Worldwide, people profit from equally accessible online health information via search engines. Therefore, equal access to health information is a global imperative. We studied one specific scenario, in which Google functions as a gatekeeper when people seek suicide-related information using both helpful and harmful suicide-related search terms. To help prevent suicides, Google implemented a “suicide-prevention result” (SPR) at the very top of such search results. While this effort deserves credit, the present investigation compiled evidence that the SPR is not equally displayed to all users. Using a virtual agent-based testing methodology, a set of 3 studies in 11 countries found that the presentation of the SPR varies depending on where people search for suicide-related information. Language is a key factor explaining these differences. Google’s algorithms thereby contribute to a global digital divide in online health-information access with possibly lethal consequences. Higher and globally balanced display frequencies are desirable.
ArendtFScherrS (2016) Optimizing online suicide prevention: a search engine-based tailored approach. Health Communication32(11): 1403–1408.
3.
ArendtFScherrS (2017) The impact of a highly publicized celebrity suicide on suicide-related online information seeking. Crisis: The Journal of Crisis Intervention and Suicide Prevention38(3): 207–209.
4.
BeerD (2017) The social power of algorithms. Information, Communication & Society20: 1–13.
5.
BiddleLDergesJMarsBet al. (2016) Suicide and the Internet: changes in the accessibility of suicide-related information between 2007 and 2014. Journal of Affective Disorders190: 370–375.
6.
BiddleLDonovanJHawtonKet al. (2008) Suicide and the internet. BMJ336: 800–802.
7.
BoyceN (2011) Suicide clusters: the undiscovered country. The Lancet378: 1452.
8.
BrakeDR (2017) The invisible hand of the unaccountable algorithm: how Google, Facebook and other tech companies are changing journalism. In: TongJLoS-H (eds) Digital Technology and Journalism: An International Comparative Perspective. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 25–46.
9.
BruchEAtwellJ (2015) Agent-based models in empirical social research. Sociological Methods & Research44: 186–221.
CollingsSNiederkrotenthalerT (2012) Suicide prevention and emergent media: surfing the opportunity. Crisis: The Journal of Crisis Intervention and Suicide Prevention33: 1–4.
12.
DaineKHawtonKSingaraveluVet al. (2013) The power of the web: a systematic review of studies of the influence of the internet on self-harm and suicide in young people. PLoS ONE8: e77555.
13.
DiMaggioPHargittaiE (2001) From the “Digital Divide” to ‘Digital Inequality’: Studying Internet Use as Penetration Increases. Princeton, NJ: Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies, Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University.
14.
DinevTHartP (2005) Internet privacy concerns and social awareness as determinants of intention to transact. International Journal of Electronic Commerce10: 7–29.
15.
DuffAS (2012) A normative theory of the information society. New York: Routledge.
GouldMSKleinmanMLakeAMet al. (2014) Newspaper coverage of suicide and initiation of suicide clusters in teenagers in the USA, 1988–96: a retrospective, population-based, case-control study. The Lancet Psychiatry1: 34–43.
18.
GouldMSLakeAMGalfalvyHet al. (2017) Follow-up with callers to the national suicide prevention lifeline: evaluation of callers’ perceptions of care. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior48: 75–86.
19.
GrahamM (2011) Time machines and virtual portals: the spatialities of the digital divide. Progress in Development Studies11: 211–227.
20.
GunnJFLesterD (2013) Using google searches on the internet to monitor suicidal behavior. Journal of Affective Disorders148: 411–412.
21.
HaimMArendtFScherrS (2017) Abyss or shelter? On the relevance of web search engines’ search results when people google for suicide. Health Communication32: 253–258.
22.
HalfordSSavageM (2010) Reconceptualizing digital social inequality. Information, Communication & Society13: 937–955.
23.
HargittaiEHinnantA (2008) Digital inequality: differences in young adults’ use of the Internet. Communication Research35: 602–621.
24.
HilbertM (2011) The end justifies the definition: the manifold outlooks on the digital divide and their practical usefulness for policy-making. Telecommunications Policy35: 715–736.
JanssenMKukG (2016) The challenges and limits of big data algorithms in technocratic governance. Government Information Quarterly33: 371–377.
27.
JustNLatzerM (2016) Governance by algorithms: reality construction by algorithmic selection on the Internet. Media, Culture & Society39: 238–258.
28.
KempCGCollingsSC (2011) Hyperlinked suicide: assessing the prominence and accessibility of suicide websites. Crisis: The Journal of Crisis Intervention and Suicide Prevention32: 143–151.
29.
KennedyMGO’LearyABeckVet al. (2004) Increases in calls to the CDC national STD and AIDS hotline following AIDS-related episodes in a soap opera. Journal of Communication54: 287–301.
30.
KnoxKLBossarteRM (2009) Suicide prevention research—enabling activities funded through VA’s office of mental health. In: Proceedings of the 2009 Department of Defense/Veterans Administration suicide prevention conference, 12–15 January 2009. San Antonio, TX.
31.
KontosEZEmmonsKMPuleoEet al. (2010) Communication inequalities and public health implications of adult social networking site use in the United States. Journal of Health Communication15: 216–235.
32.
LazerD (2015) The rise of the social algorithm. Science348: 1090–1091.
33.
LazerDKennedyRKingGet al. (2014) The parable of Google Flu: traps in big data analysis. Science343: 1203–1205.
34.
LesterD (1997) The effectiveness of suicide prevention centers: a review. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior27: 304–310.
35.
LesterDRogersJR (2012) Crisis intervention and counseling by telephone and the internet. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
36.
MehlumL (2000) The internet, suicide, and suicide prevention. Crisis: The Journal of Crisis Intervention and Suicide Prevention21: 186–188.
37.
NiederkrotenthalerTFuK-WYipPSFet al. (2012) Changes in suicide rates following media reports on celebrity suicide: a meta-analysis. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health66: 1037–1042.
38.
NiederkrotenthalerTVoracekMHerberthAet al. (2010) Role of media reports in completed and prevented suicide: Werther v. Papageno effects. British Journal of Psychiatry197: 234–243.
39.
NorrisP (2001) Digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty, and the Internet worldwide. New York: Cambridge University Press.
PhillipsDP (1974) The influence of suggestion on suicide: substantive and theoretical implications of the Werther effect. American Sociological Review39: 340–354.
42.
RecuperoPRHarmsSENobleJM (2008) Googling suicide: surfing for suicide information on the Internet. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry69: 878–888.
43.
RobinsonL (2009) A taste for the necessary. Information, Communication & Society12: 488–507.
44.
RobinsonLCottenSROnoHet al. (2015) Digital inequalities and why they matter. Information, Communication & Society18: 569–582.
45.
RomerDJamiesonPEJamiesonKH (2006) Are news reports of suicide contagious? A stringent test in six U.S. cities. Journal of Communication56: 253–270.
46.
ScherrS (2016) Depression – Medien – Suizid: Zur empirischen Relevanz von Depressionen und Medien für die Suizidalität [Depression – Media – Suicide: On the empirical relevance of depression and media for suicidality]. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
47.
ScherrSSteinleitnerA (2015) Zwischen dem Werther- und Papageno-Effekt [Between Werther and Papageno effects]. Nervenarzt86(5): 557–565.
48.
ScherrSReinemannC (2016) First do no harm: Cross-sectional and longitudinal evidence for the impact of individual suicidality on the use of online health forums and support groups. Computers in Human Behavior61: 80–88.
49.
SchradieJ (2011) The digital production gap: the digital divide and Web 2.0 collide. Poetics39: 145–168.
50.
ShoemakerPJVosT (2009) Gatekeeping theory. New York: Routledge.
51.
SisaskMVärnikA (2012) Media roles in suicide prevention: a systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health9: 123–138.
52.
StackS (2005) Suicide in the media: a quantitative review of studies based on nonfictional stories. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior35: 121–133.
53.
StackS (2009) Copycat effects of fictional suicide: a meta-analysis. In: StackSLesterD (eds) Suicide and the Creative Arts. New York: Nova, pp. 231–243.
54.
SudakHSSudakDM (2005) The media and suicide. Academic Psychiatry29: 495–499.
55.
SundarSSMaratheSS (2010) Personalization versus customization: the importance of agency, privacy, and power usage. Human Communication Research36: 298–322.
56.
ThalerRHSunsteinCR (2008) Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
57.
ThorntonLHandleyTKay-LambkinFet al. (2017) Is a person thinking about suicide likely to find help on the Internet? An evaluation of Google search results. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior47: 48–53.
TillBNiederkrotenthalerT (2014) Surfing for suicide methods and help: content analysis of websites retrieved with search engines in Austria and the United States. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry75: 886–892.
60.
TillBTranUSVoracekMet al. (2017) Beneficial and harmful effects of educative suicide prevention websites: randomised controlled trial exploring Papageno v. Werther effects. British Journal of Psychiatry211: 109–115.
61.
UNICEF (2017) Children in a Digital World. New York: UNICEF.
62.
Van DeursenAvan DijkJHelsperE (2014) Investigating outcomes of online engagement. Media@LSE Working paper series no. 28. London: Department of Media and Communications, London School of Economics and Political Science.
63.
Van DijkJ (2005) The deepening divide: inequality in the information society. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
64.
Van DijkJ (2017) Digital divide: impact of access. In: RösslerPHoffnerCAvan ZoonenL (eds) The international encyclopedia of media effects (pp. 1–11). New York: Wiley-Blackwell.
65.
Van DijkJHackerK (2003) The digital divide as a complex and dynamic phenomenon. Information Society19: 315–326.
66.
VõML-HConradMKuchinkeLet al. (2009) The Berlin affective word list reloaded (BAWL-R). Behavior Research Methods41: 534–538.
WassermanD (2016a) Suicidal people’s experiences of trauma and negative life events. In: WassermanD (ed.) Suicide: an unnecessary death. 2th ed.Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 145–228.
69.
WassermanD (2016b) Suicide: an unnecessary death. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
WilliamsBABrooksCFShmargadY (2018) How algorithms discriminate based on data they lack: challenges, solutions, and policy implications. Journal of Information Policy8: 78–115.
73.
WilliamsCLWitteTK (2017) Media reporting on suicide: evaluating the effects of including preventative resources and psychoeducational information on suicide risk, attitudes, knowledge, and help-seeking behaviors. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior48: 253–270.
74.
ZillienNHargittaiE (2009) Digital distinction: status-specific types of Internet usage. Social Science Quarterly90: 274–291.
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.
