Identifying the peripheral cues in the credibility assessment of online health information

Online health information varies, as well as what people choose to consume and believe. Previous research finds that hesitancy to follow health advice is often due to suspicion about credibility. The elaboration likelihood model suggests credibility assessments use both argument quality and source credibility. One important facet for understanding how and why people cling to misinformation about health advice is uncovering what drives their credibility assessment in the first place. Yet, little research focuses on what peripheral cues influence source credibility in online health information. Our mixed-method study, which combines an online experiment and qualitative analysis, explores how source, tone, and format affect credibility perceptions in health contexts. The results confirm ELM relationships and indicate credibility increases when information is physician-authored and objectively presented. Our findings address a gap in the literature by exploring what influences a person's credibility assessment of online health information, offering insights that could inform the design of future online health resources.