To Tweet or to Retweet? That Is the Question for Health Professionals on Twitter

Health Communication

Volumn 28, Issue 5, 2013, Pages 509-524

  Lee, Ji Young ^a   Sundar, S Shyam ^b,c  

^a OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c Sungkyunkwan University   (South Korea)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE PERSONNEL; HUMAN; INFORMATION SEEKING; INTERNET; MALE; MEDICAL INFORMATION; QUESTIONNAIRE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; TRUST; UNITED STATES; YOUNG ADULT;

BLOGGING; FEMALE; HEALTH COMMUNICATION; HEALTH PERSONNEL; HUMANS; INFORMATION SEEKING BEHAVIOR; MALE; QUESTIONNAIRES; TRUST; UNITED STATES; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84880931544     PISSN: 10410236     EISSN: 15327027     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10410236.2012.700391     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Anderson, N. H. 1971. Integration theory and attitude change. Psychological Review, 78: 171-206.
2. Baker, L., Wagner, T. H., Singer, S. and Bundorf, M. K. 2003. Use of the Internet and e-mail for health care information: Result from a national survey. Journal of the American Medical Association, 289: 2400-2406.
3. Birnbaum, M. H. and Stegner, S. E. 1979. Source credibility in social judgment: Bias, expertise, and the judge's point of view. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37: 47-74.
4. Bonabeau, E. 2004. The perils of the imitation age. Harvard Business Review, 82: 99-104.
5. Briggs, P., Burford, B., De Angeli, A. and Lynch, P. 2002. Trust in online advice. Social Science Computer Review, 20: 321-332.
6. Chaiken, S. 1980. Heuristic and systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39: 752-766.
7. Chaiken, S. 1987. " The heuristic model of persuasion ". In Social influence: The Ontario symposium, Edited by: Zanna, M. P., Olson, J. M. and Hermann, C. P. Vol. 5, 3-39. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
8. Chaiken, S. and Trope, Y. 1999. Dual-process theories in social psychology, New York, NY: Guildford.
9. Chaiken, S., Liberman, A. and Eagly, A. 1989. " Heuristic and systematic processing within and beyond the persuasion context ". In Unintended thought, Edited by: Uleman, J. S. and Bargh, J. A. 122-252. New York, NY: Guilford.
10. Chaiken, S. and Maheswaran, D. 1994. Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task performance on attitude judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66: 460-473.
11. Chen, Y. F. 2008. Herd behavior in purchasing books online. Computers in Human Behavior, 24: 1977-1992.
12. Chen, S. and Chaiken, S. 1999. " The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context ". In Dual-process theories in social psychology, Edited by: Chaiken, S. and Trope, Y. 73-96. New York, NY: Guilford.
13. Crisci, R. and Kassinove, H. 1973. Effect of perceived expertise, strength of advice, and environmental setting on parental compliance. Journal of Social Psychology, 89: 245-250.
14. Dholakia, R. and Sternthal, B. 1977. Highly credible sources: Persuasive facilitators or persuasive liabilities?. Journal of Consumer Research, 3: 223-232.
15. Dou, X., Walden, J., Lee, S. and Lee, J. Y. 2012. Does source matter? Examining source effects in online product reviews. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 1555-1563.
16. Dutta-Bergman, M. J. 2003. Trusted online sources of health information: Differences in demographics, health beliefs, and health-information orientation. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 5 (3): e21 doi:10.2196/jmir.5.3.e21
17. Eastin, M. S. (2001). Credibility assessments of online health information: The effects of source expertise and knowledge of content. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 6(4). Retrieved from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol6/issue4/eastin.html (http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol6/issue4/eastin.html)
18. Fox, S., & Jones, S. (2009). The social life of health information: Americans' pursuit of health takes place within a widening network of both online and offline sources. The Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/8-The-Social-Life-of-Health-Information.aspx (http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/8-The-Social-Life-of-Health-Information.aspx)
19. Fox, S. L., & Rainie, L. (2002). Vital decisions: How Internet users decide what information to trust when they or their loved ones are sick. The Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2002/PIP_Vital_Decisions_May2002.pdf.pdf (http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2002/PIP_Vital_Decisions_May2002.pdf.pdf)
20. Freeman, K. S. and Spyridakis, J. H. 2003. An examination of factors that affect the credibility of online health information. Technical Communication, 51: 239-263.
21. Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L. and Kelley, J. J. 1953. Communication and persuasion, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
22. Hu, Y. and Sundar, S. S. 2010. Effects of online health sources on credibility and behavioral intentions. Communication Research, 37: 105-132.
23. Hu, N., Liu, L. and Zhang, J. J. 2008. Do online reviews affect product sales? The role of reviewer characteristics and temporal effects. Information Technology and Management, 9: 201-214.
24. Jansen, B. J., Zhang, M., Sobel, K. and Chowdury, A. 2009. Twitter power: Tweets as electronic word of mouth. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60: 2169-2188.
25. Kang, H., Bae, K., Zhang, S. and Sundar, S. S. 2011. Source cues in online news: Is the proximate source more powerful than distal sources?. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 88: 719-736.
26. Kim, H. S. and Sundar, S. S. 2011. Using interface cues in online health community boards to change impressions and encourage user contribution. Proceedings of the 2011 Annual Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI'11),: 599-608.
27. Knobloch-Westerwick, S., Sharma, N., Hansen, D. L. and Alter, S. 2005. Impact of popularity indications on readers' selective exposure to online news. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 49 (3): 296-313.
28. Kommalage, M. and Thabrew, A. 2008. Use of websites for disseminating health information in developing countries: An experience from Sri Lanka. International Journal of Electronic Healthcare, 4: 327-338.
29. Maddux, J. E. and Rogers, R. W. 1980. Effects of source expertness, physical attractiveness, and supporting arguments on persuasion: A case of brains over beauty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39: 235-244.
30. Miller, A. and Kurpius, D. 2010. A citizen-eye view of television news source credibility. American Behavioral Scientist, 54: 137-156.
31. Ohanian, R. 1990. Construction and validation of a scale to measure celebrity endorsers' perceived expertise, trustworthiness, and attractiveness. Journal of Advertising, 1: 39-52.
32. Petty, R. E. and Cacioppo, J. T. 1981. Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches, Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown.
33. Petty, R. E. and Cacioppo, J. T. 1986. Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change, New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
34. Rosnow, R. and Robinson, E. 1967. Experiments in persuasion, New York, NY: Academic Press.
35. Salathé, M. and Khandelwal, S. 2011. Assessing vaccination sentiments with online social media: Implications for infectious disease dynamics and control. PLoS Computational Biology, 7 (10): 1-7. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002199
36. Sankaranarayanan, S., Samet, H., Teitler, B. E, Lieberman, M. D. and Sperling, J. 2009. TwitterStand: News in tweets. Proceedings of the Conference on Advances in Geographic Information Systems (ACM SIGSPATIAL),: 42-51.
37. Sneiderman, P. (2011, July 6). You are what you tweet: Tracking public health trends from Twitter messages. Retrieved from http://releases.jhu.edu/2011/07/06/tracking-public-health-trends-from-twitter-messages (http://releases.jhu.edu/2011/07/06/tracking-public-health-trends-from-twitter-messages)
38. Southwell, B. G. and Yzer, M. C. 2009. When (and why) interpersonal talk matters for campaigns. Communication Theory, 19: 1-8.
39. Stanford, J., Tauber, E. R., Fogg, B. J., & Marable, L. (2002). Experts vs. online consumers: A comparative credibility study of health and finance Web sites. Consumer WebWatch Research Report. Retrieved from http://www.consumerwebwatch.org/dynamic/web-credibility-reports-experts-vs-online-abstract.cfm (http://www.consumerwebwatch.org/dynamic/web-credibility-reports-experts-vs-online-abstract.cfm)
40. Sundar, S. S. 2008. " The MAIN model: A heuristic approach to understanding technology effects on credibility ". In Digital media, youth, and credibility, Edited by: Metzger, M. J. and Flanagin, A. J. 72-100. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
41. Sundar, S. S., Oeldorf-Hirsch, A. and Xu, Q. 2008. The bandwagon effect of collaborative filtering technology. Proceedings of CHI'08 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 26: 3453-3458.
42. th International Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI'09), 27: 4231-4236.
43. Sundar, S. S., Knobloch-Westerwick, S. and Hastall, M. R. 2007. News cues: Information scent and cognitive heuristics. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58: 366-378.
44. Sundar, S. S. and Nass, C. 2001. Conceptualizing sources in online news. Journal of Communication, 51: 52-72.
45. Sundar, S. S. 1999. Exploring receivers' criteria for perception of print and online news. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 76: 373-386.
46. Twitter (2011, September, 8). One hundred million voices. Retrieved from http://blog.twitter.com/search?q=stat (http://blog.twitter.com/search?q=stat)