Tweeting and Eating: The Effect of Links and Likes on Food-Hypersensitive Consumers’ Perceptions of Tweets

Abstract

Moving on from literature that focuses on how consumers use social media and the benefits of organizations utilizing platforms for health and risk communication, this study explores how specific characteristics of tweets affect the way in which they are perceived. An online survey with 251 participants with self-reported food hypersensitivity (FH) took part in an online experiment to consider the impact of tweet characteristics on perceptions of source credibility, message credibility, persuasiveness, and intention to act upon the presented information. Positioning the research hypotheses within the framework of the Elaboration Likelihood Model and Uses and Gratifications Theory, the study explored motivations for using social media and tested the impact of the affordances of Twitter—(1) the inclusion of links and (2) the number of social validation indicators (likes and retweets). Having links accompanying tweets significantly increased ratings of the tweets’ message credibility, as well as persuasiveness of their content. Socially validated tweets had no effect on these same variables. Parents of FH children were found to utilize social media for social reasons more than hypersensitive adults; concern level surrounding a reaction did not appear to alter the level of use. Links were considered valuable in obtaining social media users to attend to useful or essential food health and risk information. Future research in this area can usefully consider the nature and the effects of social validation in relation to other social media platforms and with other groups.

Perceptions of Food Hypersensitivity Expertise on Social Media: Qualitative Study (Preprint)

“…Social media posts often do not have the space to give as much detail as a website might to suggest expertise (e.g., references, evidence, associations with reputable organisations). Recent research has shown that links to other sources of evidence in social media posts can promote a sense of credibility [18], however the extent to which this can be considered the same as references or evidence cited within online sources needs to be considered.…”

“…Seeking and sharing information are primary uses of the internet and social media [15][16][17][18]. In comparison to more traditional media, social media allows users to communicate in a reciprocal way, exchanging knowledge, sharing opinions or challenging information from others [19].…”

Perceptions of Food Hypersensitivity Expertise on Social Media: Qualitative Study

“…Individuals who are allergic to certain food items must avoid consuming allergens that could lead to a reaction called anaphylaxis (associated with breathing difficulties, sudden drop in blood pressure, and which may be fatal). Given these characteristics of food hypersensitivity, this is an ideal domain within which to explore attributions of expertise on social media because misinformation may have significant consequences [11,12]. The aim of this study was to explore how social media users and perceived experts in food hypersensitivities on social media construct meanings around expertise.…”

“…Seeking and sharing information are primary uses of the internet and social media [12,19-21]. In comparison with more traditional media, social media allow users to communicate in a reciprocal way, exchanging knowledge, sharing opinions, or challenging information from others [22].…”

Risk and benefit perceptions of human enhancement technologies: The effects of Facebook comments on the acceptance of nanodesigned food

“…Nowadays, the Internet is one of the main sources of food information (Jacob, Mathiasen, & Powell, ; Kuttschreuter et al, ; Ma, Almanza, Ghiselli, Vorvoreanu, & Sydnor, ; Redmond & Griffith, ; Tian & Robinson, ). Social media provide individuals with an easy‐to‐use tool to communicate with others which they use to find information and share their insights and concerns regarding new technologies (Barnett et al, ; Hamshaw, ; Kornelis, de Jonge, Frewer, & Dagevos, ; Kuttschreuter et al, ; Runge et al, ; Vidal, Ares, Machin, & Jaeger, ). This abundance of available viewpoints may be helpful as well as confusing (Regan et al, ).…”