Cultivating the science internet audience: Impact of brand and domain on source credibility for science information

Science Communication

Volumn 24, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 309-332

  Treise, Debbie ^a   Walsh Childers, Kim ^a   Weigold, Michael F ^a   Friedman, Meredith ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

Author keywords

Domain credibility; Internet credibility; Science communication

Indexed keywords

EID: 0037244162     PISSN: 10755470     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1075547002250298     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Blumler, J. G. 1979. The role of theory in uses and gratifications studies. Communication Research 6:9-36.
2. Eveland, W. P., Jr., and S. Dunwoody. 1998. Users and navigation patterns of a science World Wide Web site for the public. Public Understanding of Science 7:285-311.
3. Finberg, H., M. Stone, and D. Lynch. 2001. Digital journalism credibility study. Available from the Online News Association, Knight Foundation: http://www.journalists.org/Programs/Study.htm.
4. Flanagin, A. J., and M. J. Metzger, 2000. Perceptions of Internet credibility. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 77 (3): 515-40.
5. Fox, A., and L. Rainie. 2002. Vital decisions: How Internet users decide what information to trust when they or their loved ones are sick. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project.
6. Gunther, A. C. 1988. Extremity of attitude and trust in media. Journalism Quarterly 65 (2): 279-87.
7. Hartz, J., and R. Chappell. 1997. Worlds apart: How the distance between science and journalism threatens America's future. Nashville, TN: First Amendment Center.
8. Hawkins, D. T. 1999. What is credible information? ONLINE, pp. 86-89. Available from http:// www.onlineinc.com/onlinemag.
9. Health on the Net Foundation. 2001. HONcode site-checker. Available from http://www.hon.ch/ HONcode/HONcode_check.html.
10. Jenkins, E. 1994. Scientific literacy. In The international encyclopedia of education, vol. 9, 2d ed., edited by T. Husen and T. Postlethwaite, 5345-50. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
11. Johnson, H., and J. Scileppi. 1969. Effects of ego-involvement conditions on attitude change to high and low credibility communicators. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 13:31-36.
12. Johnson. T. J., and B. Kaye. 1998. Cruising is believing? Comparing Internet and traditional sources on media credibility measures. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 75 (2): 325-40.
13. Katz, E., J. G. Blumler, and M. Gurevitch. 1974. Utilization of mass communication by the individual. In The uses of mass communications: Current perspectives on gratifications research, edited by J. G. Blumier and E. Katz, 19-32. Beverly Hills. CA: Sage.
14. Lasica, J. D. 2002. Online news on a tightrope. Available from http://www.ojr.org/ojr/business.
15. Marquart, J., G. J. O'Keefe, and A. C. Gunther. 1995. Believing in biotech: Farmers' perceptions of the credibility of BGH information-sources. Science Communication 16 (4): 388-402.
16. Miller, J. 1998. The measurement of civic scientific literacy. Public Understanding of Science 7 (3): 203-23.
17. Newhagen, J., and C. Nass. 1989. Differential criteria for evaluating credibility of newspapers and TV news. Journalism Quarterly 66 (2): 277-84.
18. Ohanian, R. 1990. Construction and validation of a scale to measure celebrity endorsers' perceived expertise, trustworthiness, and attractiveness. Journal of Advertising 19:39-52.
19. Papacharissi, Z., and A. Rubin. 2000. Predictors of Internet use. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 44 (2): 175-96.
20. Popular Science. 2001. Popular Science: Best of the Web. Available from http://www.popsci.com/features/bow00.
21. Rhine, R., and L. Severance. 1970. Ego-involvement, discrepancy, source credibility, and attitude change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 16:175-90.
22. Rieh, S. Y., and N. J. Belkin. 1998. Understanding judgment of information quality and cognitive authority in the WWW. Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science 35:279-89.
23. Sapp, G. 1992. Science literacy: A discussion and information based definition. College and Research Libraries, p. 53.
24. Sternthal, B., L. W. Phillips, and R. Dholakia. 1978. The persuasive effect of source credibility: A situational analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly 42 (3): 285-314.
25. Sundar, S.S. 1999. Exploring receivers' criteria for perception of print and online news. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 76 (2): 373-86.
26. Tabachnick, B. G., and L. S. Fidell. 1989. Using multivariate statistics, 2d ed. New York: Harper and Row.
27. Weigold, M. F. 2002. Communicating science: A review of the literature. Science Communication 23 (2): 164-93.
28. Wiener, J. L., and J. C. Mowen. 1986. Source credibility: On the independent effects of trust and expertise. In Advances in consumer research, vol. XIII, edited by R. J. Lutz, 306-10. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.