Candidacy Exam


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Sharing ideas (other contexts)
  • Why do this study? Designing a social software (i.e. o nline intervention programs) requires understanding the context of uses (i.e. social behaviors). Understanding this will help with creating technology that aids the building of supportive peer environments that can help people change behaviors. Social support can be exchanged across text-based communication tools, but little is known about the impact of design on social interactions. This unknown is a compelling reason for studying patterns of supportive behavior across different online communication tools. Why here? Health promotion (i.e. smoking cessation) Social interactions via technology can influence patient care and outcomes.
  • Introduction Research Context Background Research Problem Problem Statement Specific Context Research Questions Rationale Purpose of Study Objectives Expected Results Research Aims What will be done How it will be done
  • People use different communication channels, but it’s unclear how technology impacts the social interaction patterns of e-patients. The objective of this study is to understand e-patients communities by finding insights where communication tool design supports exchange of social support.
  • Candidacy Exam

    1. 1. Candidacy Exam Katherine Chuang iSchool at Drexel University September 14, 2010 An analysis of social interactions in online health social networking Committee Members: (Chair) Christopher C. Yang Jennifer Unger Jung-Ran Park Margo Orlin Michelle Rogers Susan Gasson
    2. 2. Agenda
    3. 3. Online Health Social Networking <ul><li>Main Topic </li></ul>
    4. 4. Definitions <ul><li>E-Patient: internet users who goes online for health information </li></ul><ul><li>Social Media in context of e-patients </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Example: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ connects people with leading medical experts and others who have similar experience” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Founded in 1994 </li></ul></ul>
    5. 5.
    6. 6. <ul><li>Trends </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Social media are revolutionizing internet behavior (Nielson, 2009) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Users increasingly get their health information from online resources (PEW, 2009) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Opportunity is in the overlap of these two trends </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Online intervention programs </li></ul></ul>
    7. 7. Social Support <ul><li>Face to Face </li></ul><ul><li>Computer Mediated </li></ul>
    8. 8. Overview <ul><li>Perspective </li></ul><ul><ul><li>User-Centered Design </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Context of Use </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Social networking </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Purpose </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Understand how social media is used in these communities </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Understand the different types of interactions supported by different types of social media </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Context </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Social media used for health promotion (i.e., online intervention program) </li></ul></ul>
    9. 9. Agenda
    10. 10. Inspiration
    11. 11. Social Interactions in Social Media <ul><li>“ Not all relationships nor communication platforms are equal.” </li></ul>
    12. 12. Overview of Literature <ul><li>Previous studies of online support communities focused on… </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Identifying types of social support in online support groups </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Recognizing patient expertise </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Identifying group and user level interactions that facilitate social support exchanges </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Sharing personal experience </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Expressing gratitude </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Offering congratulations </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Comparing online and offline empathy </li></ul></ul>
    13. 13. Motivation <ul><li>Literature Review </li></ul>
    14. 14. Online Social Support <ul><li>Online social support complements face-to-face social interactions </li></ul><ul><li>Many different classifications from simple to complex </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Objective vs Subjective, tangible vs psychological (Caplan, 1974) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Emotional, appraisal, informational, instrumental (House, 1981) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Informational, tangible, esteem, network, emotional (Cutrona & Suhr, 1992) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Solve, solace, dismiss, escape (Barbee & Cunningham, 1995) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Emotional, informational, companionship </li></ul></ul><ul><li>In general there are 2 types (Cutrona & Suhr, 1992): </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Resources that assist individuals </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Emotional Understanding </li></ul></ul>
    15. 15. Two main types of social support <ul><li>Informational Support </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Advice </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Fact </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Personal experience </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Opinion </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Referral </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Instrumental Support </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Direct Service </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Indirect Service </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Nurturant Support </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Esteem </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Compliment </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Validation, Relief of Blame </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Network </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Access, Presence, Companions </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Emotional </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Relationship </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Physical Affection </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Confidentiality </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Sympathy, understanding </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Encouragement </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Prayer </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Resources to assist </li></ul><ul><li>Emotional comforting </li></ul>
    16. 16. Levels of Social Supports <ul><li>Subject of discussion </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Health and support related communities more likely to have empathy present than other types of online communities (Himelboim, 2008; Preece, 1999) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Population & communication platforms </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Forums are likely to have more informational than emotional support within a health community (Civan & Pratt, 2007; Coursaris & Liu, 2009; Eichhorn, 2008) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Listservs are likely to have more emotional support that encourage relationship building (Bambina, 2007; Braithwaite et al, 1999; Preece, 1999) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Status & Social Roles </li></ul><ul><ul><li>In moderated communities, people rely on moderators to provide support (Cunningham et al, 2008) </li></ul></ul>
    17. 17. Support in Online Health Communities <ul><li>Social support positively influences adjustment to living with cancer (Civan & Pratt, 2007; Helgeson & Cohen, 1996; Swickert et al, 2002; Wright & Bell, 2003). Benefits include: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Assistance in coping with stress </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Improving situations (crisis recovery) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Preventing disease through behavior modification </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Effects may also be linked to perceived support rather than actual support (Faber & Wasserman, 2002; Haines et al, 2002; Swickert et al, 2002) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Perceived </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Actual </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Social support resources are provided by a person’s social network </li></ul>
    18. 18. Many social media websites exist <ul><li>Text is dominant communication (even though there are technologies that provide richer experience) </li></ul><ul><li>Image Credit: </li></ul>
    19. 19. Profile Posts
    20. 20. Text-Based Communication <ul><li>Comparing a few communication tools </li></ul>Platform Communication Type Accessibility Possible Distribution Who can post? Who is displayed prominently? Twitter/Status (microblog) Broadcast Private Public 1 to 1 1 to many Account holder Author Social Network Profile Page Guestbook, Testimonial Private 1 to 1 1 to many Authorized Profile Blogs Diary Public Private 1 to many Main author(s) Author Guestbooks Guestbook Private Public Many to 1 Anyone Host (not guests) Discussion Board Forum Public Many to Many Anyone None, all discuss topic
    21. 21. Unique Characteristics of Social Media <ul><li>User-Created Content </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Write public comments; upload photos, audio, links, etc </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Nonverbal – “likes”, gifts, pokes, application invites, event invites </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Visual Aspects </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Number of authors </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Audience access </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Identity information displayed on profiles </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Declare friends </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Online setting for online social support </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Anonymity </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Relief from stigma </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Connections outside immediate local network </li></ul></ul>
    22. 22. Studying social interactions <ul><li>Social structures have impact on an individual’s psychological well-being (Durkheim, 1957). </li></ul><ul><li>Social network analysis graphically represents networks (Wellman, 1981) </li></ul>
    23. 23. Measuring with Social Network Analysis
    24. 24. Measures of Social Networks <ul><li>*online support groups using structural analysis </li></ul>Study Sample Analysis Metrics Software Bambina, 2007 Support OnLine Cancer Forum 1149 msgs Network Centralization Actor Centrality Blockmodeling Ucinet 6 Concor Chang, 2009 PTT.CC Size Density Cliques Network Centralization Ucinet 6.96 Pfiel & Zaphiris, 2009 SeniorNet Density Inclusiveness Reciprocity Cliques Cryam NetMiner II Takahashi et al, 2009 n/a Centrality Ucinet 6.1 Pajek 1.20
    25. 25. Shapes of communication patterns
    26. 26. Emotional Communication <ul><li>Emotional communication ties people together (Pfiel & Zaphiris, 2009) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Emotional communication = higher density, higher inclusiveness, higher closeness </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Factual communication = loose and few members </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Communication platforms within a community (Chuang & Yang, 2010) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Journals & Profile Posts likely to contain more emotional communication than factual information </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Discussion boards likely contain more factual information than emotional communication </li></ul></ul>
    27. 27. MedHelp Alcoholism Community <ul><li>iConference 2010, “Social Support in Online Healthcare Social Networking” </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Objective: examine informational and emotional support exchanged among an alcoholism discussion forum </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Finding: Peers are supportive to one another by providing resources and encouragement. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>AMIA 2010, “A comparative study of supportive interactions between e-patients across communication functions of a social network site” </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Objective: compare levels of social support of two social media platforms (discussion forum and journals). </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Findings: MedHelp’s alcoholism community members are more likely to exchange information on the discussion forum and emotional support on through journals. Conclusion: The different levels could be related to the communication tool design characteristics or social roles that people perform. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Publications </li></ul>
    28. 28. MedHelp Alcoholism Community <ul><li>ASIST 2010, “Helping you to help me: Exploring supportive Interaction in Online health community” </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Objective: Compare of levels of social support types (informational, nurturant) that were identified among interactions across three social media platforms (forum, journals, and notes) from an online alcoholism support community. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Findings: People use each communication tool for different purposes, which can be associated with each tool’s inherent design characteristics. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Forum was more likely to be used for exchanging information </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Journals and notes were more likely to be used for exchanging nurturant support. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Publications </li></ul>
    29. 29. Summary
    30. 30. Research Gaps <ul><li>Communication tools are different, they are used differently </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Researchers studying online health communities generalize their findings </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Relationships are different, people act in different social roles </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Moderators looked to as source of support </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Positional analysis to study behavior </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Classifying users based on who they are interacting with rather than number of ties </li></ul></ul>
    31. 31. Agenda
    32. 32. Research Questions <ul><li>What is the impact of social media platforms on e-patient social support exchanges? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>What does social interaction look like on a health social network site? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What roles do people have (or believe they have) in exchanging social support in an online environment? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What are the differences in using different social media platforms? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What is the impact of these differences on social support? </li></ul></ul>
    33. 33. Research Impact <ul><li>This research would help….. </li></ul><ul><li>health professionals and system analysts who design and implement online intervention programs using social media technologies </li></ul><ul><li>researchers studying online social support as a technique to change behavior </li></ul><ul><li>inform policy makers who determine practice guidelines. </li></ul><ul><li>improve users’ experience of online intervention programs. </li></ul>
    34. 34. Actionable Impacts <ul><li>What are specific things that can be done to advertise support communities in generic social media (i.e. twitter, facebook)? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Take advantage of existing accounts (i.e. openid, facebookapps, api) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Take advantage of existing social networks </li></ul></ul><ul><li>What can my research do to help MedHelp advertise to patients? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Improvements to website’s user interface and functionality </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Clarifying mental models of using social media </li></ul></ul><ul><li>In answering the research questions, other issues can also be addressed: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Limited internet access (i.e. access through dialup, mobile) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Specific populations (i.e. senior citizens, rural residents) </li></ul></ul>
    35. 35. Questions, comments, suggestions? <ul><li>Thank you! </li></ul>
    36. 36. References <ul><li>Adamic, L. A., Zhang, J., Bakshy, E., & Ackerman, M. S. (2008). Knowledge Sharing and Yahoo Answers: Everyone knows something . Paper presented at the WWW2008. </li></ul><ul><li>Agichtein, E., Castillo, C., Donato, D., Gionis, A., & Mishne, G. (2008). Finding High Quality Content in Social Media . Paper presented at the ACM Web Search & Data Mining Conference . </li></ul><ul><li>Allgower, A., Wardle, J., & Steptoe, A. (2001). Depressive symptoms, social support, and personal health behaviors in young men and women. Health Psychology, 20 (3), 223-227. </li></ul><ul><li>Ancker, J. S., Carpenter, K. M., Greene, P., Hoffman, R., Kukafka, R., Marlow, L. A. V., et al. (2009). Peer-to-Peer Communication, Cancer Prevention, and the Internet. Journal of Health Communication: International Perspectives, 14 (1 supp 1), 38 - 46. </li></ul><ul><li>Bambina, A. D. (2007). Online Social Support: The Interplay of Social Networks and Computer-Mediated Communication : Cambria Press. </li></ul><ul><li>Barbee, A. P., & Cunningham, M. R. (1995). An experimental approach to social support communications: Interactive coping in close relationships. In B. Burleson (Ed.), Communication yearbook (Vol. 18, pp. 381-413). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. </li></ul><ul><li>Bordia, P. (1997). Face-to-face versus computer-mediated communication: A Synthesis of the Experimental Literature. The Journal of Business Communication, 34 (1), 99-120. </li></ul><ul><li>boyd, d., & Ellison, N. (2007). Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13 (1) . </li></ul><ul><li>Braithwaite, D. O., Waldron, V. R., & Finn, J. (1999). Communication of Social Support in Computer-Mediated Groups for People With Disabilities. Health Communication, 11 (2), 123 - 151. </li></ul><ul><li>Burleson, B. 2009. Explaining Recipient Responses to Supportive Messages: Development & Tests of a Dual Process Theory. In Smith & Wilson (Eds). New Directions in Interpersonal Communication . </li></ul><ul><li>Burri, M., Baujar, V., & Etter, J. F. (2006). A qualitative analysis of an Internet discussion forum for recent ex-smokers. Nicotine Tobacco Research, 8 , S13-19. </li></ul><ul><li>Caplan. (1979). Social support, person-environment fit and coping. In L. Ferman & J. Gordis (Eds.), Mental Health and the Economy (pp. 89-137). Kalamazoo, Mich: Upjohn Foundation. </li></ul><ul><li>Chang, H.-J. (2009). Online Social Support: Which Posts Were Answered? Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia, 8 (1), 31-46. </li></ul><ul><li>Civan, A., & Pratt, W. (2007). Threading Together Patient Expertise . Paper presented at the AMIA 2007 Symptosium Proceedings. </li></ul><ul><li>Cobb, S. (1976). Social Support as Moderator of Life Stress. Psychomatic Medicine, 38 (5), 300-314. </li></ul>
    37. 37. References <ul><li>Cohen, S. (2004). Social Relationships and Health. American Psychologist, 59 (8), 676-684. </li></ul><ul><li>Coursaris, C. K., & Liu, M. (2009). An analysis of social support exchanges in online HIV/AIDS self-help groups. Computers in Human Behavior, 25 (4), 911-918. </li></ul><ul><li>Cunningham, J. A., van Mierlo, T., & Fournier, R. (2008). An online support group for problem drinkers: Patient Education and Counseling, 70 (2), 193-198. </li></ul><ul><li>Cutrona, C. E., & Suhr, J. A. (1992). Controllability of Stressful Events and Satisfaction With Spouse Support Behaviors. Communication Research, 19 (2), 154-174. </li></ul><ul><li>Eichhorn, K. C. (2008). Soliciting and Providing Social Support Over the Internet: An Investigation of Online Eating Disorder Support Groups. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14 (1), 67-78. </li></ul><ul><li>Ellison, N., Lampe, C., & Steinfield, C. (2009). Social Network Sites and Society: Current Trends and Future Possibilities. Interactions Magazine, 16 (1) . </li></ul><ul><li>Faber, A. D., & Wasserman, S. (2002). Social support and social networks: synthesis and review Social Networks and Health (Vol. 8, pp. 29-72): Emerald Group Publishing Limited. </li></ul><ul><li>Fjermestad, J. (2004). An Analysis of communication mode in group support systems research. Decisions supprt Systems, 37 (2), 239-263. </li></ul><ul><li>Fox, S. (2009). Participatory Culture + Health Care Paper presented at the PEW Research Center's Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved from </li></ul><ul><li>Fox, S., & Jones, S. (2009). The Social Life of Health Information Americans' pursuit of health takes place within a widening network of both online and offline sources. Retrieved from </li></ul><ul><li>Fox, S., Purcell, K. (2010, Mar 24). Chronic Disease and the Internet. Retrieved from </li></ul><ul><li>Gilbert, E., & Karahalios, K. (2009). Predicting tie strength with social media . Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 27th international conference on Human factors in computing systemss. Retrieved from </li></ul><ul><li>Glanz, K., Rimer, B. K., & Wiswanath, K. (2008). Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Research, and Practice (4th ed.): Jossey-Bass. </li></ul><ul><li>Gottlieb, B. H. (1981). Social networks and social support (Vol. 4). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. </li></ul>
    38. 38. References <ul><li>Haines, V. A., Beggs, J. J., & Hurlbert, J. S. (2002). Exploring the structural contexts of the support process: social networks, social statuses, social support, and psychological distress Social Networks and Health (Vol. 8, pp. 269-292): Emerald Group Publishing Limited. </li></ul><ul><li>Helgeson, V. S., & Cohen, S. (1996). Social Support and Adjustment to Cancer: Reconciling Descriptive, Correlational, and Intervention Research. Health Psychology 15 (2), 135-148. </li></ul><ul><li>Herring, S. C. (2003). Computer Mediated Discourse Analysis. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis Oxford: Blackwell. </li></ul><ul><li>Himelboim, I. (2008). Reply distribution in online dicussions: A comparative network analysis of political and health newsgroups. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14 (1), 156-177. </li></ul><ul><li>Hlebec, V., Manfreda, K. L., & Vehovar, V. (2006). The social support networks of internet users. New Media & Society, 8 (1), 9-32. </li></ul><ul><li>House, J. S. (1981). Work Stress and Social Support . Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley. </li></ul><ul><li>House, J. S. (1981). Work Stress and Social Support . Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley. </li></ul><ul><li>Kielstra, P. J., 2009) (2009). Doctor innovation: Shaking up the health system. Retrieved from </li></ul><ul><li>Kim, H., Kim, G. J., Park, H. W., & Rice, R. E. (2007). Configurations of relationships in different media: FtF, email, instant messenger, mobile phone, and SMS. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12 (4), article 3. </li></ul><ul><li>King, S. (1994). Analysis of Electronic Support Groups for Recovering Addicts. Interpersonal Computing and Technology, 2 , 47-56. </li></ul><ul><li>Lau, A. Y. S., & Kwok, T. M. Y. (2009). Social Features in Online Communities for Healthcare Consumers – A Review (Vol. 5621). Berlin: Springer-Verlag </li></ul><ul><li>Leimeister, J. M., Schweizer, K., Leimeister, S., & Krcmar, H. (2008). Do virtual communities matter for the social support of patients?: Antecedents and effects of virtual relationships in online communities. [10.1108/09593840810919671]. Information Technology & People, 21 (4), 350-374. </li></ul><ul><li>Liu, H. (2007). Social Network Profiles as Taste Performances. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13 (1). </li></ul><ul><li>McClure-Wasko, M., & Faraj, S. (2000). It is what one does: why people participate and help others in electronic communities of practice. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 9 . </li></ul>
    39. 39. References <ul><li>McCormack, A. (2010). Individuals with eating disorders and the use of online support groups as a form of social support. [10.1097/NCN.0b013e3181c04b06]. Computers, Informatics, Nursing: CIN, 28 (1), 12-19. </li></ul><ul><li>McKenna, K. Y. A., Green, A. S., & Gleason, M. E. J. (2002). Relationship Formation on the Internet: What's the Big Attraction? Journal of Social Issues, 58 (1), 9-31. </li></ul><ul><li>Miller, C. C. (2010, 3/25/10). Social Networks a Lifeline for the Chronically Ill . The New York Times Retrieved from </li></ul><ul><li>Mo, P. K. H., Malik, S. H., & Coulson, N. S. (2009). Gender differences in computer-mediated communication: A systematic literature review of online health-related support groups. Patient Education and Counseling, 75 (1), 16-24. Led by Facebook, Twitter, Global Time Spent on Social Media Sites up 82% Year over Year. (2010, May 30, 2010). </li></ul><ul><li>Pescosolido, B. A., & Levy, J. A. (2002). The role of social networks in health, illness, disease and healing: the accepting present, the forgotten past, and the dangerous potential for a complacent future Social Networks and Health (Vol. 8, pp. 3-25): Emerald Group Publishing Limited. </li></ul><ul><li>Pfeil, U., & Zaphiris, P. (2007). Patterns of empathy in online communication. . Paper presented at the Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. </li></ul><ul><li>Pfeil, U., & Zaphiris, P. (2009). Investigating social network patterns within an empathic online community for older people. Computers & Human Behavior, 25 (5), 1139-1155. </li></ul><ul><li>Preece, J. (1999). Empathy online. Virtual Reality, 4 (1), 74-84. </li></ul><ul><li>Rains, S. A., & Young, V. (2009). A Meta-Analysis of Research on Formal Computer-Mediated Support Groups: Examining Group Characteristics and Health Outcomes. Human Communication Research, 35 (3), 309-U305. </li></ul><ul><li>Rau, P.-L. P., Gao, Q., & Ding, Y. (2008). Relationship between the level of intimacy and lurking in online social network services. [10.1016/j.chb.2008.04.001]. Computers in Human Behavior, 24 (6), 2757-2770. </li></ul><ul><li>Riordan, M. A., & Kreuz, R. J. (In Press). Emotion encoding and interpretation in computer-mediated communication: Reasons for use. Computers in Human Behavior </li></ul><ul><li>Swickert, R. J., Hittner, J. B., Harris, J. L., & Herring, J. A. (2002). Relationships among Internet use, personality, and social support. Computers in Human Behavior, 18 (4), 437-451. </li></ul>
    40. 40. References <ul><li>Thelwall, M. (2010). Homophily in Myspace. First Monday, 15 (4). Retrieved from </li></ul><ul><li>Thelwall, M., & Wilkinson, D. (2010). Public dialogs in social network sites: What is their purpose? [10.1002/asi.21241]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61 (2), 392-404. </li></ul><ul><li>Thelwall, M., Wilkinson, D., & Uppal, S. (2010). Data mining emotion in social network communication: Gender differences in MySpace. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(1) , 190-199. </li></ul><ul><li>Social Support for Health Behavior Change. UNC Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Center of Excellence for Training and Research Translation . Retrieved from </li></ul><ul><li>Walker, M.E., Wasserman, S., & Wellman, B. (1993). Statistical Models for Social Support Networks. Sociological Methods and Research, 22, 71-98. </li></ul><ul><li>Wantland, D. J., Portillo, C. J., Holzemer, W. L., Slaughter, R., & McGhee, E. M. (2010). The effectiveness of Web-based vs. non-Web-based interventions: a meta-analysis of behavioral change outcomes. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 6 (4), e40. </li></ul><ul><li>Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. </li></ul><ul><li>Wellman, B., & Berkowitz, S. (1997). Social Structures: A Network Approach (Contemporary Studies in Sociology, Vol 15) . West Yorkshire: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. </li></ul><ul><li>Wellman, B. (1981) &quot;Applying Network Analysis to the Study of Support.&quot; In Benjamin Gottlieb (Ed.), Social Networks and Social Support. Beverly Hills: Sage. </li></ul><ul><li>Wellman 2006 </li></ul><ul><li>Wellman, B., & Berkowitz., S. D. (1988). Introduction: Studying social structures. In W. a. Berkowitz (Ed.), Social structures: A network approach (pp. 1-14). Casmbridge: Cambridge University Press. </li></ul><ul><li>Wellman, B., Haase, A., Boase, J., Chen, W., Hampton, K., Diaz, I., et al. (2003). The Social Affordances of the Internet for Networked Individualism. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 8 (3), 0, 0-0, 0. </li></ul><ul><li>Wellman, B., & Wortley, S. (1990). Different Strokes from Different Folks: Community Ties and Social Support. The American Journal of Sociology, 96 (3), 558-588. </li></ul>
    41. 41. References <ul><li>Welser, H. T., Gleave, E., Fisher, D., & Smith, M. (2007). Visualizing the Signature of Social Roles in Online Discussion Groups. Journal of Social Structure, 8 (2). </li></ul><ul><li>White, M. D. (2000). Questioning Behavior on a Consumer Health Electronic List. Library Quarterly, 70 (3), 302-334. </li></ul><ul><li>Winzelberg, A. (1997). The analysis of an electronic support group for individuals with eating disorders. Computers in Human Behaviour , 13, 393-407. </li></ul><ul><li>Wright, K. B., & Bell, S. B. (2003). Health-related Support Groups on the Internet: Linking Empirical Findings to Social Support and Computer-mediated Communication Theory. J of Health Psychology , 8(1), 39-54+. doi:10.1177/1359105303008001429 </li></ul>