Responses to Mental Health Care Posts by Social Media Influencers: The Moderating Effects of Previous Experience and Follower Involvement

ABSTRACTMental health information on social media is more often communicated by regular users as opposed to healthcare professionals, and a subset of these regular users, social media influencers, are employed as marketing sources for therapy companies. According to social cognitive theory, an influencer’s story about their positive experiences with therapy should encourage followers to also seek therapy, and stronger involvement with the influencer should enhance these effects. Although research has found that previous experience with modeled behaviors may mute vicarious learning effects, with a nuanced and stigmatized context like mental health treatment, it is important to parse out both the quantity and valence of previous experience in understanding how it shapes audience responses to mental health content on social media. The current study tests a moderated mediation model to help explain the impact of previous viewer experience with therapy (quantity and valence) and involvement with the influencer (similarity and parasocial relationship) on social cognitive theory-related outcomes. Results indicate no interaction effects of the moderators, however, there were direct positive effects of previous viewer experience and SMI outcome on outcome expectations, which in turn positively predicted behavioral intentions to seek therapy. Interestingly, self-efficacy had a negative effect on behavioral intentions.DisclaimerAs a service to authors and researchers we are providing this version of an accepted manuscript (AM). Copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proofs will be undertaken on this manuscript before final publication of the Version of Record (VoR). During production and pre-press, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal relate to these versions also. Disclosure StatementThe author reports there are no competing interests to declare.AcknowledgementThank you Dr. Jessica Gall Myrick for your assistance in the shaping of this project.Figure 1. Conceptual ModelDisplay full sizeFigure 2. Stimuli: Negative vs Positive SMI OutcomesDisplay full sizeFigure 3. Hypothesis Testing of H1-H6bNote: * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001. Values are unstandardized.Display full sizeQuantity→ Self-Efficacy: b = .007*, SE = .003Quantity→ Outcome Expectations: b = .008*, SE = .003Manipulated SMI Outcome → Outcome Expectations: b = .40**, SE = .16Self-Efficacy→Behavioral Intentions: b = -.43*, SE = .21Outcome Expectations→ Behavioral Intentions: b = .77***, SE = .19Quality → Outcome Expectations: b = .39**