Health Information, Credibility, Homophily, and Influence via the Internet: Web Sites Versus Discussion Groups

Despite concerns about online health information and efforts to improve its credibility, how users evaluate and utilize such information presented in Web sites and online discussion groups may involve different evaluative mechanisms. This study examined credibility and homophily as two underlying mechanisms for social influence with regard to online health information. An original experiment detected that homophily grounded credibility perceptions and drove the persuasive process in both Web sites and online discussion groups. The more homophilous an online health information stimulus was perceived as being, the more likely people were to adopt the advice offered in that particular piece of information.

[1]  D. Gustafson,et al.  Effect of computer support on younger women with breast cancer , 2001, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[2]  Suzanne Pingree,et al.  Effects of Insightful Disclosure Within Computer Mediated Support Groups on Women With Breast Cancer , 2006, Health communication.

[3]  Suzanne Pingree,et al.  An Exploratory Study of Predictors of Participation in a Computer Support Group for Women With Breast Cancer , 2006, Computers, informatics, nursing : CIN.

[4]  Robert LaRose,et al.  Alt.support: modeling social support online , 2005, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[5]  David B Buller,et al.  Attributes of Interactive Online Health Information Systems , 2005, Journal of medical Internet research.

[6]  A. Broom.  The eMale , 2005 .

[7]  M. Lieberman,et al.  The Impact of Group Composition on Internet Support Groups: Homogeneous Versus Heterogeneous Parkinson's Groups , 2005 .

[8]  J. Walther,et al.  The Effect of Top-Level Domains and Advertisements on Health Web Site Credibility , 2004, Journal of medical Internet research.

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

[10]  Michael D Slater,et al.  A test of conversational and testimonial messages versus didactic presentations of nutrition information. , 2003, Journal of nutrition education and behavior.

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

[12]  Keith Stamm,et al.  Communities of Care and Caring: The Case of MSWatch.com® , 2003, Journal of health psychology.

[13]  Kevin B. Wright,et al.  Health-related Support Groups on the Internet: Linking Empirical Findings to Social Support and Computer-mediated Communication Theory , 2003, Journal of health psychology.

[14]  R. L. Holbert,et al.  Structural Equation Modeling in the Communication Sciences, 1995–2000 , 2002 .

[15]  B. Muthén,et al.  How to Use a Monte Carlo Study to Decide on Sample Size and Determine Power , 2002 .

[16]  L. Tidwell,et al.  Computer-Mediated Communication Effects on Disclosure, Impressions, and Interpersonal Evaluations: Getting to Know One Another a Bit at a Time , 2002 .

[17]  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.

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

[19]  K. Wright.  Social support within an on-line cancer community: an assessment of emotional support, perceptions of advantages and disadvantages, and motives for using the community from a communication perspective , 2002 .

[20]  Roger Burrows,et al.  Medicine on the line? Computer‐mediated social support and advice for people with diabetes , 2002 .

[21]  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..

[22]  J. Grube,et al.  Developing an optimal match within online communities: an exploration of CMC support communities and traditional support , 2001 .

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

[24]  Joseph B. Walther,et al.  Is a Picture Worth a Thousand Words? , 2001, Commun. Res..

[25]  William Paisley,et al.  Public Communication Campaigns: The American Experience , 2001 .

[26]  J. Preece,et al.  Experiencing Empathy Online , 2001 .

[27]  Ronald E. Rice,et al.  The internet and health communication : experience and expectations , 2001 .

[28]  R. Rice,et al.  The Internet and Health Communication , 2000 .

[29]  K. Wright.  Computer-Mediated Social Support, Older Adults, and Coping. , 2000 .

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

[31]  Bret R. Shaw,et al.  Experiences of Women with Breast Cancer: Exchanging Social Support over the CHESS Computer Network , 2000, Journal of health communication.

[32]  K. Wright,et al.  Perceptions of on‐line support providers: An examination of perceived homophily, source credibility, communication and social support within on‐line support groups , 2000 .

[33]  M. Gruendel,et al.  PHL14/352: The Impact of Electronic Health Information and Computer-mediated Communication for the Coping Abilities of Cancer Patients , 1999, Journal of Medical Internet Research.

[34]  Patricia Wallace.  The Psychology of the Internet , 1999 .

[35]  P. Bentler,et al.  Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis : Conventional criteria versus new alternatives , 1999 .

[36]  Vincent R. Waldron,et al.  Communication of social support in computer-mediated groups for people with disabilities. , 1999, Health communication.

[37]  S. Kiesler,et al.  Legitimacy, Authority, and Community in Electronic Support Groups , 1998 .

[38]  P. Noller,et al.  Factors influencing caregiver-care receiver communication and its impact on the well-being older care receivers. , 1998, Health communication.

[39]  A. Winzelberg.  The analysis of an electronic support group for individuals with eating disorders , 1997 .

[40]  P. Impicciatore,et al.  Reliability of health information for the public on the world wide web: systematic survey of advice on managing fever in children at home , 1997, BMJ.

[41]  F A Sonnenberg,et al.  Health information on the Internet. Opportunities and pitfalls. , 1997, Archives of internal medicine.

[42]  Richard Smith.  BMJ creates an editorial board , 1997 .

[43]  Y. Liu.  Authority, presumption, and invention , 1997 .

[44]  K. Mickelson.  Seeking social support: Parents in electronic support groups , 1997 .

[45]  N. G. C. Dsw.  The Never-Married and Divorced Elderly: , 1996 .

[46]  J. Walther,et al.  Computer-mediated communication , 2011 .

[47]  N A Gleason,et al.  A new approach to disordered eating--using an electronic bulletin board to confront social pressure on body image. , 1995, Journal of American college health : J of ACH.

[48]  N. Weinberg,et al.  Computer-Mediated Support Groups , 1995 .

[49]  H. Sypher,et al.  Communication Research Measures: A Sourcebook , 1994 .

[50]  Jerry Finn,et al.  Computer-Based Self-Help Groups for Sexual Abuse Survivors , 1994 .

[51]  P F Brennan,et al.  Use of a Home-Care Computer Network by Persons With AIDS , 1994, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

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

[53]  J. S. Long,et al.  Testing Structural Equation Models , 1993 .

[54]  R. Spears,et al.  Paralanguage and social perception in computer‐mediated communication , 1992 .

[55]  P. Brennan,et al.  ComputerLink: Electronic support for the home caregiver , 1991, ANS. Advances in nursing science.

[56]  D. O’Keefe.  Persuasion , 1990, The Handbook of Communication Skills.

[57]  Sid J. Schneider,et al.  Computerized communication as a medium for behavioral smoking cessation treatment: controlled evaluation , 1990 .

[58]  Karl G. Jöreskog,et al.  Lisrel 8: User's Reference Guide , 1997 .

[59]  William L. Benoit.  Argumentation and credibility appeals in persuasion , 1987 .

[60]  J. S. Tanaka.  "How Big Is Big Enough?": Sample Size and Goodness of Fit in Structural Equation Models with Latent Variables. , 1987 .

[61]  Kenneth A. Bollen,et al.  Total, Direct, and Indirect Effects in Structural Equation Models , 1987 .

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

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

[64]  I. Ajzen,et al.  Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior , 1980 .

[65]  J. Mccroskey,et al.  THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MEASURE OF PERCEIVED HOMOPHILY IN INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION , 1975 .

[66]  Lawrence R. Wheeless.  The effects of attitude, credibility, and homophily on selective exposure to information , 1974 .