| Literature DB >> 32580495 |
Eva L Jenkins1, Jasmina Ilicic2, Annika Molenaar1, Shinyi Chin3, Tracy A McCaffrey1.
Abstract
Communicating evidence-based nutrition messages to the public is challenging and is often in conflict with popular opinions, particularly from social media influencers (SMIs). In order to increase engagement with nutrition professionals (NPs) on social media, we aimed to explore young adults' perceptions of the authenticity and trustworthiness of SMIs and NPs Instagram posts. A cross-sectional questionnaire was administered to students (n = 149) from an Australian University. Participants viewed a real-life Instagram profile and one post from both a NP and a SMI. Main outcomes were post authenticity and trustworthiness, and emotional message appeals measured on five-point Likert scales. Regression models were developed to assess whose post (the NP or SMI) was perceived to be more authentic and trustworthy. Participants were young adults (median age (25th, 75th percentiles): 20 (19,21)), with approximately half identifying as female. A high heroic message appeal (+1SD above mean) significantly increased the perceived authenticity of the NPs post only (p = 0.01). Post authenticity enhanced post trustworthiness, but only when a heroic message appeal was used by the NP. When appropriate, NPs should convey positive emotions such as bravery and success to enhance the authenticity and trustworthiness of their posts.Entities:
Keywords: authenticity; emotional message appeals; nutrition professionals; social media; social media influencers; trustworthiness; university students; young adults
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32580495 PMCID: PMC7353280 DOI: 10.3390/nu12061861
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Figure 1Illustration of PROCESS Model 7—Moderated Mediation Model (with hypothesised analysis). SMI, social media influencer; NP, nutrition professional. Letters (M, W, X, Y) are variables not abbreviations.
Demographic characteristics of the study population §.
| Measure | Overall ( | Male ( | Female ( |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 20.0 (19.0, 21.0) | 21.0 (19.2, 22.0) | 20.0 (19.0, 21.0) |
| Weight (kg) | 64.0 (55.0, 75.0) | 74.0 a (65.0, 80.0) | 56.0 b (50.0, 66.5) |
| Height (cm) | 170 (162, 177) | 177 a (174, 180) | 163.0 b (158, 170) |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 22.2 (19.7, 25.0) | 23.4 a (20.9, 25.4) | 21.1 b (19.0, 23.4) |
| WHO cut offs for BMI [ | |||
| Underweight, | 19 (12.8) | 5 (7.4) | 14 (17.3) |
| Healthy weight, | 94 (63.1) | 42 (61.8) | 52 (64.2) |
| Overweight and Obese, | 36 (24.2) | 21 (30.9) | 15 (18.5) |
| Country of birth | |||
| Australia, | 77 (51.7) | 34 (50.0) | 43 (53.1) |
| Other, | 72 (48.3) | 34 (50.0) | 38 (46.9) |
| Asia and Pacific | 65 (43.6) | 30 (44.1) | 35 (43.2) |
| Africa | 2 (1.3) | 2 (2.9) | 0 |
| North America | 1 (0.7) | 0 | 1 (1.2) |
| Europe | 4 (2.7) | 2 (2.9) | 2 (2.5) |
| Employment status ¶ | |||
| Full-time, | 1 (0.7) | 0 | 1 (1.2) |
| Part-time or casual, | 91 (61.1) | 40 (58.8) | 51 (63.0) |
| Not working, | 52 (34.9) | 26 (38.2 | 26 (32.1) |
| Not disclosed, | 5 (3.3) | 2 (2.9) | 3 (3.7) |
| Study load | |||
| Full-time, | 146 (98.0) | 66 (97.1) | 80 (98.8) |
| Part-time, | 3 (2.0) | 2 (2.9) | 1 (1.2) |
| Quality of life measure‡ [ | |||
| Self-reported quality of life | 3.4 (3.0, 4.0) | 3.4 (3.0, 4.0) | 3.4 (3.0, 4.0) |
| Subjective nutrition knowledge ‡ [ | |||
| Self-reported general nutrition knowledge | 3.4 (3.0, 4.0) | 3.3 a (2.8, 4.0) | 3.4 b (3.0, 4.0) |
| Self-reported nutrition expertise | 2.5 (1.8, 3.0) | 2.5 (1.5, 3.0) | 2.5 (2.0, 3.0) |
| Healthy eating ‡ [ | |||
| Healthy eating behaviour | 4.0 (3.0, 4.0) | 3.83 a (2.7, 4.0) | 4.0 b (3.2, 4.0) |
§ All continuous values reported as Median (25th, 75th percentile); a and b denote significant differences between male and female median scores, using Mann–Whitney U test, p < 0.05; ¶ Significance testing unable to be calculated as expected frequency was less than 5; ‡ median score of a 5-point scale, minimum score 1 ‘strongly disagree’, maximum score 5 ‘strongly agree’, subjective nutrition knowledge was split into two sub-scales: self-reported general nutrition knowledge (n = 4 items) and self-reported nutrition expertise (n = 2 items). BMI, body mass index, WHO, World Health Organisation.
Constructs and their associated items from scales used in the questionnaire.
| Construct (Cronbach’s α) ‖ | Measure ¶ | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Scales used to assess the Instagram profiles | ||
| Familiarity (SMI: 0.92, NP: 0.91) | I am familiar with ‘NP/SMI’ | Bruner and Gordon, 2013 [ |
| I know a lot about ‘NP/SMI’ | ||
| I follow ‘NP/SMI’ on social media | ||
| I read her social media posts | ||
| Likeability (SMI: 0.88, NP: 0.86) | I find ‘NP/SMI’ likeable | Bruner and Gordon, 2013 [ |
| My impression of ‘NP/SMI’ is favourable | ||
| I find ‘NP/SMI’ warm and friendly | ||
| Scales used to assess the Instagram posts | ||
| Assessed by asking “what emotions do you think the post is trying to show?” | ||
| Message-appeal (measured as individual items) | Affiliation: Feelings of love, belonging, and togetherness | Yap, 2017 [ |
| Hope: Feelings of hope and reassurance | ||
| Humour: Feelings of fun, happiness, laughter, joy, light-heartedness, cheerfulness, comedy | ||
| Heroism/success: Feelings of bravery, nobility, admiration | ||
| Ease/convenience: Feeling that little effort is required to engage in the behaviour in the post | ||
| Guilt/shame: Feelings of shame and remorse | ||
| Sorrow: Feelings of sadness, worry, loss, misery, and unhappiness | ||
| Fear: Feelings of terror, dread, anxiety, panic, and alarm | ||
| Trustworthiness (SMI: 0.89, NP: 0.91) | The content of this post seems dependable. | Adapted from Ohanian, 1990 [ |
| I find the information provided in this post reliable. | ||
| This post is being honest in its recommendations. | ||
| This post seems sincere. | ||
| I trust the information provided in this post. | ||
| Authenticity (SMI: 0.88, NP: 0.93) | The content in this post is genuine. | Moulard et al., 2015 [ |
| The content in this post seems real to me. | ||
| The content in this post is authentic. | ||
| Demographic scales | ||
| Nutrition knowledge (0.072) | I know quite a bit about healthy eating. | Adapted from Dodd, 2005 & Flynn et al., 1999 [ |
| I do not feel very knowledgeable about healthy eating.§ | ||
| When it comes to healthy eating, I really don’t know a lot.§ | ||
| Compared to most people, I know less about healthy eating.§ | ||
| Nutrition expertise (0.81) | In my circle of friends, I am one of the ‘experts’ on healthy eating. | Adapted from Dodd, 2005 & Flynn et al., 1999 [ |
| People seek me out for information on healthy eating. | ||
| Healthy eating behaviour (0.92) | I intend to improve to healthiness of my diet over the next month. | Reid et al., 2015 [ |
| I plan to eat a healthier diet over the next month. | ||
| I want to eat a healthier diet over the next month. | ||
| Quality of life ‡ (0.76) | How satisfied are you with what you are achieving in life? | Meiselman, 2016 [ |
| How satisfied are you with feeling part of your community? | ||
| How satisfied are you with your future security? | ||
| How satisfied are you with your spirituality or religion? | ||
SMI: social media influencer, NP: nutrition professional; ‖ Cronbach’s α included for both SMI and NP as separate response items were used in the questionnaire; Measures are based on a five-point Likert scale of strongly disagree to strongly agree; § Reversed scale items; ‡ Measured with ‘very dissatisfied’ to ‘very satisfied’.
Descriptive statistics for scales used in the questionnaire to assess perceptions of the nutrition professional or social media influencers post; trustworthiness of post content, authenticity of post content, and perceived message appeals
| Nutrition Professional ¶ | Social Media Influencer ¶ |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trustworthiness | 3.8 (3.2, 4.2) | 3.4 (3.0, 4.0) | 0.001 |
| Authenticity | 4 (3.33, 5.0) | 4 (3.0, 4.33) | 0.016 |
| Perceived message appeal | |||
| Affiliation | 4.0 (4.0, 5.0) | 5.0 (4.0, 5.0) | <0.001 |
| Hope | 4.0 (4.0, 5.0) | 4.0 (4.0, 5.0) | 0.735 |
| Humour | 4.0 (3.0, 4.0) | 4.0 (3.0, 5.0) | 0.081 |
| Heroism | 4.0 (4.0, 5.0) | 4.0 (3.0, 5.0) | <0.001 |
| Ease/convenience | 3.0 (2.0, 4.0) | 3.0 (2.0, 4.0) | 0.109 |
| Guilt/shame | 1.0 (1.0, 3.0) | 1.0 (1.0, 2.0) | 0.001 |
| Sorrow | 1.0 (1.0, 2.0) | 1.0 (1.0, 2.0) | 0.377 |
| Fear | 1.0 (1.0, 2.0) | 1.0 (1.0, 2.0) | 0.415 |
‡ Significance at p < 0.05 using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. ¶ Reported as median score (25th, 75th percentile) of a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1—‘strongly disagree’, to 5—‘strongly agree’.
Regression results (Source × Message Appeal on Post Authenticity).
| Predictors: | Beta |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Dependent Variable: Post Authenticity | |||
| Source ( | −0.12 | −1.16 | 0.25 |
| Source ( | 0.15 | 1.46 | 0.15 |
| Source ( | −0.04 | −0.44 | 0.66 |
| Source ( | 0.22 | 2.54 | 0.01 |
| Source ( | −0.00 | −0.08 | 0.94 |
| Source ( | 0.09 | 0.88 | 0.38 |
| Source ( | 0.08 | 0.70 | 0.48 |
| Source ( | −0.01 | −0.04 | 0.96 |
Significance at p < 0.05. X and W indicate to the variables illustrated in Figure 1.
Regression Results from PROCESS Model 7. Two models were developed; Model 1: post authenticity, Model 2: post trustworthiness.
| Predictors: | Beta |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Dependent Variable: Post Authenticity (Model 1, | |||
| Source ( | −0.72 | −2.05 | 0.04 |
| Heroic message appeal ( | 0.06 | 1.01 | 0.31 |
| 0.22 | 2.54 | 0.01 | |
| Gender of participant | 0.27 | 2.68 | 0.007 |
| Source familiarity | −0.01 | −0.09 | 0.93 |
| Source likability | 0.21 | 4.08 | <0.001 |
| Quality of life of participant | −0.03 | −0.42 | 0.68 |
| Healthy eating behaviour of participant | 0.17 | 1.90 | 0.06 |
| Subjective nutrition knowledge of participant | 0.05 | 0.77 | 0.44 |
| Subjective nutrition expertise of participant | −0.17 | −3.51 | <0.001 |
| Self-reported BMI | −0.00 | −0.00 | 0.99 |
| Dependent Variable: Post Trustworthiness (Model 2, | |||
| Source ( | 0.16 | 2.62 | 0.01 |
| Post authenticity ( | 0.70 | 20.03 | <0.001 |
| Gender of participant | 0.12 | 1.99 | 0.05 |
| Source familiarity | 0.05 | 1.59 | 0.11 |
| Source likability | −0.01 | −0.29 | 0.77 |
| Quality of life of participant | −0.04 | −1.18 | 0.24 |
| Healthy eating behaviour of participant | −0.04 | −0.73 | 0.47 |
| Subjective nutrition knowledge of participant | 0.00 | 0.04 | 0.98 |
| Subjective nutrition expertise of participant | 0.08 | 2.49 | 0.01 |
| Self-reported BMI | −0.00 | −0.14 | 0.89 |
| Index of Moderated Mediation | Beta | LCI | UCI |
| 0.15 | 0.02 | 0.30 | |
Significance at p < 0.05. LCI = lower confidence interval. UCI = upper confidence interval. BMI: body mass index. BMI, body mass index. Letters (M, W, X, Y) are variables not abbreviations.
Figure 2Illustration of the interaction effect (Source × Heroic Message Appeal) on post authenticity.
Figure 3Illustration of the PROCESS Model 7. Nutrition professionals as the source of the Instagram post using a strong heroic message appeal was a significant predictor of post authenticity and subsequently, post trustworthiness. NP, nutrition professional. Letters (M, W, X, Y) are variables not abbreviations.
Recommendations for nutrition professionals utilising social media platforms.
| Recommendations for Nutrition Professionals Using Social Media |
|---|
|
Use social media to communicate with young adults about health and nutrition. This study focused on Instagram posts only, which is an appropriate social media platform for young adults who mainly use Instagram and YouTube in day-to-day life. |
|
Frame your social media messages with a heroic message appeal, focusing on bravery, nobility, and success, to increase the authenticity of your social media posts. |
|
Be personal and share your own experiences online. Share real-life stories that are relatable to your followers to increase your perceived authenticity and trustworthiness and generate a greater persuasive capacity. |