This study set out to (1) establish a parsimonious and valid questionnaire instrument to measure credibility of Internet health information by drawing on various previous measures of source, news, and other credibility scales; and (2) to identify the effects of Web-site domains and advertising on credibility perceptions. Methods Respondents (N = 156) examined one of 12 Web-site mock-ups and completed credibility scales in a 3 x 2 x 2 between-subjects experimental design. Factor analysis and validity checks were used for item reduction, and analysis of variance was employed for hypothesis testing of Web-site features' effects. Results In an attempt to construct a credibility instrument, three dimensions of credibility (safety, trustworthiness, and dynamism) were retained, reflecting traditional credibility sub-themes, but composed of items from disparate sources. When testing the effect of the presence or absence of advertising on a Web site on credibility, we found that this depends on the site's domain, with a trend for advertisements having deleterious effects on the credibility of sites with .org domain, but positive effects on sites with .com or .edu domains. Conclusions Health-information Web-site providers should select domains purposefully when they can, especially if they must accept on-site advertising. Credibility perceptions may not be invariant or stable, but rather are sensitive to topic and context. Future research may employ these findings in order to compare other forms of health-information delivery to optimal Web-site features.

[1]  Kylie A. Williams,et al.  How do Consumers Search for and Appraise Information on Medicines on the Internet? A Qualitative Study Using Focus Groups , 2003, Journal of medical Internet research.

[2]  Miriam J. Metzger,et al.  College student Web use, perceptions of information credibility, and verification behavior , 2003, Comput. Educ..

[3]  Mohan J. Dutta-Bergman.  Health communication on the web: The roles of web use motivation and information completeness , 2003 .

[4]  Miriam J. Metzger,et al.  Credibility for the 21st Century: Integrating Perspectives on Source, Message, and Media Credibility in the Contemporary Media Environment , 2003 .

[5]  Lela S Jacobsohn,et al.  Discussions of Health Web Sites in Medical and Popular Media , 2003 .

[6]  Christian Köhler,et al.  How do consumers search for and appraise health information on the world wide web? Qualitative study using focus groups, usability tests, and in-depth interviews , 2002, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[7]  Steven Muncer,et al.  Reliability of Health Information on the Internet: An Examination of Experts' Ratings , 2002, Journal of medical Internet research.

[8]  Matthew S. Eastin,et al.  Credibility Assessments of Online Health Information: The Effects of Source Expertise and Knowledge of Content , 2006, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[9]  Spiro K. Kiousis,et al.  Public Trust or Mistrust? Perceptions of Media Credibility in the Information Age , 2001 .

[10]  Michael Stefanone,et al.  The Effects of Wireless Computing in Collaborative Learning Environments , 2001, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[11]  B. J. Fogg,et al.  What makes Web sites credible?: a report on a large quantitative study , 2001, CHI.

[12]  C. Nass,et al.  Conceptualizing Sources in Online News , 2001 .

[13]  Miriam J. Metzger,et al.  Internet use in the contemporary media environment. , 2001 .

[14]  Miriam J. Metzger,et al.  Perceptions of Internet Information Credibility , 2000 .

[15]  M. Winker,et al.  Guidelines for medical and health information sites on the internet: principles governing AMA web sites. American Medical Association. , 2000, JAMA.

[16]  Lee Rainie,et al.  The online health care revolution: how the web helps americans take better care of themselves , 2000 .

[17]  John S. Seiter,et al.  Persuasion: Social Inflence and Compliance Gaining , 2015 .

[18]  M. Slater,et al.  How Message Evaluation and Source Attributes May Influence Credibility Assessment and Belief Change , 1996 .

[19]  Walid A. Afifi,et al.  Rethinking How to Measure Organizational Culture in the Hospital Setting , 1995, Evaluation & the health professions.

[20]  K. Stamm,et al.  The Relationship of Attitudinal Components to Trust in Media , 1994 .

[21]  R. K. Aune,et al.  Effects of Language Intensity Similarity on Perceptions of Credibility Relational Attributions, and Persuasion , 1993 .

[22]  Philip Meyer,et al.  Defining and Measuring Credibility of Newspapers: Developing an Index , 1988 .

[23]  Albert C. Gunther,et al.  Attitude Extremity and Trust in Media , 1988 .

[24]  C. Gaziano,et al.  Measuring the Concept of Credibility , 1986 .

[25]  John T. Cacioppo,et al.  The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion , 1986, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology.

[26]  Gary Gumpert,et al.  Inter/Media: Interpersonal Communication in a Media World , 1983 .

[27]  H. Kelley,et al.  Communication and Persuasion: Psychological Studies of Opinion Change , 1982 .

[28]  W. E. Jurma.  Evaluations of Credibility of the Source of a Message , 1981 .

[29]  J. Mccroskey,et al.  Ethos and credibility: The construct and its measurement after three decades , 1981 .

[30]  Raymond George Smith,et al.  The Message Measurement Inventory: A Profile for Communication Analysis , 1978 .

[31]  J. Delia,et al.  A constructivist analysis of the concept of credibility , 1976 .

[32]  Jo Liska,et al.  A critique of factor analytic approaches to the study of credibility , 1976 .

[33]  D. O’Keefe,et al.  The dependency of interpersonal evaluations on context‐relevant beliefs about the other , 1975 .

[34]  James B. Lemert,et al.  DIMENSIONS FOR EVALUATING THE ACCEPTABILITY OF MESSAGE SOURCES , 1969 .

[35]  J. Mccroskey.  Scales for the measurement of ethos , 1966 .