Credibility


Credibility

Credibility refers to the objective and subjective components of the believability of a source or message.

Traditionally, modern, 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).[1] Secondary components of credibility include source dynamism (charisma) and physical attractiveness.

Credibility online has become an important topic since the mid-1990s, as the web has increasingly become an information resource. The Credibility and Digital Media Project @ UCSB[2] highlights recent and ongoing work in this area, including recent consideration of digital media, youth, and credibility. In addition, the Persuasive Technology Lab[3] at Stanford University has studied web credibility and proposed the principal components of online credibility and a general theory called Prominence-Interpretation Theory.[4]

Contents

Journalistic credibility

According to the Society of Professional Journalists code of ethics, professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility.[5]

Scientific credibility

Scientific credibility has been defined as the extent to which science in general is recognized as a source of reliable information about the world.[6] 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.[7] The method most commonly used to assess the quality of science is peer review and then publication as part of the scientific literature.[8] 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,[9] or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.[10]

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.[11] However, both the credibility and authority of science is questioned by groups with non-mainstream views, such as some advocates of alternative medicine,[12] or those who dispute the scientific consensus on a topic, such as AIDS denialists.[13][14]

See also

Credibility Research Reviews

  • Metzger, M.J., Flanagin, A.J., Eyal, K., Lemus, D.R., & McCann, R. (2003). Credibility in the 21st century: Integrating perspectives on source, message, and media credibility in the contemporary media environment. In P. Kalbfleisch (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 27 (pp. 293–335). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Rieh, S.Y. & Danielson, D.R. (2007). Credibility: A multidisciplinary framework. In B. Cronin (Ed.), Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (Vol. 41, pp. 307–364). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

References

  1. ^ Flanagin and Metzger (2008), Digital media and youth: Unparalleled opportunity and unprecedented responsibility. In M. Metzger, & A. Flanagin (Editors), Digital media, youth, and credibility (pp. 5-28). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
  2. ^ Credibility.ucsb.edu
  3. ^ Captology.stanford.eu
  4. ^ Credibility.stanford.edu
  5. ^ SPJ.org (see Preamble)
  6. ^ Bocking, Stephen (2004). Nature's experts: science, politics, and the environment. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. p. 164. ISBN 0-8135-3398-8. 
  7. ^ Alkin, Marvin C. (2004). Evaluation roots: tracing theorists' views and influences. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage. p. 134. ISBN 0-7619-2894-4. 
  8. ^ Bocking, Stephen (2004). Nature's experts: science, politics, and the environment. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. p. 165. ISBN 0-8135-3398-8. 
  9. ^ What is a Cochrane review The Cochrane Collaboration, Accessed 05 January 2009
  10. ^ Agrawala, S. (1998). "Structural and Process History of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change". Climatic Change 39 (4): 621–642. doi:10.1023/A:1005312331477. http://www.springerlink.com/index/N302233443147421.pdf 
  11. ^ 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. http://ijpor.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/19/1/24. Lay summary 
  12. ^ 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. PMID 12667972. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0965229902001097 [dead link]
  13. ^ Smith TC, Novella SP (August 2007). "HIV denial in the Internet era". PLoS Med. 4 (8): e256. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040256. PMC 1949841. PMID 17713982. http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0040256. 
  14. ^ Epstein, Steven (1996). Impure science: AIDS, activism, and the politics of knowledge. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-21445-5. 

Literature

  • Chesney, T. (2006). An empirical examination of Wikipedia’s credibility. First Monday, 11(11). Available at firstmonday.org
  • Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. J. (2010). Kids and credibility: An empirical examination of youth, digital media use, and information credibility. Cambridge: MIT Press. Available at [1]
  • Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. (2008). Digital media and youth: Unparalleled opportunity and unprecedented responsibility. In M. Metzger, & A. Flanagin (Editors), Digital media, youth, and credibility (pp. 5–28). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Available at [2]
  • Flanagin, A.J., & Metzger, M.J. (2007). The role of site features, user attributes, and information verification behaviors on the perceived credibility of web-based information. New Media & Society, 9(2), 319-342. Available at comm.ucsb.edu
  • Mattus, Maria (2007). Finding Credible Information: A Challenge to Students Writing Academic Essays. Human IT 9(2), 1-28. Hentet 2007-09-04 fra. Available at hb.se
  • Metzger, M.J., Flanagin, A.J., Eyal, K., Lemus, D.R., & McCann, R. (2003). Credibility in the 21st century: Integrating perspectives on source, message, and media credibility in the contemporary media environment. In P. Kalbfleisch (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 27 (pp. 293–335). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Available at comm.ucsb.edu
  • Metzger, M.J., & Flanagin, A.J. (Eds.) (2008). Digital Media, Youth, and Credibility. Cambridge: MIT Press. Available at mitpressjournals.org
  • Rieh, Soo Young & Danielson, David R. (2007). Credibility: A multidisciplinary framework. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 41, 307-364.
  • Savolainen, R. (2007). Media credibility and cognitive authority. The case of seeking orienting information. Information Research, 12(3) paper 319. Available at informationr.net

External links


Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

Synonyms:

Look at other dictionaries:

  • credibility — I noun appearance of truth, auctoritas, believability, believableness, credibleness, faithfulness, fides, integrity, plausibility, probity, rectitude, reliability, tenability, tenableness, trustworthiness, truthfulness, uprightness, veracity,… …   Law dictionary

  • Credibility — Cred i*bil i*ty (kr[e^]d [i^]*b[i^]l [i^]*t[y^]), n. [Cf. F. cr[ e]dibilit[ e].] The quality of being credible; credibleness; as, the credibility of facts; the credibility of witnesses. [1913 Webster] …   The Collaborative International Dictionary of English

  • credibility — 1590s, from M.L. credibilitas, from L. credibilis (see CREDIBLE (Cf. credible)). Credibility gap is 1966, Amer.Eng., in reference to official statements about the Vietnam War …   Etymology dictionary

  • credibility — ► NOUN 1) the quality of being credible. 2) (also street credibility) acceptability among fashionable young urban people …   English terms dictionary

  • credibility — [n] believeableness believability, chance, integrity, likelihood, plausibility, possibility, probability, prospect, reliability, satisfactoriness, solidity, solidness, soundness, tenability, trustworthiness, validity; concepts 650,725 Ant.… …   New thesaurus

  • credibility — noun ADJECTIVE ▪ great, high ▪ real ▪ moral, political, professional, scientific ▪ personal …   Collocations dictionary

  • credibility — credence, credit, credibility 1. In general use, credence means ‘belief, trustful acceptance’, and is used mainly in the expression to give (or lend) credence to, which means ‘believe, trust’: • The radicality of these changes…had lent credence… …   Modern English usage

  • credibility — cred|i|bil|i|ty [ˌkredıˈbılıti] n [U] 1.) the quality of deserving to be believed and trusted damage/undermine sb s credibility (as sth) ▪ The scandal has damaged his credibility as a leader. credibility of ▪ There are serious questions about the …   Dictionary of contemporary English

  • credibility — n. 1) to establish credibility 2) to lose one s credibility 3) (misc.) a credibility gap * * * [ˌkredə bɪlɪtɪ] (misc.) a credibility gap to establish credibility to lose one s credibility …   Combinatory dictionary

  • credibility — cred|i|bil|i|ty [ ,kredı bıləti ] noun uncount * qualities that someone has that make people believe or trust them: The jury had doubts about the credibility of some of the witnesses. gain/lose credibility: The government is losing credibility by …   Usage of the words and phrases in modern English


Share the article and excerpts

Direct link
Do a right-click on the link above
and select “Copy Link”

We are using cookies for the best presentation of our site. Continuing to use this site, you agree with this.