Making sense of credibility on the web: Models for evaluating online information and recommendations for future research

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology

Volumn 58, Issue 13, 2007, Pages 2078-2091

  Metzger, Miriam J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CREDIBILITY ASSESSMENT; INFORMATION EVALUATION; INTERNET-BASED INFORMATION;

COGNITIVE SYSTEMS; INFORMATION ANALYSIS; INTERNET; MATHEMATICAL MODELS;

ONLINE SYSTEMS;

EID: 36849036907     PISSN: 15322882     EISSN: 15322890     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/asi.20672     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Alexander, J.E., & Tate, M.A. (1999). Web wisdom: How to evaluate and create information quality on the Web. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
2. Amsbary, J.H., & Powell, L. (2003). Factors influencing evaluations of web site information. Psychological Reports, 93(1), 191-198.
3. Baertlein, L. (2005, May 6). Google trying to patent news ranking by quality. Retrieved July 24, 2007, from http://findarticles.eom/p/articles/ mi_zdext/is_200505/ai_n13636886
4. Brandt, D.S. (1996). Evaluating information on the Internet. Computers in Libraries, 16, 44-46.
5. Burbules, N.C. (1998). Rhetorics of the Web: Hyperreading and critical literacy. In I. Snyder (Ed.), Page to screen: Taking literacy into the electronic era (pp. 102-122). London: Routledge.
6. Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752-766.
7. Chaiken, S., & Trope, Y. (1999). Dual-process theories in social psychology, New York: Guilford Press.
8. Chen, S., & Chaiken, S. (1999). The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 73-96). New York: Guilford Press.
9. Eysenbach, G. (2000). Consumer health informatics. British Medical Journal, 320, 1713-1716.
10. Eysenbach, G., & Diepgen, T.L. (1998). Towards quality management of medical information on the internet: Evaluation, labeling, and filtering of information. British Medical Journal. 317, 1496-1500.
11. Eysenbach, C., & Kohler, C. (2002, March 9), How do consumers search for and appraise health information on the world wide web? Qualitative study using focus groups, usability tests, and in-depth interviews. British Medical Journal, 324, 573-577.
12. Eysenbach, G., Powell, J., Kuss, O., & Sa, E.-R. (2002). Empirical studies assessing the quality of health information for consumers on the World Wide Web: A systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Association, 287(20), 2691-2700.
13. Fallows, D. (2005). Search engine users: Internet searchers are confident, satisfied and trusting-But they are also unaware and naïve. Report for the Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved January 25, 2005. from http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/146/report_display.asp
14. Flanagin, A.J., & Metzger, M.J. (2000). Perceptions of Internet information credibility. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 77(3), 515-540.
15. 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, 319-342.
16. Fogg, B.J. (2003). Persuasive technology: Using computers to change what we think and do. San Francisco: Kaufmann.
17. Fogg. B.J., Soohoo, C. Danielson, D.R., Marable, L., Stanford, J., & Trauber, E.R. (2003). How do users evaluate the credibility of Web sites? A study with over 2,500 participants. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Conference on Designing for User Experiences, San Francisco. Available at: http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid-997078.997097
18. Fox, B. (2005, April 30). Google searches for quality not quantity. New Scientist, 2497, 24. Retrieved May 12, 2005, from http://www.newscientist.com/ article.ns?id=mg18624975.900
19. Fox, S., & Rainie, L. (2002. May 22). 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. Retrieved June 5, 2005, from http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Vital_Decisions_May2002.pdf
20. Freeman, K.S., & Spyridakis, J.H. (2004). An examination of factors that affect the credibility of online health information. Technical Communication, 51(2), 239-263.
21. Fritch, J.W. (2003). Heuristics, tools, and systems for evaluating Internet information: Helping users assess a tangled Web. Online Information Review, 27(5), 321-327.
22. Fritch, J.W., & Cromwell, R.L. (2001). Evaluating Internet resources: Identity, affiliation, and cognitive authority in a networked world. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(6), 499-507.
23. Fritch, J.W., & Cromwell, R.L. (2002). Delving deeper into evaluation: Exploring cognitive authority on the Internet. Reference Services Review, 30(3), 242-254.
24. Hong, T. (2006). The Internet and tobacco cessation: The roles of Internet self-efficacy and search task on the information-seeking process. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(2), Article No. 8. Retrieved March 3, 2006, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue2/hong.html
25. Hovland, C.I., Janis, I.L., & Kelley, J.J. (1953). Communication and persuasion. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
26. Johnson, T.J., & Kaye, B.K. (2000). Using is believing: The influence of reliance on the credibility of online political information among politically interested Internet users. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 77, 865-879.
27. Johnson, T.J., & Kaye, B.K. (2002). Webelievability: A path model examining how convenience and reliance predict online credibility. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 79, 619-642.
28. Kapoun. J. (1998). Teaching undergrads WEB evaluation: A guide for library instruction, Retrieved July 24, 2007, from http://www.ualberta.ca/ dmiall/Brazil/Kapoun.html
29. Kunst, H., Groot, D., Latthe, P.M., Latthe, M., & Khan, K.S. (2002, March 9). Accuracy of information on apparently credible websites: Survey of five common health topics. British Medical Journal, 324, 581-582.
30. Meola, M. (2004). Chucking the checklist: A contextual approach to teaching undergraduates Web-site evaluation. Libraries and the Academy, 4(3), 331-344.
31. Metzger, M.J., Flanagin. A.J., Eyal, K., Lemus, D., & McCann, R. (2003). Bringing the concept of credibility into the 21st century: Integrating perspectives on source, message, and media credibility in the contemporary media environment. Communication Yearbook, 27, 293-335.
32. Metzger. M.J., Flanagin, A.J., & Zwarun, L. (2003). Student Internet use, perceptions of information credibility, and verification behavior. Computers & Education, 41, 271-290.
33. Morahan-Martin, J.M. (2004). How Internet users find, evaluate, and use online health information: A cross-cultural review. CyberPsychology & Behavior. 7(5), 497-510.
34. Morahan-Martin, J.M., & Anderson. C. (2000). Information and misinformation online: Recommendations for facilitating accurate mental health information retrieval and evaluation. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 3, 731-742.
35. O' Keefe, D.J. (2002). Persuasion: Theory and research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
36. Petty, R.E., & Cacioppo, J.T. (1981), Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches. Dubuque, IA: Brown.
37. Rainie, L., & Hitlin, P. (2004). The use of online reputation and rating systems. Available at: http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/140/ report_display.asp
38. Resnick, P. Iacovou, N., Suchak, M., Bergstrom. P., & Riedl, J. (1994). GroupLens: An open architecture for collaborative filtering of netnews. In Proceedings of ACM CSCW Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Sharing Information and Creating Meaning (pp. 175-186). ACM: Chapel Hill, NC
39. Rice, R.E., & Atkin, C.K. (Eds.). (2001). Public communication campaigns (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
40. Rice, R.E., & Katz, J.E. (Eds.). (2001). The Internet and health communication: Experiences and expectations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
41. Rice, R.E., & Katz. J.E. (2006). Internet use in physician practice and patient interaction. In M. Mureror & R.E. Rice (Eds.), The Internet and health care: Theory, research and practice (pp. 149-176). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
42. Rice, R.E., Peterson, M., & Christine, R. (2001). A comparative features analysis of publicly accessible commercial and government health database Web sites. In R.E. Rice & J.E. Katz (Eds.), The Internet and health communication: Experiences and expectations (pp. 213-231). Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage.
43. Rieh, S.Y. (2002). Judgment of information quality and cognitive authority in the Web. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(2), 145-161.
44. Rieh, S.Y. & Belkin, N.J. (1998). Understanding judgment of information quality and cognitive authority in the WWW. In C.M. Preston (Ed.), Proceedings of the 61st ASIS annual meeting (pp. 279-289). Silver Spring, MD: American Society for Information Science.
45. Rosen, D.J. (1998, February). Driver education for the information superhighway: How adult learners and practitioners use the Internet [Series title: Literacy Leader Fellowship Program Reports, 2(2)]. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy.
46. Scholz-Crane, A. (1998). Evaluating the future: A preliminary study of the process of how undergraduate students evaluate Web sources. Reference Services Review, 26(3/4), 53-60.
47. Seidman, J.J. (2006). The mysterious maze of the World Wide Web: How can we guide consumers to high-quality health information on the Internet? In M. Murero & R.E. Rice (Eds.), Internet and health care: Theory, research and practice (pp. 195-212). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
48. Shiffrin, R.M., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84, 127-190.
49. Smith, A.G. (1997). Testing the surf: Criteria for evaluating Internet information resources. Public-Access Computer Systems Review, 8. Retrieved July 24, 2007, from http://epress.lib.uh.edu/pr/v8/n3/smit8n3.html
50. Stanford, J., Tauber, E.R., Fogg, B.J., & Marable, L. (2002). Experts vs. on-line consumers: A comparative credibility study of health and finance Web sites. Consumer WebWatch Research Report. Retrieved March 3, 2006, from http://www.consumerwebwatch.org/dynamic/web-credibility-reports-experts-vs- online-abstract.cfm
51. Walthen, C.N., & Burkell, J. (2002). Believe it or not: Factors influencing credibility on the Web. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(2), 134-144.
52. Wilder, S. (2005, January 7). Information literacy makes all the wrong assumptions. Chronicle of Higher Education, 51(18), B13.