As individuals turn to social media sites for health information, it is important to understand the factors that influence their perceptions of this information. This study employed an experiment to investigate the impact of social media discussion on perceptions of vaccines. Analysis, using structural equation modeling, revealed that source credibility and the civility of a discussion indirectly influence policy support requiring vaccinations, intention to vaccinate future children, and willingness to engage in discussion about vaccines. This impact is mediated by message elaboration and attitudes of the value of vaccinations. As individuals think about a pro-vaccine message and understand the importance of receiving vaccinations, they are more likely to engage in pro-social vaccination choices.
BaymNKboydd (2012) Socially mediated publicness: An introduction. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media56(3): 320–329.
3.
BeattieLGriffinB (2014) Accounting for within-person differences in how people respond to daily incivility at work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology87(3): 625–644.
4.
BochnerSInskoCA (1966) Communicator discrepancy, source credibility, and opinion change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology4(6): 614–621.
5.
BorahP (2012) Does it matter where you read the news story? Interaction of incivility and news frames in the political blogosphere. Communication Research41(6): 809–827.
6.
BrundidgeJ (2010) Encountering “difference” in the contemporary public sphere: The contribution of the Internet to the heterogeneity of political discussion networks. Journal of Communication60(4): 6680–6700.
7.
BryantJThompsonSFinkleaB (2013) Fundamentals of Media Effects. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
8.
CacciatoreMANowakGEvansNJ (2016) Exploring the impact of the US measles outbreak on parental awareness of and support for vaccination. Health Affairs35(2): 334–340.
9.
CacioppoJTPettyREMorrisKJ (1983) Effects of need for cognition on message evaluation, recall, and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology45(4): 805–818.
10.
CacioppoJTPettyREKaoCFRodriguezR (1986) Central and peripheral routes to persuasion: An individual difference perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology51(5): 1032–1104.
11.
CarrollAE (2013) Studies confirm, vaccines still don’t cause autism: But are these studies helping?Healthcare Triage, 15July. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=2andv=j_zqBPuPx8w (accessed 23 April 2016).
12.
Center for Disease Control (2017) Measles Cases and Outbreaks. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/measles/cases-outbreaks.html (accessed 23 April 2016).
13.
ChaikenSMaheswaranD (1994) Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology66(3): 460–473.
14.
ChoiJLeeJK (2015) Investigating the effects of news sharing and political interest on social media network heterogeneity. Computers in Human Behavior44: 258–266.
15.
CoeRKenskiKRainsSA (2014) Online and uncivil? Patterns and determinants of incivility in newspaper website comments. Journal of Communication64(4): 658–679.
16.
CrookJ (2016) 62 percent of U.S. adults get their news from social media, says report. Tech Crunch, 26May. Available at: www.techcrunch.com (accessed 23 April 2016).
17.
CuellarMJJohnsonRDKeilM (2007) The deaf effect response to bad news reporting in information systems projects. e-Service Journal5(1): 75–97.
18.
DahlgrenP (2005) The Internet, public spheres, and political communication: Dispersion and deliberation. Political Communication22(2): 147–162.
19.
DugganMEllisonNBLampeCLenhartAMaddenM (2015) Social media update 2014. Pew Research Center, 9January. Available at: http://www.pewinternet.org (accessed 23 April 2016)
20.
EaglyAHChaikenS (1993) The Psychology of Attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
21.
FishbeinMAjzenI (1975) Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
22.
FishbeinMAjzenI (1980) Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
23.
FlynnBSWordenJKBunnJYConnollySWDorwaldtAL (2011) Evaluation of smoking prevention television messages based on the elaboration likelihood model. Health Education Research26(6): 976–987.
24.
FraleighDMTumanJS (2014) Speak Up! An Illustrated Guide to Public Speaking, 3rd edn.Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s.
25.
FreyD (1986) Recent research on selective exposure to information. In: BerkowitzL (ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 19. New York, NY: Academic Press, pp. 41–80.
26.
GalarzaRJenningsFJ (2018) The role of civility and metacommunication in Facebook discussions. Communication Studies69(1): 42–66.
27.
GeorgiadisM (2013) Motivating behavior change: A content analysis of public service announcements. Elon Journal of Undergraduate Research in Communication4(1): 60–70.
HabermasJ (1962) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
30.
HabermasJ (2006) Religion in the public sphere. European Journal of Philosophy14(1): 1–25.
31.
HanSBrazealL (2015) Playing nice: Modeling civility in online political discussions. Communication Research Reports32(1): 20–28.
32.
HerbstS (2010) Rude Democracy: Civility and Incivility in American Politics. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
33.
HillRPCapellaMChoY (2015) Incivility in political advertisements: A look at the 2012 US presidential election. International Journal of Advertising34(5): 811–829.
34.
HinnantASubramanianRYoungR (2016) User comments on climate stories: Impacts of anecdotal vs. scientific evidence. Climatic Change138(3–4): 411–424.
HoggMVaughanG (2005) Social Psychology, 4th edn.London: Prentice-Hall.
37.
HolbertRLGrillC (2015) Clarifying and expanding the use of confirmatory factor analysis in journalism and mass communication research. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly92(2): 292–319.
38.
HowardPParksM (2012) Social media and political change: Capacity, constraint, and consequence. Journal of Communication62(2): 359–362.
39.
HwangHKimYHuhC (2014) Seeing is believing: Effects of uncivil online debate on political polarization and expectations of deliberation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media58(4): 621–633.
40.
JainAMarshallJBuikemaABancroftTKellyJPNewschaffeCJ (2015) Autism occurrence by MMR vaccine status among US children with older siblings with and without autism. The Journal of the American Medical Association313(15): 1534–1540.
41.
JenningsFJ (2018) Where to turn? The influence of information source on belief and behavior. Journal of Risk Research. Epub ahead of print 2 November. DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2017.1422788.
42.
JenningsFJBramlettJCWarnerBR (2018) Comedic cognition: The impact of elaboration on political comedy effects. Western Journal of Communication. Epub ahead of print 5November. DOI: 10.1080/10570314.2018.1541476
43.
JonesLWSinclairRCCourneyaKS (2003) The effects of source credibility and message framing on exercise intention, behaviors, and attitudes: An integration of the elaboration likelihood model and prospect theory. Journal of Applied Social Psychology33(1): 179–196.
44.
KimJLewisSCWatsonBR (2018) The imagined audience for and perceived quality of news comments: Exploring the perceptions of commenters on news sites and on Facebook. Social Media + Society4(1), 1–12.
45.
KlineR (2005) Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
46.
KrosnickJABoningerDSChuangYCBerentMKCarnotCG (1993) Attitude strength: One construct or many related constructs?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology65(6): 1132–1151.
LaPiereRT (1934) Attitudes vs. actions. Social Forces13(2): 230–237.
49.
LittleTD (2013) Longitudinal Structural Equation Modeling: A Comprehensive Introduction. New York, NY: Routledge.
50.
LittleTDRhemtullaMGibsonKSchoemannnAM (2013) Why the items versus parcels controversy needn’t be one. Psychological Methods18(3): 285–300.
51.
LodgeMTaberCS (2013) The Rationalizing Voter. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
52.
McCroskeyJC (1966) Scale for the measurement of ethos. Speech Monographs33: 65–72.
53.
McCroskeyJCTevenJJ (1999) Goodwill: A reexamination of the construct and its measurement. Communication Monographs66(1): 90–103.
54.
McHalePKennanAGhebrehewetS (2016) Reasons for measles cases not being vaccinated with MMR: Investigation into parents’ and carers’ views following a large measles outbreak. Epidemiology and Infection144(4): 870–875.
55.
MarwickAEboydd (2010) I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society13(1): 114–133.
MellisC (2015) Measles–mumps–rubella vaccine does not cause autism. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health51(8): 838.
58.
MeltzerK (2015) Journalistic concern about uncivil political talk in digital news media: Responsibility, credibility, and academic influence. The International Journal of Press/Politics20(1): 85–107.
59.
MoorheadSAHazlettDEHarrisonLCarrollJKIrwinAHovingC (2013) A new dimension of health care: Systematic review of the uses, benefits, and limitations of social media for health communication. Journal of Medical Internet Research15(4): e85.
60.
MutzDCReevesB (2005) The new videomalaise: Effects of televised incivility on political trust. American Political Science Review99: 1–15.
61.
NgEWJDetenberBH (2005) The impact of synchronicity and civility in online political discussions on perceptions and intentions to participate. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication10(3): 1–27.
62.
NoymerA (2001) The transmission and persistence of ‘urban legends’: Sociological application of age-structured epidemic models. Journal of Mathematical Sociology25(3): 299–323.
63.
PapacharissiZ (2004) Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media & Society6(2): 259–283.
64.
PettyRECacioppoJT (1986) The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In: Berkowitz (ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 19. New York, NY: Academic Press, pp. 123–205.
65.
PingreeRJ (2007) How messages affect their senders: A more general model of message effects and implications for deliberation. Communication Theory17(4): 439–461.
66.
PornpitakpanC (2004) The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of decades’ evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology34: 2243–2281.
67.
PrendergastJFoleyBMenneVIsaacAK (2008) Creatures of Habit: The Art of Behavioural Change. London: Social Market Foundation.
68.
ReynoldsRA (1997) A validation test of a message elaboration measure. Communication Research Reports14: 269–278.
ShahDV (2016) Conversation is the soul of democracy: Expression effects, communication mediation, and digital media. Communication and the Public1(1): 12–18.
74.
ShiJPoorisatTSalmonCT (2018) The use of social networking sites (SNSs) in health communication campaigns: Review and recommendations. Health Communication33(1): 49–56.
75.
ShoveE (2010) Beyond the ABC: Climate change policy and theories of social change. Environment and Planning A42(6): 1273–1285.
76.
SobierajSBerryJM (2011) From incivility to outrage: Political discourse in blogs, talk radio, and cable news. Political Communication28(1): 19–41.
77.
Stromer-GalleyJWichowskiA (2010) Political discussion online. In: ConsalvoMEssC (eds) The Blackwell Handbook of Internet Studies. Oxford: Blackwell-Wiley, pp. 168–187.
78.
SulerJ (2004) The online disinhibition effect. Cyberpsychology and Behavior7(3): 321–326.
79.
VargoCJGuoLAmazeenMA (2017) The agenda-setting power of fake news: A big data analysis of the online media landscape from 2014 to 2016. New Media & Society20(5): 2028–2049.
WarnerBR (2010) Segmenting the electorate: The effects of exposure to political extremism online. Communication Studies61(4): 430–444.
82.
WilhelmAG (2000) Democracy in the Digital Age. London: Routledge.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
