This article analyzes the linguistic cues used by naïve perceivers to assess the expertise of online medical advice. We develop a theoretical framework of linguistic correlates to perceived expertise and test it on a corpus of 120 online medical advice messages, written by either medical doctors or laypersons. Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) analyses show that messages were perceived as more expert if they contained more words (an indicator of uncertainty reduction), fewer I-pronouns and anxiety-related words (indicators of psychological distancing), and more long words and negations (indicators of cognitive complexity). These linguistic cues explained over a third of the variance in expertise ratings. Although unaware of the author of each message, perceivers were able to discern between messages written by doctors versus laypersons. However, only long words were helpful in making this distinction. Results advance the literature on linguistic correlates of psychological processes.
AbeJ. A. A. (2011). Changes in Alan Greenspan’s language use across the economic cycle: A text analysis of his testimonies and speeches. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 30, 212-223.
2.
AndersonJ. G.RaineyM. R.EysenbachG. (2003). The impact of CyberHealthcare on the physician-patient relationship. Journal of Medical Systems, 27, 67-84.
3.
BackM. D.SchmukleS. C.EgloffB. (2011). A closer look at first sight: Social relations lens model analysis of personality and interpersonal attraction at zero acquaintance. European Journal of Personality, 25, 225-238.
4.
BatesB. R.RominaS.AhmedR.HopsonD. (2006). The effect of source credibility on consumers’ perceptions of the quality of health information on the Internet. Medical Informatics and the Internet in Medicine, 31, 45-52.
5.
BergerC. R. (1979). Beyond initial interaction: Uncertainty, understanding and the development of interpersonal relationships. In GilesH.St. ClairR. N. (Eds.), Language and social psychology (pp. 122-144). Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.
6.
BergerC. R.CalabreseR. J. (1975). Some exploration in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of communication. Human Communication Research, 1, 99-112.
7.
BondC. F.DePauloB. M. (2006). Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 214-234.
8.
BrunswikE. (1956). Perception and the representative design of psychological experiments. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
9.
ChungC.PennebakerJ. (2007). The psychological functions of function words. In FielderK. (Ed.), Social communication (pp. 343-359). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
ConsideinN. S.KrivoshekovaY. S.MagaiC. (2012). Play it (again) Sam: Linguistic changes predict improved mental and physical health among older adults. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 31(3), 240-262.
12.
D’AngeloJ.Van Der HeideB. (in press). The formation of physician credibility in online communities: Negativity, positivity, and nonnormativitiy effects. Communication Research.
13.
DavisD.BrockT. C. (1975). Use of 1st person pronouns as a function of increased objective self-awareness and performance feedback. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 11, 381-388.
DoakC. C.DoakL. G.RootJ. (1996). Teaching patients with low literacy skills. Philadelphia, PA: J. P. Lippincott.
16.
DoestL.SeminG. R.ShermanS. J. (2002). Linguistic context and social perception: Does stimulus abstraction moderate processing style?Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 21, 195-229.
17.
EastinM. (2001). Credibility assessments of online health information: The effects of source expertise and knowledge of content. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,6(4). doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2001.tb00126.x
18.
ElsbachK. D. (2004). Interpreting workplace identities: The role of office decor. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 99-128.
19.
EpsteinR. M.FranksP.FiscellaK.ShieldsC. G.MeldrumS. CKravitzR. L.DubersteinP. R. (2005). Measuring patient-centered communication in patient-physician consultations: Theoretical and practical issues. Social Science & Medicine, 61, 1516-1528.
20.
EysenbachG. (2007). Credibility of health information and digital media: New perspectives and implications for youth. In MetzgerM. J.FlanaginA. J. (Eds.), Digital media, youth, and credibility (pp. 123-154). Cambridge: MIT Press.
21.
FlanaginA. J. (2007). Commercial markets as communication markets: Uncertainty reduction through mediated information exchange in online auctions. New Media & Society, 9, 401-423.
22.
HancockJ. T.CurryL. E.GoorhaS.WoodworthM. (2008). On lying and being lied to: A linguistic analysis of deception in computer-mediated communication. Discourse Processes, 45, 1-23.
HurleyK. E.MillerS. M.CostalasJ. W.GillespieD.DalyM. B. (2001). Anxiety/uncertainty reduction as a motivation for interest in prophylactic oophorectomy in women with a family history of ovarian cancer. Journal of Women’s Health & Gender-Based Medicine, 10, 189-199.
25.
KacewiczE.PennebakerJ. W.DavisM.JeonM.GraesserA. C. (2014). Pronoun use reflects standings in social hierarchies. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33, 125-143.
26.
KivitsJ. (2004). Researching the informed patient. Information, Communication & Society, 7, 510-530.
27.
LarrimoreL.JiangL.LarrimoreJ.MarkowitzD.GorskiS. (2011). Peer to peer lending: The relationship between language features, trustworthiness, and persuasion success. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 39, 19-37.
28.
MayerR. C.DavisJ. H.SchoormanF. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709-734.
29.
McGeeJ. (1999). Writing and designing print materials for beneficiaries: A guide for state Medicaid agencies. Baltimore, MD: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
30.
MehlM. R. (2006). The lay assessment of subclinical depression in daily life. Psychological Assessment, 18, 340-345.
31.
MetzgerM. J.FlanaginA. J.EyalK.LemusD. R.McCannR. M. (2003). Credibility for the 21st century: Integrating perspectives on source, message, and media credibility in the contemporary media environment. In KalbfleischP. (Ed.), Communication yearbook 27 (pp. 293-335). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
32.
Morahan-MartinJ. M. (2004). How Internet users find, evaluate, and use online health information: A cross-cultural review. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 7, 497-510.
33.
NewmanM. L.GroomC. J.HandelmanL. D.PennebakerJ. W. (2008). Gender differences in language use: An analysis of 14,000 text samples. Discourse Processes, 45, 211-236.
34.
NewmanM. L.PennebakerJ. W.BerryD. S.RichardsJ. M. (2003). Lying words: Predicting deception from linguistic styles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 665-675.
35.
OberlanderJ.GillA. J. (2006). Language with character: A stratified corpus comparison of individual differences in e-mail communication. Discourse Processes, 42, 239-270.
36.
PaivioA. (1991). Dual coding theory—Retrospect and current status. Canadian Journal of Psychology/Revue Canadienne De Psychologie, 45, 255-287.
37.
PaivioA.ClarkJ. M. (1986). The role of topic and vehicle imagery in metaphor comprehension. Communication & Cognition, 19, 367-387.
38.
PantS.DeshmukhA.MurugiahK.KumarG.SachdevaR.MehtaJ. L. (2012). Assessing the credibility of the “YouTube approach” to health information on acute myocardial infarction. Clinical Cardiology, 35, 281-285.
39.
PennebakerJ. W.BoothR. J.FrancisM. E. (2007). Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count: LIWC [Computer software]. Austin, TX: liwc.net.
40.
PennebakerJ. W.KingL. A. (1999). Linguistic styles: Language use as an individual difference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1296-1312.
41.
RainsS. A.KarmikelC. D. (2009). Health information-seeking and perceptions of website credibility: Examining Web-use orientation, message characteristics, and structural features of websites. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 544-553.
42.
RobinsD.HolmesJ.StansburyM. (2010). Consumer health information on the Web: The relationship of visual design and perceptions of credibility. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61, 13-29.
43.
RodriguezA. J.HolleranS. E.MehlM. R. (2010). Reading between the lines: The lay assessment of subclinical depression from written self-descriptions. Journal of Personality, 78, 575-598.
44.
RootJ.StablefordS. (1998). Easy-to-read consumer communications: A missing link in Medicaid managed care. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 24, 1-26.
45.
RudeS. S.GortnerE. M.PennebakerJ. W. (2004). Language use of depressed and depression-vulnerable college students. Cognition & Emotion, 18, 1121-1133.
46.
SalehJ.RobinsonB. S.KuglerN. W.IllingworthK. D.PatelP.SalehK. J. (2012). Effect of social media in health care and orthopedic surgery. Orthopedics, 35, 294-297.
47.
SchwanenflugelP. J.StoweR. W. (1989). Context availability and the processing of abstract and concrete words in sentences. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 114-126.
48.
SchwartzbergJ.Van GeestJ.WangC. (2005). Understanding health literacy: Implications for medicine and public health. Chicago, IL: AMA Press.
49.
SeifertL. S. (1997). Activating representations in permanent memory: Different benefits for pictures and words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 23, 1106-1121.
50.
SillenceE.BriggsP.HarrisP. R.FishwickL. (2007). How do patients evaluate and make use of online health information?Social Science & Medicine, 64, 1853-1862.
51.
SlatcherR. B.ChungC. K.PennebakerJ. W.StoneL. D. (2007). Winning words: Individual differences in linguistic style among US presidential and vice presidential candidates. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 63-75.
52.
StirmanS. W.PennebakerJ. W. (2001). Word use in the poetry of suicidal and nonsuicidal poets. Psychosomatic Medicine, 63, 517-522.
53.
TausczikY. R.PennebakerJ. W. (2010). The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29, 24-54.
54.
TomaC. L. (2014). Counting on friends: Cues to perceived trustworthiness in Facebook profiles. In Proceedings of the international conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM). Ann Arbor, MI: Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence Press.
55.
TomaC. L.HancockJ. T. (2012). What lies beneath: The linguistic traces of deception in online dating profiles. Journal of Communication, 62, 78-97.
56.
Van SwolL. M.BraunM. T.MalhotraD. (2012). Evidence for the Pinocchio effect: Linguistic differences between lies, deception by omissions, and truths. Discourse Processes, 49, 79-106.
57.
Vasconcellos-SilvaP. R.CastielL. D.BagrichevskyM.GriepR. H. (2011). Panaceas disseminated over the Internet and vulnerable patients: How to check a market of illusions?Revista Panamericana de Salud Pública, 29, 469-474.
58.
WhalbergA. (2007). A quackery with a difference—New medical pluralism and the problem of “dangerous practitioners” in the United Kingdom. Social Science & Medicine, 65, 2307-2316.
