4.6 Article

Factors influencing health anxiety: the stimulus-organism-response model perspective

Journal

INTERNET RESEARCH
Volume 31, Issue 6, Pages 2033-2054

Publisher

EMERALD GROUP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1108/INTR-10-2020-0604

Keywords

Health anxiety; The stimulus-organism-response model; Catastrophic misinterpretation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper explores the factors that lead to health anxiety in the context of easy access to e-health information. Utilizing the S-O-R framework, a theoretical model is proposed, which is empirically examined with self-reported data points. The study findings indicate positive impacts of anxiety sensitivity and physical symptoms on metacognitive beliefs and catastrophic misinterpretation, which in turn influence health anxiety.
Purpose With the popularity of the internet, access to health-related information has become more convenient. However, the easy acquisition of e-health information could lead to unfavorable consequences, such as health anxiety. The purpose of this paper is to explore a set of important influencing factors that lead to health anxiety. Design/methodology/approach Based on the stimulus-organism-response (S-O-R) framework, we propose a theoretical model of health anxiety, with metacognitive beliefs and catastrophic misinterpretation as the mediators between stimulus factors and health anxiety. Using 218 self-reported data points, the authors empirically examine the research model and hypotheses. Findings The study results show that anxiety sensitivity positively affects metacognitive beliefs. The severity of physical symptoms has a significant positive impact on catastrophic misinterpretation. Metacognitive beliefs and catastrophic misinterpretation have significant positive impacts on health anxiety. Originality/value Based on the S-O-R model, this paper develops a comprehensive model to explain health anxiety and verifies the model using firsthand data.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available