Scientists with PhD degrees are considered credible sources in their field of expertise, due to their state-accredited advanced study.
Credibility comprises the objective and subjective components of the believability of a source or message. Credibility is deemed essential in many fields to establish expertise. It plays a crucial role in journalism, teaching, science, medicine, business leadership, and social media. [1][2]
Credibility online has become an important topic since the mid-1990s. This is because the web has increasingly become an information resource. The Credibility and Digital Media Project @ UCSB[3] highlights recent and ongoing work in this area, including recent consideration of digital media, youth, and credibility. In addition, the Persuasive Technology Lab[4] at Stanford University has studied web credibility and proposed the principal components of online credibility and a general theory called Prominence-Interpretation Theory.[5]
Rhetoric
Credibility dates back to Aristotle's theory of Rhetoric. Aristotle defines rhetoric as the ability to see what is possibly persuasive in every situation. He divided the means of persuasion into three categories, namely Ethos (the source's credibility), Pathos (the emotional or motivational appeals), and Logos (the logic used to support a claim), which he believed have the capacity to influence the receiver of a message. According to Aristotle, the term "Ethos" deals with the character of the speaker. The intent of the speaker is to appear credible. In fact, the speaker's ethos is a rhetorical strategy employed by an orator whose purpose is to "inspire trust in his audience".
Credibility has two key components: trustworthiness and expertise, which both have objective and subjective components. Trustworthiness is based more on subjective factors, but can include objective measurements such as established reliability. Expertise can be similarly subjectively perceived, but also includes relatively objective characteristics of the source or message (e.g., credentials, certification or information quality).[6] Secondary components of credibility include source dynamism (charisma) and physical attractiveness.
According to the Society of Professional Journalists' code of ethics, professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility.[7] A journalist's number one obligation is to be honest.
According to Gallup polls, Americans' confidence in the mass media has been consistently declining each year since 2007.[8]
In 2013, a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press found that credibility ratings for major news organizations are at or near their all-time lows.[9]
"As audiences lose confidence in traditional news outlets, many see great promise in the Internet as a response to this crisis in journalism."[10]
The widespread use of the internet has helped motivate journalists to become more credible. The reason for this is because the competition of providing news increased when consumers had the chance and ability to choose the media consume through online sources. The internet has provided a chance for anyone to report news. In order to increase credibility, and therefore increase readers of their articles, journalists should be objective, accurate, trustworthy, and reliable.
Three aspects of credibility: clarity (how easily the article can be understood), accuracy (how well documented the information is), and trustworthiness (how believable the information is).[11]
In teaching
Students' perception of instructors has great importance and possible consequences. Instructor credibility, which is defined as "the attitude of a receiver which references the degree to which a source is seen to be believable",[12] consists of three dimensions-, competence, character, and caring.[13] Competence focuses on his or her expertise or knowledge in a subject matter.[12] Character refers to the "goodness" (i.e., honesty, trustworthiness) of an instructor.[14] Caring focuses on whether the instructor shows concern or empathy for the students' welfare or situation.[12] Although an instructor may show one or two of these qualities, the best and most respected exude all three qualities.[12] A study done by Atkinson and Cooper revealed that students who are taught by an instructor perceive as credible, results in extreme allegiance to those instructors.
Generally, instructors who are perceived to have credibility are associated with effective teaching skills. Instructors who demonstrate competence, character, and/or caring are perceived to engage in a variety of effective instructional communication behaviors such as argumentativeness,[15] verbal and nonverbal immediacy,[16] affinity seeking,[14] and assertiveness and responsiveness.[17] Moreover, credible instructors are perceived to be low in verbal aggressiveness[18] and less likely to use behaviors that interfere with student learning.[19]
Unlike instructor competence which centers on instructors' perceived expertise,[12] instructor character and caring are rooted in students' perceptions of their instructors' interpersonal communication behaviors. Students can feel more connected to the material being taught and have the information stay in their mind, if the instructor sharing the information has credibility. According to studies, when instructors exemplify the qualities of character (i.e., kind, virtuous, good) and caring (i.e., empathetic, understanding, responsive), students report a greater likelihood of communicating with them.[20]
Teachers who are concerned with whether students communicate with them, either in class or out of class, may want to reconsider the role their own in-class communication behaviors play in students' willingness or likelihood to communicate with them. Instructors who are interested in how students perceive their competence, character, and caring should examine how their in-class communication behaviors contribute to these perceptions. They can evaluate themselves, go back over their lectures, scores that students give them at the end of the semester, and seek advice and training from their peers. By doing so, instructors may find students are more willing, likely, or interested in communicating with them. [20]
Scientific credibility has been defined as the extent to which science in general is recognized as a source of reliable information about the world.[21] The term has also been applied more narrowly, as an assessment of the credibility of the work of an individual scientist or a field of research. Here, the phrase refers to how closely the work in question adheres to scientific principles, such as the scientific method.[22] The method most commonly used to assess the quality of science is peer review and then publication as part of the scientific literature.[23] Other approaches include the collaborative assessment of a topic by a group of experts, this process can produce reviews such as those published by the Cochrane Collaboration,[24] or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.[25]
The 2008 credibility article written by Peter Alagona highlights that, “In environmental science, credibility is one of the most referenced yet the least comprehended concepts.” This lack of understanding is due to the public often confusing credibility with trust because of shared characteristics, such as reliability and dependability. To be credible in the scientific field, researchers are to demonstrate expertise, reliability and objectivity, through methods such as peer and systematic review, and experimental studies. Alagona states that “the credibility of scientific research shapes the public’s trust and influence policies.” Therefore, scientific credibility means that when research is seen as trustworthy, it can shape various rules and regulations. This reinforces the public’s trust, belief, and acceptance, as these guidelines are based on credible scientific findings.[26]
The general public can give a great deal of weight to perceptions of scientific authority in their decisions on controversial issues that involve scientific research, such as biotechnology.[27] However, both the credibility and authority of science is questioned by groups with non-mainstream views, such as some advocates of alternative medicine,[28] or those who dispute the scientific consensus on a topic, such as denialists of AIDS.[29][30]Political endorsements can reduce non-partisan scientific credibility.[31]
In medicine
People rely on doctors' expertise to respond to issues relating to their health. Trust in a doctor's credibility is essential to a patient's health: depending on the patient's trust in the doctor they will be more or less willing to seek help, reveal sensitive information, submit to treatment, and follow the doctor's recommendations. [32]
In general, it is easy to see what patients are looking for when it comes to a trustworthy doctor and the best way they can have their needs satisfied. There does seem to be a growing discontent with the medical field, however, because of for-profit drug companies that are influencing money behind the medical field. In 2002 a doctor attended the hearings of a drug company that was on trial for the death of adolescents who committed suicide while taking their antidepressants. Before the hearing studies had been filed with the FDA under the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act of 2002. These studies reflected a congressional effort to motivate drug companies to study the effects of medications on children. Since children are a much smaller market for new drugs, the pharmaceutical industry was suspected to not study them as much. The Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act of 2002 was meant to strengthen drug companies' credibility by rewarding those that performed pediatric studies. The law, however, did not require these pediatric studies performed to be publicized or published[33]
According to a New England Journal of Medicine study, 94% of American doctors have some relationship with a drug or medical device company, including payments but also drug samples and industry lunches, for example.[34] Such alarming evidence is what has prompted a growing mistrust in medical professionals' credibility. Despite the studies conducted intended on finding out how to increase doctors' credibility, the findings are inconclusive. It is a strong general consensus that increased visibility of the relationship between doctors and pharmaceutical companies is the first place to start.
The Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication investigated a study that “perceived credibility of online information” to grasp an understanding about how knowledge of a topic and a source expertise establish credibility to access online healthcare data. The results of this study divide expertise into three levels. Utilizing online health information that is free of bias and includes the qualifications and background of the author or organization would be considered credible. Additionally, having high numbers of citation and peer-reviewed sources support credibility. These factors together would be level 1, which is a highly rated source. Missing a high number of citations and peer-reviewed sources results in a level 2 grade, which is considered a moderate source. Failure to meet any criteria of these would classify the source as a level 3, which is not an expert source and should be avoided. To assess these levels, one can check if a source meets the mentioned requirements, as it is the public’s decision. Furthermore, using academic resources such as google scholar and JSTOR can be used verify the credibility of an online source.[35][36]
On the street
Street credibility or "street cred" (also referred to as "the word on the street") is the degree to which someone's word can be believed by a typical person, the "person on the street".[37] Corporations have gone through their own ways of getting street credibility; however, it goes by a different name: branding. This is a process in which companies spend billions of dollars a year to convey information about a product, who is using it, and why others should also. They are targeting certain individuals as to increase their ability to grow their "street cred" so that the sales growth does not end. From clothing like running shoes and jeans to food and alcoholic beverages, branding is used to assist companies improve their street cred and better sell a product.[38][39]
The CEO of the company is the face of what the public sees. A CEO helps illustrate the organization's internal and external shareholders. CEOs are spokesmen who are actively visible and shape the corporate image. The role of the CEO is to influence employees' attitudes, perceptions, and performances through example of leadership and support.[40]
In business leadership
Leadership/Ceo:
According to the Journal of Research Technology Management, Chief Technical Officers (CTOs), executives responsible for technologies and Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) play a major role in ensuring credibility in leadership for research and development across many companies. Uttal and the rest of the team discovered that CTO could use multiple resources to evaluate the desire for credibility and set goals for addressing the issue. The credibility of a CTO is built by acting as a “technical businessman” to make strategic decisions that advance technologies to reach the company goals. The CEO actively build credibility by consistently supporting the team, expanding the company, and establishing trust within the employees. People often assume that only the CEO has to be credible, when in fact both the CEO and CTO must establish credibility to succeed. [41]
The employees view of the organization completely intervenes the positive relationship between the CEO credibility and the employee's involvement of engagement. Although the CEO's credibility positively affects employee engagement, the actual impact is exercised by the employee's view of the organization's reputation.[42]
In social media
Social media credibility is dependent on cues and heuristics. Cues used to assess credibility online are authority cues, identity cues, and bandwagon cues. Authority cues are the most influence source credibility. Authority cues are cues that let the viewer know that it is an expert source such as a university or government institution. Identity cues are peer information. Users trust information more if they can identify the person that published it the publisher is not anonymous. Users view information as more credible if a peer shared it than a stranger. Bandwagon cues triggers credibility processing based on the logic that "if others think it's good, so should I. [43]
Two-phase model of credibility
Jürgen Habermas in his theory of communicative action developed four validity claims (truth, sincerity, appropriateness and understandability) leading to the concept of credibility.
In a different study[44] researchers empirically validated the claims and derived a two-phase model of "reporting credibility", where first of all understandability needs to be reached. Only then the three other validity claims make a difference and may lead to credibility in the Habermasian sense.
An expert is somebody who has a broad and deep understanding and competence in terms of knowledge, skill and experience through practice and education in a particular field or area of study. Informally, an expert is someone widely recognized as a reliable source of technique or skill whose faculty for judging or deciding rightly, justly, or wisely is accorded authority and status by peers or the public in a specific well-distinguished domain. An expert, more generally, is a person with extensive knowledge or ability based on research, experience, or occupation and in a particular area of study. Experts are called in for advice on their respective subject, but they do not always agree on the particulars of a field of study. An expert can be believed, by virtue of credentials, training, education, profession, publication or experience, to have special knowledge of a subject beyond that of the average person, sufficient that others may officially rely upon the individual's opinion on that topic. Historically, an expert was referred to as a sage. The individual was usually a profound thinker distinguished for wisdom and sound judgment.
Peer review is the evaluation of work by one or more people with similar competencies as the producers of the work. It functions as a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field. Peer review methods are used to maintain quality standards, improve performance, and provide credibility. In academia, scholarly peer review is often used to determine an academic paper's suitability for publication. Peer review can be categorized by the type of activity and by the field or profession in which the activity occurs, e.g., medical peer review. It can also be used as a teaching tool to help students improve writing assignments.
In law, a witness is someone who, either voluntarily or under compulsion, provides testimonial evidence, either oral or written, of what they know or claim to know.
The spiral of silence theory is a political science and mass communication theory which states that an individual's perception of the distribution of public opinion influences that individual's willingness to express their own opinions. Also known as the theory of public opinion, the spiral of silence theory claims individuals will be more confident and outward with their opinion when they notice that their personal opinion is shared throughout a group. But if the individual notices that their opinion is unpopular with the group, they will be more inclined to be reserved and remain silent. In other words, from the individual's perspective, "not isolating themself is more important than their own judgement", meaning their perception of how others in the group perceive them is more important to themself than the need for their opinion to be heard.
The hostile media effect, originally deemed the hostile media phenomenon and sometimes called hostile media perception, refers to the tendency for individuals with a strong preexisting opinion on an issue to perceive media coverage as biased against their position's side and favorable of their antagonists' point of view. Partisans from opposite sides of an issue will tend to find the same coverage to be biased against them. The phenomenon was first proposed and experimentally studied in the 1980s by Robert Vallone, Lee Ross and Mark Lepper.
Impression management is a conscious or subconscious process in which people attempt to influence the perceptions of other people about a person, object or event by regulating and controlling information in social interaction. It was first conceptualized by Erving Goffman in 1956 in The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, and then was expanded upon in 1967.
Public awareness of science (PAS) is everything relating to the awareness, attitudes, behaviors, opinions, and activities that comprise the relations between the general public or lay society as a whole to scientific knowledge and organization. This concept is also known as public understanding of science (PUS), or more recently, public engagement with science and technology (PEST). It is a comparatively new approach to the task of exploring the multitude of relations and linkages science, technology, and innovation have among the general public. While early work in the discipline focused on increasing or augmenting the public's knowledge of scientific topics, in line with the information deficit model of science communication, the deficit model has largely been abandoned by science communication researchers. Instead, there is an increasing emphasis on understanding how the public chooses to use scientific knowledge and on the development of interfaces to mediate between expert and lay understandings of an issue. Newer frameworks of communicating science include the dialogue and the participation models. The dialogue model aims to create spaces for conversations between scientists and non-scientists to occur while the participation model aims to include non-scientists in the process of science.
The elaboration likelihood model (ELM) of persuasion is a dual process theory describing the change of attitudes. The ELM was developed by Richard E. Petty and John Cacioppo in 1980. The model aims to explain different ways of processing stimuli, why they are used, and their outcomes on attitude change. The ELM proposes two major routes to persuasion: the central route and the peripheral route.
Expectancy violations theory (EVT) is a theory of communication that analyzes how individuals respond to unanticipated violations of social norms and expectations. The theory was proposed by Judee K. Burgoon in the late 1970s and continued through the 1980s and 1990s as "nonverbal expectancy violations theory", based on Burgoon's research studying proxemics. Burgoon's work initially analyzed individuals' allowances and expectations of personal distance and how responses to personal distance violations were influenced by the level of liking and relationship to the violators. The theory was later changed to its current name when other researchers began to focus on violations of social behavior expectations beyond nonverbal communication.
Science journalism conveys reporting about science to the public. The field typically involves interactions between scientists, journalists and the public.
David Ian Perrett is a professor of psychology at the University of St Andrews in Scotland, where he leads the Perception Lab. The main focus in his team's research is on face perception, including facial cues to health, effects of physiological conditions on facial appearance, and facial preferences in social settings such as trust games and mate choice. He has published over 400 peer-reviewed articles, many of which appearing in leading scientific journals such as the Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B—Biological Sciences, Psychological Science, and Nature.
Greenberg (1987) introduced the concept of organizational justice with regard to how an employee judges the behavior of the organization and the employee's resulting attitude and behaviour. For example, if a firm makes redundant half of the workers, an employee may feel a sense of injustice with a resulting change in attitude and a drop in productivity.
Social information processing theory, also known as SIP, is a psychological and sociological theory originally developed by Salancik and Pfeffer in 1978. This theory explores how individuals make decisions and form attitudes in a social context, often focusing on the workplace. It suggests that people rely heavily on the social information available to them in their environments, including input from colleagues and peers, to shape their attitudes, behaviors, and perceptions.
The hyperpersonal model is a model of interpersonal communication that suggests computer-mediated communication (CMC) can become hyperpersonal because it "exceeds [face-to-face] interaction", thus affording message senders a host of communicative advantages over traditional face-to-face (FtF) interaction. The hyperpersonal model demonstrates how individuals communicate uniquely, while representing themselves to others, how others interpret them, and how the interactions create a reciprocal spiral of FtF communication. Compared to ordinary FtF situations, a hyperpersonal message sender has a greater ability to strategically develop and edit self-presentation, enabling a selective and optimized presentation of one's self to others.
Social presence theory explores how the "sense of being with another" is influenced by digital interfaces in human-computer interactions. Developed from the foundations of interpersonal communication and symbolic interactionism, social presence theory was first formally introduced by John Short, Ederyn Williams, and Bruce Christie in The Social Psychology of Telecommunications. Research on social presence theory has recently developed to examine the efficacy of telecommunications media, including SNS communications. The theory notes that computer-based communication is lower in social presence than face-to-face communication, but different computer-based communications can affect the levels of social presence between communicators and receivers.
Source credibility is "a term commonly used to imply a communicator's positive characteristics that affect the receiver's acceptance of a message." Academic studies of this topic began in the 20th century and were given a special emphasis during World War II, when the US government sought to use propaganda to influence public opinion in support of the war effort. Psychologist Carl Hovland and his colleagues worked at the War Department upon this during the 1940s and then continued experimental studies at Yale University. They built upon the work of researchers in the first half of the 20th century who had developed a Source-Message-Channel-Receiver model of communication and, with Muzafer Sherif, developed this as part of their theories of persuasion and social judgement.
In social psychology, the Yale attitude change approach is the study of the conditions under which people are most likely to change their attitudes in response to persuasive messages. This approach to persuasive communications was first studied by Carl Hovland and his colleagues at Yale University during World War II. The basic model of this approach can be described as "who said what to whom": the source of the communication, the nature of the communication and the nature of the audience. According to this approach, many factors affect each component of a persuasive communication. The credibility and attractiveness of the communicator (source), the quality and sincerity of the message, and the attention, intelligence and age of the audience can influence an audience's attitude change with a persuasive communication. Independent variables include the source, message, medium and audience, with the dependent variable the effect of the persuasion.
Computers are social actors (CASA) is a paradigm which states that humans unthinkingly apply the same social heuristics used for human interactions to computers, because they call to mind similar social attributes as humans.
The gateway belief model (GBM) suggests that public perception of the degree of expert or scientific consensus on an issue functions as a so-called "gateway" cognition. Perception of scientific agreement is suggested to be a key step towards acceptance of related beliefs. Increasing the perception that there is normative agreement within the scientific community can increase individual support for an issue. A perception of disagreement may decrease support for an issue.
Identity safety cues are aspects of an environment or setting that signal to members of stigmatized groups that the threat of discrimination is limited within that environment and / or that their social identities are welcomed and valued. Identity safety cues have been shown to reduce the negative impacts impact of social identity threats, which are when people experience situations where they feel devalued on the basis of a social identity. Such threats have been shown to undermine performance in academic and work-related contexts and make members of stigmatized groups feel as though they do not belong. Identity safety cues have been proposed as a way of alleviating the negative impact of stereotype threat or other social identity threats, reducing disparities in academic performance for members of stigmatized groups, and reducing health disparities caused by identity related stressors.
↑ Flanagin and Metzger (2008), Digital media and youth: Unparalleled opportunity and unprecedented responsibility. In J. Metzger, & A. Flanagin (editors), Digitaingl media, youth, and credibility (pp. 5–28). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
↑ HEFLIN, K. (2015). The Internet Is Not the Antidote. Journalism History, 41(3), 165–175.
↑ Mosier, N. R., Ahlgren, A. (1981). Credibility of Precision Journalism. Journalism Quarterly, 58(3), 375–518.
1 2 3 4 5 McCroskey, J. C. (1998). An introduction to communication in the classroom (2nd ed.).Acton, MA: Tapestry Press.
↑ Teven, J. J., McCroskey, J. C. (1997). The relationship of perceived teacher caring with student learning and teacher evaluation. Communication Education, 46, 1–9.
1 2 Frymier, A. B., & Thompson, C. A. (1992). Perceived teacher affinity-seeking in relation to perceived teacher credibility. Communication Education, 41, 388–399.
↑ Schrodt, P. (2003). Students' appraisals of instructors as a function of students' perceptions of instructors' aggressive communication. Communication Education, 52, 106–121.
↑ Johnson, S. D., Miller, A. N. (2002). A cross-cultural study of immediacy, credibility, and learning in the U.S. and Kenya. Communication Education, 51, 280–292.
↑ Martin, M. M., Chesebro, J. L., Mottet, T. P. (1997). Students' perceptions of instructors' socio-communicative style and the influence on instructor credibility and situational motivation. Communication Research Reports, 14, 431-44i0.
↑ Martin, M. M., Weber, K., Burant, P. A. (1997, April). Students' perceptions of a teacher's use of slang and verbal aggressiveness in a lecture: An experiment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Communication Association, Baltimore, MD.
↑ Thweatt, K. S., McCroskey, J. C. (1998). The impact of teacher immediacy and misbehaviors on teacher credibility. Communication Education, 47, 348–358.
1 2 Myers, S. A. (2004). The Relationship between Perceived Instructor Credibility and College Student In-class and Out-of-class Communication. Communication Reports, 17(2), 129–137. doi:10.1080/08934210409389382.
↑ Brossard, Dominique; Nisbet, Matthew C. (2007). "Deference to Scientific Authority Among a Low Information Public: Understanding U.S. Opinion on Agricultural Biotechnology". International Journal of Public Opinion Research. 19 (1): 24. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edl003.Dennis Chaptman (1 May 2007). "Survey examines Americans' trust in science". University of Wisconsin–Madison (Press release).
↑ O'callaghan, F. V.; Jordan, N. (2003). "Postmodern values, attitudes and the use of complementary medicine". Complementary Therapies in Medicine. 11 (1): 28–32. doi:10.1016/S0965-2299(02)00109-7. PMID12667972.
↑ Hall, M. A., Camacho, F., Dugan, E., Balkrishnan, R. (2002). Trust in the Medical Profession: Conceptual and Measurement Issues. Health Services Research, 37(5), 1419–1439. doi:10.1111/1475-6773.01070.
↑ Diller, L. H. (2005). Fallout from the Pharma Scandals: The Loss of Doctors' Credibility? Hastings Center Report, 35(3), 28–29. doi:10.1353/hcr.2005.0058.
↑ A National Survey of Physician–Industry Relationships Eric G. Campbell, PhD, Russell L. Gruen, M.D., PhD, James Mountford, M.D., Lawrence G. Miller, M.D., Paul D. Cleary, PhD, David Blumenthal, M.D., M.P.P. A National Survey of Physician–Industry Relationships. N. Engl. J. Med. 2007; 356:1742–1750. 26 April 2007. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa064508.
↑ Men, L. R. (2012). CEO credibility, perceived organizational reputation, and employee engagement. Public Relations Review, 38(1), 171–173. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.12.011.
↑ Journal of Public Relations Research, 16 (2004), pp. 93–125.
↑ Men, L. R. (2012) CEO credibility, perceived organizational reputation, and employee engagement. Public Relations Review, 38(1), 171–173. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.12.011.
↑ Lin, X., Spence, P., Lachlan, K. (2016). Social media and credibility indicators: The effect of influence cues. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 264–271.
↑ Lock, Irina; Seele, Peter (2016): The credibility of CSR reports in Europe. Evidence from a quantitative content analysis in 11 countries. Journal of Cleaner Production. 122. 186–200. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.060.
External links
Look up credibility in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
