Selective Exposure to Health Information: The Role of Headline Features in the Choice of Health Newsletter Articles

REFERENCES

• Arm yourself for good health. (2008). NIH news in health. Retrieved from http://newsinhealth.nih.gov/2008/August/index.htm
   Google Scholar
• Atkin, C. K. (1973). Instrumental utilities and information seeking. In P. Clarke (Ed.), New models for mass communication research (pp. 205–242). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Bandura, A. (2004). Health promotion by social cognitive means. Health Education and Behavior, 31, 143–164. doi:10.1177/1090198104263660
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bessarabova, E., Fink, E. L., & Turner, M. (2013). Reactance, restoration, and cognitive structure: Comparative statics. Human Communication Research, 39, 339–364. doi:10.1111/hcre.12007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cappella, J. N., Kim, H. S., & Albarracín, D. (2015). Selection and transmission processes for information in the emerging media environment: Psychological motives and message characteristics. Media Psychology, 18, 396–424. doi:10.1080/15213269.2014.941112
   Google Scholar
• Dillard, J. P., & Shen, L. (2005). On the nature of reactance and its role in persuasive health communication. Communication Monographs, 72, 144–168. doi:10.1080/03637750500111815
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2001.tb00126.x
   Google Scholar
• Garrett, R. K. (2009). Politically motivated reinforcement seeking: Reframing the selective exposure debate. Journal of Communication, 59, 676–699. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01452.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guan, Z., & Cutrell, E. (2007). An eye tracking study of the effect of target rank on web search. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 417–420. doi:10.1145/1240624.1240691
   Google Scholar
• 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. doi:10.1037/a0015701
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hastall, M. R. (2009). Informational utility as determinant of media choices. In T. Hartmann (Ed.), Media choice: A theoretical and empirical review (pp. 149–166). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hastall, M. R., & Knobloch-Westerwick, S. (2013a). Caught in the act: Measuring selective exposure to experimental online stimuli. Communication Methods and Measures, 7, 94–105. doi:10.1080/19312458.2012.761190
   Google Scholar
• Hastall, M. R., & Knobloch-Westerwick, S. (2013b). Severity, efficacy, and evidence type as determinants of health message exposure. Health Communication, 28, 378–388. doi:10.1080/10410236.2012.690175
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hilbe, J. M. (2011). Negative binomial regression (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hornik, R. C. (2002). Exposure: Theory and evidence about all the ways it matters. Social Marketing Quarterly, 8, 31–37. doi:10.1080/15245000214135
   Google Scholar
• Hornik, R. C., Mello, S., Forquer, H., Tan, A. S. L., Johnson, M., Rusko, J., & Schwartz, J. S. (2012, November). Results from a randomized controlled trial testing the effects of routine health information exposure on cancer prevention and screening behaviors. Paper presented at the 98th Annual Convention of the National Communication Association, Orlando, FL.
   Google Scholar
• Hornik, R. C., Parvanta, S., Mello, S., Freres, D., Kelly, B., & Schwartz, J. S. (2013). Effects of scanning (routine health information exposure) on cancer screening and prevention behaviors in the general population. Journal of Health Communication, 18, 1422–1435. doi:10.1080/10810730.2013.798381
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu, Y., & Sundar, S. S. (2010). Effects of online health sources on credibility and behavioral intentions. Communication Research, 37, 105–132. doi:10.1177/0093650209351512
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iyengar, S., & Hahn, K. S. (2009). Red media, blue media: Evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. Journal of Communication, 59, 19–39. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01402.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joachims, T., Granka, L., Pan, B., Hembrooke, H., Radlinski, F., & Gay, G. (2007). Evaluating the accuracy of implicit feedback from clicks and query reformulations in web search. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 25, 1–27. doi:10.1145/1229179.1229181
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, H. S. (2015). Attracting views and going viral: How message features and news-sharing channels affect health news diffusion. Journal of Communication, 65, 512–534. doi:10.1111/jcom.12160
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, H. S., Lee, S., Cappella, J. N., Vera, L., & Emery, S. (2013). Content characteristics driving the diffusion of antismoking messages: Implications for cancer prevention in the emerging public communication environment. Journal of the National Cancer Institute Monographs, 2013, 182–187. doi:10.1093/jncimonographs/lgt018
   Google Scholar
• Knobloch, S. (2003). Mood adjustment via mass communication. Journal of Communication, 53, 233–250. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2003.tb02588.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knobloch, S., Dillmann Carpentier, F., & Zillmann, D. (2003). Effects of salience dimensions of information utility on selective exposure to online news. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 80, 91–108. doi:10.1177/107769900308000107
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knobloch, S., Hastall, M. R., Zillmann, D., & Callison, C. (2003). Imagery effects on the selective reading of Internet newsmagazines. Communication Research, 30, 3–29. doi:10.1177/0093650202239023
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knobloch-Westerwick, S. (2008). Informational utility. In W. Donsbach (Ed.), International encyclopedia of communication (pp. 2273–2276). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Knobloch-Westerwick, S. (2014). The selective exposure self- and affect-management (SESAM) model: Applications in the realms of race, politics, and health. Communication Research, 42(7), 959–985. doi:10.1177/0093650214539173
   Google Scholar
• Knobloch-Westerwick, S. (2015). Choice and preference in media use: Advances in selective exposure theory and research. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Knobloch-Westerwick, S., Dillmann Carpentier, F., & Blumhoff, A. (2005). Selective exposure effects for positive and negative news: Testing the robustness of the informational utility model. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 82, 181–195. doi:10.1177/107769900508200112
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knobloch-Westerwick, S., Johnson, B. K., & Westerwick, A. (2013). To your health: Self-regulation of health behavior through selective exposure to online health messages. Journal of Communication, 63, 807–829. doi:10.1111/jcom.12055
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knobloch-Westerwick, S., & Sarge, M. A. (2015). Impacts of exemplification and efficacy as characteristics of an online weight-loss message on selective exposure and subsequent weight-loss behavior. Communication Research, 42, 547–568. doi:10.1177/0093650213478440
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B. R., & Gaudet, H. (1968). The people’s choice: How the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Liang, K.-Y., & Zeger, S. L. (1986). Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika, 73, 13–22. doi:10.1093/biomet/73.1.13
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Long, J. S. (1997). Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• MacCallum, R. C., Zhang, S., Preacher, K. J., & Rucker, D. D. (2002). On the practice of dichotomization of quantitative variables. Psychological Methods, 7, 19–40. doi:10.1037//1082-989x.7.1.19
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miles, A., Voorwinden, S., Chapman, S., & Wardle, J. (2008). Psychologic predictors of cancer information avoidance among older adults: The role of cancer fear and fatalism. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention, 17, 1872–1879. doi:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-08-0074
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Millar, M. G., & Millar, K. (1995). Negative affective consequences of thinking about disease detection behaviors. Health Psychology, 14, 141–146. doi:10.1037/0278-6133.14.2.141
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moriarty, C. M., & Stryker, J. E. (2008). Prevention and screening efficacy messages in newspaper accounts of cancer. Health Education Research, 23, 487–498. doi:10.1093/her/cyl163
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Napoli, P. M. (2011). Audience evolution: New technologies and the transformation of media audiences. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ng, S. H., & Bradac, J. J. (1993). Power in language: Verbal communication and social influence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• O’Keefe, D. J. (1998). Justification explicitness and persuasive effect: A meta-analytic review of the effects of varying support articulation in persuasive messages. Argumentation and Advocacy, 35, 61–75.
   Google Scholar
• Pan, B., Hembrooke, H., Joachims, T., Lorigo, L., Gay, G., & Granka, L. (2007). In Google we trust: Users’ decisions on rank, position, and relevance. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 801–823. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00351.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pennebaker, J. W., Booth, R. J., & Francis, M. E. (2007). Linguistic inquiry and word count: LIWC. Austin, TX: LIWC.net.
   Google Scholar
• Pennebaker, J. W., Chung, C. K., Ireland, M. E., Gonzales, A., & Booth, R. J. (2007). The development and psychometric properties of LIWC2007. Austin, TX: LIWC.net.
   Google Scholar
• Rains, S. A. (2013). The nature of psychological reactance revisited: A meta-analytic review. Human Communication Research, 39, 47–73. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2012.01443.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rozin, P., & Royzman, E. B. (2001). Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 296–320. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0504_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slater, M. D. (2007). Reinforcing spirals: The mutual influence of media selectivity and media effects and their impact on individual behavior and social identity. Communication Theory, 17, 281–303. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2007.00296.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sperber, D. (1996). Explaining culture: A naturalistic approach. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Stroud, N. J. (2011). Niche news: The politics of news choice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sunstein, C. R. (2007). Republic.com 2.0. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tausczik, Y. R., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2010). The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29, 24–54. doi:10.1177/0261927x09351676
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Witte, K., & Allen, M. (2000). A meta-analysis of fear appeals: Implications for effective public health campaigns. Health Education and Behavior, 27, 591–615. doi:10.1177/109019810002700506
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zillmann, D. (1988). Mood management through communication choices. American Behavioral Scientist, 31, 327–340. doi:10.1177/000276488031003005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zillmann, D., & Bryant, J. (1985). Selective-exposure phenomena. In D. Zillmann & J. Bryant (Eds.), Selective exposure to communication (pp. 1–10). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Zillmann, D., Chen, L., Knobloch, S., & Callison, C. (2004). Effects of lead framing on selective exposure to Internet news reports. Communication Research, 31, 58–81. doi:10.1177/0093650203260201
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar