The rise of social question and answer (Q&A) platforms has changed the model of traditional health-information services. The quality of answers on a Q&A platform is critical to attract users and increase their community engagement. Thus, recognition of the answer was used to measure users’ acceptance of the answer. A theoretical model of the impact of language style on community recognition of health questions was developed. Nearly 1330 answers from a health question from Zhihu were obtained to verify the model. Results showed that personality reliability, assertiveness, argumentation clarity, commitment, and reverse incentive of health information positively affected answer recognition, while argumentation structure negatively affected answer acceptance. Simultaneously, the degree of use of medical terminology has a significant moderating effect on the relationship between answer recognition and assertiveness, argumentation structure, argumentation clarity, and commitment. Introducing Aristotle’s rhetoric theory to language style and answer recognition could potentially develop healthy communities and disseminate health knowledge.
ZhaoYCPengXLiuZ, et al. Factors that affect asker’s pay intention in trilateral payment-based social Q&A platforms. J Assoc Inf Sci Tech2020; 71: 516–528.
3.
CheungR.The influence of electronic word-of-mouth on information adoption in online customer communities. Global Econ Rev2014; 43(1): 42–57.
4.
ChungNHanHKooC.Adoption of travel information in user-generated content on social media: the moderating effect of social presence. Behav Inform Technol2015; 34(9): 902–919.
5.
PengLLiaoQWangX, et al. Factors affecting female user information adoption: an empirical investigation on fashion shopping guide websites. Electron Commer Res2016; 16(2): 145–169.
6.
SunZMHuaWNWangZB.Research on health information adoption prediction of wechat public account: based on information feature and support vector machine. Inform Stud: Theor Appl2018; 41(7): 72–77.
7.
SunZMWangZB.Research on microblog health Information adoption based on information characteristics. Inform Stud: Theor Appl2021; 2019(3): 146–152.
AbbasiAChenHSalemA.Sentiment analysis in multiple languages: feature selection for opinion classification in web forums. ACM T Inform Syst2008; 26(3): 1–34.
10.
GhoseAIpeirotisPG.Estimating the helpfulness and economic impact of product reviews: mining text and reviewer characteristics. IEEE T Knowl Data En2011; 23(10): 1498–1512.
11.
ConnorsLMudambiSMSchuffD.Is it the review or the reviewer? A multi-method approach to determine the antecedents of online review helpfulness. In: Proceedings of the 2011 44th Hawaii international conference on system sciences, Kauai, HI, 4–7 January 2011, pp. 1–10. New York: IEEE.
12.
YinGP.What kind of online reviews do consumers find more useful? – The effect of social factors. Manage World2012; 12: 115–124.
13.
FuSXChenXYDengSL.Research on the transformation of user information behavior in social Q&A community – theoretical model construction from information adoption to continuous information search. Libr Inform Knowl2017; 4: 80–88.
14.
ChenJDengSL.The influence mechanism of user’s answer recognition in online learning community. Libr Inform Work2019; 63(8): 38–44.
15.
ShiGLChenXDuLF.A study on the influencing factors of the acceptance of answers on social Q&A websites – a case study of Zhihu. J Mod Inform2016; 36(6): 41–45.
16.
FanZZhangYTSunXN.Research on information adoption behavior of college students in job search. Libr Inform Work2020; 64(18): 105–113.
17.
JinJYanXLiY, et al. How users adopt healthcare information: an empirical study of an online Q&A community. Int J Med Inform2016; 86: 91–103.
18.
SussmanSWSiegalWS.Informational influence in organizations: an integrated approach to knowledge adoption. Inform Syst Res2003; 14(1): 47–65.
19.
ErkanIEvansC.The influence of eWOM in social media on consumers’ purchase intentions: an extended approach to information adoption. Comput Hum Behav2016; 61: 47–55.
20.
ShenXLCheungCMKLeeMKO. What leads students to adopt information from Wikipedia? An empirical investigation into the role of trust and information usefulness. Brit J Educ Technol2013; 44(3): 502–517.
21.
ZhouT.Understanding online health community users’ information adoption intention: an elaboration likelihood model perspective. Online Inform Rev2022; 46: 134–146.
22.
YangMQiWYanXB, et al. Utility analysis of online commodity reviews. J Manag Sci Eng2012; 15(5): 65–75.
23.
MudambiSMSchuffD.Research note: what makes a helpful online review? A study of customer reviews on Amazon.com. MIS Quart2010; 34: 185–200.
24.
HaoYYYeQLiYJ.Study on factors influencing the usefulness of online reviews based on film review data. J Manag Sci Eng2010; 13(8): 78–88+96.
25.
SparksBAPerkinsHEBuckleyR.Online travel reviews as persuasive communication: the effects of content type, source, and certification logos on consumer behavior. Tourism Manage2013; 39: 1–9.
26.
JhaNMahmoudA.Using frame semantics for classifying and summarizing application store reviews. Empir Softw Eng2018; 23(6): 3734–3767.
27.
MaCLiGChenSJ, et al. Research on usefulness recognition of tourism online reviews based on multimodal data semantic fusion. J China Soc Sci Techn Inform2020; 39(2): 199–207.
28.
ChenXDengS.Influencing factors of answer adoption in social Q&A communities from users’ perspective: taking Zhihu as an example. J Data Inf Sci2014; 7(3): 81–85.
29.
LiaoSChouE.Intention to adopt knowledge through virtual communities: posters vs lurkers. Online Inform Rev2012; 36(3): 442–461.
30.
BaumrinBH.The complete works of Aristotle: the revised Oxford translation. Metaphilosophy1986; 17(4): 350–351.
31.
QuesenberryLGarlandBSykesB.Persuasive design elements for e-tail art galleries: a content analysis. Market Manage J2006; 16(2): 81–93.
32.
TirdatovI.Web-based crowd funding: rhetoric of success. Tech Commun2014; 61(1): 3–24.
33.
WangWChenWZhuXG, et al. Crowdfunding success rate and persuasive language style: an empirical study based on Kickstarter. Manage World2016; 5: 81–98.
34.
QiTTLiuQWangTM, et al. The persuasive effect of description language style of knowledge paid products: the moderating effect of reputation of knowledge producers. Nankai Bus Rev2020; 23(5): 159–170.
35.
MarksLJKaminsMA.The use of product sampling and advertising: effects of sequence of exposure and degree of advertising claim exaggeration on consumers’ belief strength, belief confidence, and attitudes. J Marketing Res1988; 25(3): 266–281.
36.
SharonAJBaram-TsabariA.Measuring mumbo jumbo: a preliminary quantification of the use of jargon in science communication. Public Underst Sci2014; 23(5): 528–546.
37.
BullockOMAmillDCShulmanHC, et al. Jargon as a barrier to effective science communication: evidence from metacognition. Public Underst Sci2019; 28(7): 845–853.
38.
PowellLRichmondVPWilliamsGC.Social networking and political campaigns: perceptions of candidates as interpersonal constructs. N Am J Psychol2011; 13(2): 331–342.
39.
RowleyJJohnsonFSbaffiL.Students’ trust judgements in online health information seeking. Health Inform J2015; 21(4): 316–327.
40.
KhosrowjerdiM.National culture and trust in online health information. J Libr Inf Sci2020; 52(2): 509–528.
KacewiczEPennebakerJWDavisM, et al. Pronoun use reflects standings in social hierarchies. J Lang Soc Psychol2014; 33(2): 125–143.
43.
OrvellAKrossEGelmanSA.‘You’ and ‘I’ in a foreign land: the persuasive force of generic-you. J Exp Soc Psychol2019; 85: 103869.
44.
MichalikUMichalska-SuchanekM.The persuasive function of rhetoric in advertising slogans. J Account Manage2016; 6(1): 45–58.
45.
PengYYinPDengZ, et al. Patient–physician interaction and trust in online health community: the role of perceived usefulness of health information and services. Int J Env Res Pub He2020; 17(1): 139.
46.
KamalskiJLentzLSandersT, et al. The forewarning effect of coherence markers in persuasive discourse: evidence from persuasion and processing. Discourse Process2008; 45(6): 545–579.
47.
PlaceCJMeloyJR.Overcoming resistance in clinical and forensic interviews. Int J Forensic Ment2018; 17(4): 362–376.
48.
HanJTChenQLiuJG, et al. The persuasion of borrowers’ voluntary information in peer to peer lending: an empirical study based on elaboration likelihood model. Comput Hum Behav2018; 78: 200–214.
49.
SawyerAGLaranJXuJ.The readability of marketing journals: are award-winning articles better written?J Marketing2008; 72(1): 108–117.
50.
GaoHWLiuDWMinLY.The effect of readability and attractiveness on product sales: a textual analysis based on film intro. Chin J Manage Sci 2022; 30(6):167–177.
51.
ArchakNGhoseAIpeirotisPG.Deriving the pricing power of product features by mining consumer reviews. Manage Sci2011; 57(8): 1485–1509.
52.
MitraTGilbertE.The language that gets people to give: phrases that predict success on Kickstarter. In: Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work and social computing, Baltimore, MD, 15–19 February 2014, pp. 49–61. New York: ACM.
53.
KarshNEyalT.How the consideration of positive emotions influences persuasion: the differential effect of pride versus joy. J Behav Decis Making2015; 28(1): 27–35.
54.
UlumMSutopoDWarsonoW.A comparison between Trump’s and Clinton’s commissive speech act in America’s presidential campaign speech. English Educ J2018; 8(2): 221–228.
55.
DillardJPAndersonJW.The role of fear in persuasion. Psychol Market2004; 21(11): 909–926.
56.
GaoSQYangYL.The syntactic and anticipatory meanings of interrogative modal words in Shangcheng Dialect. Stud Lang Linguist2021; 41(1): 24–31.
57.
ShimpTAWoodSLSmarandescuL.Self-generated advertisements: testimonials and the perils of consumer exaggeration. J Advertising Res2007; 47(4): 453–461.
58.
YoonS.Semantic constraint and pragmatic nonconformity for expressives: compatibility condition on slurs, epithets, anti-honorifics, intensifiers, and mitigators. Lang Sci2015; 52: 46–69.
59.
LiJZhengHDuanX.Factors influencing the popularity of a health-related answer on a Chinese question-and-answer website: case study. J Med Internet Res2021; 23(9): e29885.
60.
HaardJSlaterMDLongM.Scientese and ambiguous citations in the selling of unproven medical treatments. Health Commun2004; 16(4): 411–426.
61.
ZimmermannMJucksR.How experts’ use of medical technical jargon in different types of online health forums affects perceived information credibility: randomized experiment with laypersons. J Med Internet Res2018; 20(1): e30.
62.
ZhangTQiXH.Information origin model and reliability evaluation of Zhihu. Libr Inform Serv2019; 63(9): 85–94.
63.
GongSYLiuXLiuY, et al. Does online word-of-mouth determine the fate of products – an empirical analysis of online book reviews. Nankai Bus Rev2012; 15(4): 118–128.
64.
WooldridgeJM.Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2002.
65.
GreeneWH.Econometric analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2003.
66.
ZhouMLuBFanW, et al. Project description and crowdfunding success: an exploratory study. Inform Syst Front2018; 20(2): 259–274.
67.
JinYHuangJWangX.What influences content popularity? An empirical investigation of voting in social Q&A communities. In: PACIS 2017 proceedings, Langkawi Island, Malaysia, 16–20 July 2017.
68.
ShaYZOuyangX.Influence evaluation of Chinese provincial government websites – website link analysis and network impact factor measurement. Inform Document Serv2004; 6: 17–22.
69.
AllisonTHDavisBCWebbJW, et al. Persuasion in crowdfunding: an elaboration likelihood model of crowdfunding performance. J Bus Venturing2017; 32(6): 707–725.
70.
JiSXHuP.Research on the effectiveness of online reputation feedback system based on lemon theory. J Manag Sci Eng2017; 5: 147–153.
71.
WenZLHouJTZhangL.Comparison and application of regulating effect and mediating effect. Acta Psychol Sin2005; 37(2): 268–274.
72.
AikenLSWestSG.Multiple regression: testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE, 1991.
73.
Al-MomaniKR.Strategies of persuasion in letters of complaint in academic context: the case of Jordanian University students’ complaints. Discourse Stud2014; 16(6): 705–728.
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.
