[Home ] [Archive]   [ فارسی ]  
:: Main :: About :: Current Issue :: Archive :: Search :: Submit :: Contact ::
Main Menu
Journal Information::
Articles archive::
For Authors::
Publication Ethics::
Editorial policy::
Contact us::
Site Facilities::
Citation Impact
Search in website

Advanced Search
Receive site information
Enter your Email in the following box to receive the site news and information.
COPE Membership


Creative Commons Licence
Open access
:: Volume 11, Issue 2 (Summer 2023) ::
Iran J Health Educ Health Promot 2023, 11(2): 141-153 Back to browse issues page
Health Messages Effectiveness on Instagram: The Role of Source, Message Framing, Involvement and Social Support
Abbas Ghanbari Baghestan , Farideh Afshani * , Masoud Kousari
Abstract:   (1459 Views)
Background and Object: Strengthening healthy lifestyle adherence through self-care approach requires to consider information seeking behavior of audience. However, the popularity, facilities, and easy access to online resources have led to the dissemination and sharing inaccurate information, which is caused to more challenges in evaluating the accuracy of these messages. The present study tried to identify effectiveness components of health messages on Instagram.

Materials and Methods: The study conducted an experimental research design by intervention in the characteristics of the source (credibility/likeability), message framing (gain/loss), involvement (high/low) and social support (absent/present) among 442 participants. All intervention groups randomized and participants after exposure with one of the 16 Instagram posts answered questions regarding demographics, independent variables, acceptance, behavioral intention and sharing.  

Results: Analyzing data revealed that source credibility (b = 0.33), involvement (b = 0.25) and source likeability (b = 0.16), respectively have the greatest effect on message acceptance. Also, despite of non-significant difference between accepting the loss or gain frames (P = 0.08), the moderating effect of involvement levels (F (1, 438) = 6.04, p = 0.01, η2p = 0.014) confirms that participants with low involvement find the gain-framed message more convincing. In addition, the acceptance of the message could predict a positive relationship with behavioral intention (b = 0.52) and sharing (b = 0.45).

Conclusion: As a result, it is suggested that by planning effective communication strategies, along with the role of heuristic cues such as social support or source credibility in low involvement issues, tries to enhance the coordination between community health priorities and individuals’ health needs.

Keywords: Persuasive Communication, Infodemic, Social Support, Message Framing, Source Credibility
Full-Text [PDF 559 kb]   (632 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: Health Communication
Received: 2022/07/11 | Accepted: 2022/12/23
1. Heiby EM, Lukens CL, & Frank MR. The health compliance model-II. The Behavior Analyst Today. 2005; 6(1): 27-42. [DOI:10.1037/h0100050]
2. Kalankesh L, Mohammadian E, Ghalandari M, Delpasand A, Aghayari, H. Health Information Seeking Behavior (HISB) among the University Students. Frontiers in Health Informatics. 2019; 8(1): e13. [DOI:10.30699/fhi.v8i1.189]
3. Dastani M, Atarodi A. Serious attention of health information seeking behavior in covid-19 pandemic. Journal of Health Literacy. 2020; 5(2): 9-10.
4. George, N, Britto DR, Krishnan V, Dass LM, Prasant HA, Aravindhan V. Assessment of hashtag (#) campaigns aimed at health awareness in social media. Journal of education and health promotion. 2018; 7.
5. Pan W, Liu D, Fang J. An examination of factors contributing to the acceptance of online health misinformation. Frontiers in psychology. 2021; 12:630268. [DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.630268] [PMID] [PMCID]
6. Mena P, Barbe D, Chan-Olmsted S. Misinformation on Instagram: The impact of trusted endorsements on message credibility. Social Media+ Society. 2020; 6(2): 1-9. [DOI:10.1177/2056305120935102]
7. Borah P, Xiao X. The importance of 'likes': The interplay of message framing, source, and social endorsement on credibility perceptions of health information on Facebook. Journal of health communication. 2018; 23(4): 399-411. [DOI:10.1080/10810730.2018.1455770] [PMID]
8. Jenkins EL, Ilicic J, Barklamb AM, McCaffrey TA. Assessing the credibility and authenticity of social media content for applications in health communication: scoping review. Journal of medical Internet research. 2020; 22(7): e17296. [DOI:10.2196/17296] [PMID] [PMCID]
9. Kitchen PJ, Kerr G, Schultz DE, McColl R, Pals H. The elaboration likelihood model: Review, critique and research agenda. European Journal of Marketing. 2014; 48(11-12); 2033-2050. [DOI:10.1108/EJM-12-2011-0776]
10. Hakimara MA. Persuasive communication in advertising. Tehran: Samt; 2019. https://samt.ac.ir/en/book/4113/persuasive-communication-in-advertising
11. Petty RE, Cacioppo JT. The Elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In: Berkowitz E, editor. Advances in experimental social psychology. New York: Academic Press; 1986. 123-205. [DOI:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60214-2]
12. Wagner BC, Petty RE. The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion: Thoughtful and non-thoughtful social influence. In: Chadee D, editor. Theories in social psychology. Wiley: Blackwell; 2011. 96-116.
13. Soh, H. Measuring trust in advertising: development and validation of the adtrust scale [dissertation]. Athens: University of Georgia; 2006. https://getd.libs.uga.edu/pdfs/soh_hyeonjin_200608_phd.pdf
14. O'keefe DJ. Persuasion theory and research. Sage Publication Inc; 2016. https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/mst/persuasion/book234184
15. Nan X, Daily K, Qin Y. Relative persuasiveness of gain vs. loss-framed messages: a review of theoretical perspectives and developing an integrative framework. Review of Communication. 2018; 18(4): 370-390. [DOI:10.1080/15358593.2018.1519845]
16. O'Keefe DJ, Jensen JD. The relative persuasiveness of gain-framed loss-framed messages for encouraging disease prevention behaviors: A meta-analytic review. Journal of health communication. 2007; 12(7): 623-644. [DOI:10.1080/10810730701615198] [PMID]
17. O'Keefe DJ, Jensen JD. The Relative Persuasiveness of Gain-Framed and Loss-Framed Messages for Encouraging Disease Detection Behaviors: A Meta-Analytic Review. Journal of Communication. 2009; 59(2): 296-316. [DOI:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01417.x]
18. Jang J, Feng B. The Effects of Gain- and Loss-Framed Advice Messages on Recipients' Responses to Advice. Journal of Language and Social Psychology. 2018; 37(2): 181-202. [DOI:10.1177/0261927X17706961]
19. Yin M, Tayyab SMU, Xu X-Y, Jia S-W, Wu C-L. The Investigation of Mobile Health Stickiness: The Role of Social Support in a Sustainable Health Approach. Sustainability. 2021; 13(4): 1693. [DOI:10.3390/su13041693]
20. Yang Q, Chen Y, Wendorf Muhamad J. Social support, trust in health information, and health information-seeking behaviors (HISBs): A study using the 2012 Annenberg National Health Communication Survey (ANHCS). Health communication. 2017; 32(9): 1142-1150. [DOI:10.1080/10410236.2016.1214220] [PMID]
21. Hayes RA, Carr CT, Wohn DY. It's the audience: Differences in social support across social media. Social Media+ Society. 2016; 2(4): 1-12. [DOI:10.1177/2056305116678894]
22. Wong D, Amon KL, Keep M. Desire to belong affects Instagram behavior and perceived social support. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking. 2019; 22(7): 465-471. [DOI:10.1089/cyber.2018.0533] [PMID]
23. Blanca MJ, Alarcón R, Arnau J, Bono R, Bendayan R. Non-normal data: Is ANOVA still a valid option? Psicothema. 2017; 29(4): 552-557.
24. Zaichkowsky JL. The personal involvement inventory: Reduction, revision, and application to advertising. Journal of advertising. 1994; 23(4): 59-70. [DOI:10.1080/00913367.1943.10673459]
25. Laurent G, Kapferer J-N. Measuring consumer involvement profiles. Journal of marketing research. 1985; 22(1): 41-53. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378502200104 [DOI:10.2307/3151549]
26. Bhattacherjee A, Sanford C. Influence processes for information technology acceptance: An elaboration likelihood model. MIS quarterly. 2006; 30(4): 805-825. [DOI:10.2307/25148755]
27. Gupta R, Kishor N, Verma D. Construction and validation of a five-dimensional celebrity endorsement scale: introducing the pater model. British journal of marketing studies. 2017; 5(4): 15-35.
28. Mahao BB, Dlodlo N. Investigating The Source Attributes Influencing Consumers' credibility Evaluations of an Athlete-Celebrity Endorsed Product. International Journal of Social Sciences and Humanity Studies. 2017; 9(2): 1-16.
29. Van't Riet, JP. Framing health communication messages [dissertation]. Maastricht: Datawyse / Universitaire Pers Maastricht; 2009.
30. Chung N, Tyan I, Chung HC. Social support and commitment within social networking site in tourism experience. Sustainability. 2017; 9(11): 2102. [DOI:10.3390/su9112102]
31. Gantiva C, Jiménez-Leal W, Urriago-Rayo J. Framing messages to deal with the COVID-19 crisis: The role of loss/gain frame and content. Frontiers in psychology. 2021; 12: 568212. [DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.568212] [PMID] [PMCID]
32. Abu-Akel A, Spitz A, West R. The effect of spokesperson attribution on public health message sharing during the COVID-19 pandemic. PLoS ONE. 2021; 16(2): e0245100. [DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0245100] [PMID] [PMCID]
33. Chen X, Hay JL, Waters EA, Kiviniemi MT, Biddle C, Schofield E, Li Y, Kaphingst K, Orom H. Health Literacy and Use and Trust in Health Information. Journal of Health Communication. 2018; 23(8): 724-734. [DOI:10.1080/10810730.2018.1511658] [PMID] [PMCID]
34. Meyers-Levy J, Maheswaran, D. Exploring message framing outcomes when systematic, heuristic, or both types of processing occur. Journal of Consumer Psychology. 2004; 14(1&2): 159-167. [DOI:10.1207/s15327663jcp1401&2_18]
35. Cauberghe V, De Pelsmacker P, Janssens W, Dens N. Fear, threat and efficacy in threat appeals: Message involvement as a key mediator to message acceptance. Accident; Analysis and Prevention. 2009; 41(2): 276-285. [DOI:10.1016/j.aap.2008.11.006] [PMID]
36. Gallagher KM, Updegraff JA. Health message framing effects on attitudes, intentions, and behavior: A meta-analytic review. Annals of behavioral medicine: a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine. 2012; 43(1): 101-116. [DOI:10.1007/s12160-011-9308-7] [PMID]
37. Pakpour Haji Agha A, Nourozi S, Yekaninejad MS, Mansouri A, Chaibakhsh S. Effect of message framing on improving oral health behaviors in students in Qazvin, Iran. J Isfahan Dent Sch. 2013; 8(6): 512-521.
38. Doung HT, Van Nguyen, LT, Vu HT. With whom do consumers interact? Effects of online comments and perceived similarity on source credibility, content credibility, and personal risk perception. Journal of Social Marketing. 2020; 10(1): 18-37. [DOI:10.1108/JSOCM-02-2019-0023]
Send email to the article author

Add your comments about this article
Your username or Email:


XML   Persian Abstract   Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Ghanbari Baghestan A, Afshani F, Kousari M. Health Messages Effectiveness on Instagram: The Role of Source, Message Framing, Involvement and Social Support. Iran J Health Educ Health Promot 2023; 11 (2) :141-153
URL: http://journal.ihepsa.ir/article-1-2197-en.html

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Volume 11, Issue 2 (Summer 2023) Back to browse issues page
فصلنامه آموزش بهداشت و ارتقاء سلامت ایران Iranian Journal of Health Education and Health Promotion
Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.07 seconds with 43 queries by YEKTAWEB 4624