Equal access to online information? Google’s suicide-prevention disparities may amplify a global digital divide
Abstract
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.
Get full access to this article
View all access and purchase options for this article.
References
Alphabet Inc (2017) Alphabet investor relations: code of conduct. Available at: https://abc.xyz/investor/other/code-of-conduct.html
Arendt F, Scherr S (2016) Optimizing online suicide prevention: a search engine-based tailored approach. Health Communication 32(11): 1403–1408.
Arendt F, Scherr S (2017) The impact of a highly publicized celebrity suicide on suicide-related online information seeking. Crisis: The Journal of Crisis Intervention and Suicide Prevention 38(3): 207–209.
Beer D (2017) The social power of algorithms. Information, Communication & Society 20: 1–13.
Biddle L, Derges J, Mars B, et al. (2016) Suicide and the Internet: changes in the accessibility of suicide-related information between 2007 and 2014. Journal of Affective Disorders 190: 370–375.
Biddle L, Donovan J, Hawton K, et al. (2008) Suicide and the internet. BMJ 336: 800–802.
Boyce N (2011) Suicide clusters: the undiscovered country. The Lancet 378: 1452.
Brake DR (2017) The invisible hand of the unaccountable algorithm: how Google, Facebook and other tech companies are changing journalism. In: Tong J, Lo S-H (eds) Digital Technology and Journalism: An International Comparative Perspective. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 25–46.
Bruch E, Atwell J (2015) Agent-based models in empirical social research. Sociological Methods & Research 44: 186–221.
Cohen N (2010) “Suicide” query prompts Google to offer hotline. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/05/technology/05google.html
Collings S, Niederkrotenthaler T (2012) Suicide prevention and emergent media: surfing the opportunity. Crisis: The Journal of Crisis Intervention and Suicide Prevention 33: 1–4.
Daine K, Hawton K, Singaravelu V, et 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 ONE 8: e77555.
DiMaggio P, Hargittai E (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.
Dinev T, Hart P (2005) Internet privacy concerns and social awareness as determinants of intention to transact. International Journal of Electronic Commerce 10: 7–29.
Duff AS (2012) A normative theory of the information society. New York: Routledge.
Google Official Blog (2010) Helping you find emergency information when you need it. November. Available at: https://googleblog.blogspot.de/2010/11/helping-you-find-emergency-information.html
Gould MS, Kleinman M, Lake AM, et 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 Psychiatry 1: 34–43.
Gould MS, Lake AM, Galfalvy H, et al. (2017) Follow-up with callers to the national suicide prevention lifeline: evaluation of callers’ perceptions of care. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior 48: 75–86.
Graham M (2011) Time machines and virtual portals: the spatialities of the digital divide. Progress in Development Studies 11: 211–227.
Gunn JF, Lester D (2013) Using google searches on the internet to monitor suicidal behavior. Journal of Affective Disorders 148: 411–412.
Haim M, Arendt F, Scherr S (2017) Abyss or shelter? On the relevance of web search engines’ search results when people google for suicide. Health Communication 32: 253–258.
Halford S, Savage M (2010) Reconceptualizing digital social inequality. Information, Communication & Society 13: 937–955.
Hargittai E, Hinnant A (2008) Digital inequality: differences in young adults’ use of the Internet. Communication Research 35: 602–621.
Hilbert M (2011) The end justifies the definition: the manifold outlooks on the digital divide and their practical usefulness for policy-making. Telecommunications Policy 35: 715–736.
Internet Live Stats (2017) Google search statistics. Available at: http://www.internetlivestats.com/google-search-statistics/
Janssen M, Kuk G (2016) The challenges and limits of big data algorithms in technocratic governance. Government Information Quarterly 33: 371–377.
Just N, Latzer M (2016) Governance by algorithms: reality construction by algorithmic selection on the Internet. Media, Culture & Society 39: 238–258.
Kemp CG, Collings SC (2011) Hyperlinked suicide: assessing the prominence and accessibility of suicide websites. Crisis: The Journal of Crisis Intervention and Suicide Prevention 32: 143–151.
Kennedy MG, O’Leary A, Beck V, et al. (2004) Increases in calls to the CDC national STD and AIDS hotline following AIDS-related episodes in a soap opera. Journal of Communication 54: 287–301.
Knox KL, Bossarte RM (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.
Kontos EZ, Emmons KM, Puleo E, et al. (2010) Communication inequalities and public health implications of adult social networking site use in the United States. Journal of Health Communication 15: 216–235.
Lazer D (2015) The rise of the social algorithm. Science 348: 1090–1091.
Lazer D, Kennedy R, King G, et al. (2014) The parable of Google Flu: traps in big data analysis. Science 343: 1203–1205.
Lester D (1997) The effectiveness of suicide prevention centers: a review. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior 27: 304–310.
Lester D, Rogers JR (2012) Crisis intervention and counseling by telephone and the internet. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
Mehlum L (2000) The internet, suicide, and suicide prevention. Crisis: The Journal of Crisis Intervention and Suicide Prevention 21: 186–188.
Niederkrotenthaler T, Fu K-W, Yip PSF, et al. (2012) Changes in suicide rates following media reports on celebrity suicide: a meta-analysis. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 66: 1037–1042.
Niederkrotenthaler T, Voracek M, Herberth A, et al. (2010) Role of media reports in completed and prevented suicide: Werther v. Papageno effects. British Journal of Psychiatry 197: 234–243.
Norris P (2001) Digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty, and the Internet worldwide. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Pew Research Center (2009) Generations online in 2009. Available at: http://www.pewinternet.org/2009/01/28/generations-online-in-2009/
Phillips DP (1974) The influence of suggestion on suicide: substantive and theoretical implications of the Werther effect. American Sociological Review 39: 340–354.
Recupero PR, Harms SE, Noble JM (2008) Googling suicide: surfing for suicide information on the Internet. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 69: 878–888.
Robinson L (2009) A taste for the necessary. Information, Communication & Society 12: 488–507.
Robinson L, Cotten SR, Ono H, et al. (2015) Digital inequalities and why they matter. Information, Communication & Society 18: 569–582.
Romer D, Jamieson PE, Jamieson KH (2006) Are news reports of suicide contagious? A stringent test in six U.S. cities. Journal of Communication 56: 253–270.
Scherr S (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.
Scherr S, Steinleitner A (2015) Zwischen dem Werther- und Papageno-Effekt [Between Werther and Papageno effects]. Nervenarzt 86(5): 557–565.
Scherr S, Reinemann C (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 Behavior 61: 80–88.
Schradie J (2011) The digital production gap: the digital divide and Web 2.0 collide. Poetics 39: 145–168.
Shoemaker PJ, Vos T (2009) Gatekeeping theory. New York: Routledge.
Sisask M, Värnik A (2012) Media roles in suicide prevention: a systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 9: 123–138.
Stack S (2005) Suicide in the media: a quantitative review of studies based on nonfictional stories. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior 35: 121–133.
Stack S (2009) Copycat effects of fictional suicide: a meta-analysis. In: Stack S, Lester D (eds) Suicide and the Creative Arts. New York: Nova, pp. 231–243.
Sudak HS, Sudak DM (2005) The media and suicide. Academic Psychiatry 29: 495–499.
Sundar SS, Marathe SS (2010) Personalization versus customization: the importance of agency, privacy, and power usage. Human Communication Research 36: 298–322.
Thaler RH, Sunstein CR (2008) Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Thornton L, Handley T, Kay-Lambkin F, et 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 Behavior 47: 48–53.
Thornton P (2017) Geographies of (con)text: language and structure in a digital age. Computational Culture: A Journal of Software Studies. Available at: http://computationalculture.net/geographies-of-context-language-and-structure-in-a-digital-age/
Till B, Niederkrotenthaler T (2014) Surfing for suicide methods and help: content analysis of websites retrieved with search engines in Austria and the United States. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 75: 886–892.
Till B, Tran US, Voracek M, et al. (2017) Beneficial and harmful effects of educative suicide prevention websites: randomised controlled trial exploring Papageno v. Werther effects. British Journal of Psychiatry 211: 109–115.
UNICEF (2017) Children in a Digital World. New York: UNICEF.
Van Deursen A, van Dijk J, Helsper E (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.
Van Dijk J (2005) The deepening divide: inequality in the information society. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Van Dijk J (2017) Digital divide: impact of access. In: Rössler P, Hoffner CA, van Zoonen L (eds) The international encyclopedia of media effects (pp. 1–11). New York: Wiley-Blackwell.
Van Dijk J, Hacker K (2003) The digital divide as a complex and dynamic phenomenon. Information Society 19: 315–326.
Võ ML-H, Conrad M, Kuchinke L, et al. (2009) The Berlin affective word list reloaded (BAWL-R). Behavior Research Methods 41: 534–538.
Warschauer M (2002) Reconceptualizing the digital divide. First Monday 7. Available at: http://firstmonday.org/article/view/967/888
Wasserman D (2016a) Suicidal people’s experiences of trauma and negative life events. In: Wasserman D (ed.) Suicide: an unnecessary death. 2th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 145–228.
Wasserman D (2016b) Suicide: an unnecessary death. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
WHO (2014) Preventing suicide: a global imperative. Available at: http://www.who.int/entity/mental_health/suicide-prevention/exe_summary_english.pdf?ua=1
WHO (2017) Preventing suicide: a resource for media professionals: update 2017. Available at: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/258814/1/WHO-MSD-MER-17.5-eng.pdf?ua=1
Williams BA, Brooks CF, Shmargad Y (2018) How algorithms discriminate based on data they lack: challenges, solutions, and policy implications. Journal of Information Policy 8: 78–115.
Williams CL, Witte TK (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 Behavior 48: 253–270.
Zillien N, Hargittai E (2009) Digital distinction: status-specific types of Internet usage. Social Science Quarterly 90: 274–291.
Biographies
Sebastian Scherr (PhD, University of Munich) is an assistant professor at the School for Mass Communication Research, University of Leuven, Belgium. His research interests focus on differential media uses and effects in health communication and political communication, with a special emphasis on mental health, suicide prevention, and empirical methods.
Mario Haim is a doctoral student and research assistant at the Department of Communication Science and Media Research, University of Munich (LMU), Germany. His research interests mainly circle around effects of computation and algorithmization on journalism and media use, political communication, and health communication as well as computational methods.
Florian Arendt (PhD, University of Vienna) is a post-doctoral researcher at the Department of Communication Science and Media Research, University of Munich (LMU), Germany. His research focuses on health communication, media stereotyping, political communication, and communication research methods.
Supplementary Material
Supplemental material files:
