Social and heuristic approaches to credibility evaluation online

Journal of Communication

Volumn 60, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 413-439

  Metzger, Miriam J ^a   Flanagin, Andrew J ^a   Medders, Ryan B ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMMUNICATION; HEURISTICS;

EID: 77955749374     PISSN: 00219916     EISSN: 14602466     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01488.x     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Banning S A, Sweetser K D. How much do they think it affects them and whom do they believe? Comparing the third-person effect and credibility of blogs and traditional media. Communication Quarterly 2007, 55:451-466.
2. Fake professor in Wikipedia storm. 2007, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6423659.stm, BBC News, March 6)., Retrieved February 2, 2008, from
3. Burgoon J K, Stern L A, Dillman L. Interpersonal adaptation. 1995, Cambridge, U.K., Cambridge University Press
4. Callister T A. Media literacy: On-ramp to the literacy of the 21st century or cul-de-sac on the information superhighway. Advances in Reading/Language Research 2000, 7:403-420.
5. Chaiken S. The heuristic model of persuasion. Social influence: The Ontario symposium 1987, 3-39. Zanna M POlsen J MHerman C P. (Eds.),, (Vol. 5, pp., Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
6. Cialdini R. Influence: The psychology of persuasion 1984, New York, William Morris
7. De George R T. The nature and function of epistemic authority. Authority: A philosophical analysis 1976, 76-93. Harris R B. (Ed.),, (pp., Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press
8. Flanagin A J, Metzger M J. Perceptions of Internet information credibility. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 2000, 77:515-540.
9. Flanagin A J, Metzger M J. The role of site features, user attributes, and information verification behaviors on the perceived credibility of Web-based information. New Media & Society 2007, 9:319-342.
10. Flanagin A J, Metzger M J. Digital media and youth: Unparalleled opportunity and unprecedented responsibility. Digital media, youth, and credibility 2008, 5-27. Metzger M J, Flanagin A J. (pp., (Eds.),, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press
11. Fogg B J. Persuasive technology: Using computers to change what we think and do 2003a, San Francisco, CA, Morgan Kaufmann
12. Fogg B J. Prominence-interpretation theory: Explaining how people assess credibility online. 2003b, 722-723. Proceedings of CHI'03, Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Fort Lauderdale, FL,
13. Fogg B J, Soohoo C, Danielson D R, Marable L, Stanford J, Trauber E R. How do users evaluate the credibility of Web sites? A study with over 2,500 participants. 2003, http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=997078.997097, Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2003 Conference on Designing for User Experiences, San Francisco, CA. Retrieved September 4, 2008, from
14. Fischer P, Jonas E, Frey D, Schulz-Hardt S. Selective exposure to information: The impact of information limits. European Journal of Social Psychology 2005, 35:469-492.
15. Fritch J W, Cromwell R L. Evaluating Internet resources: Identity, affiliation, and cognitive authority in a networked world. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2001, 52:499-507.
16. Gigerenzer G, Todd P M. Simple heuristics that make us smart. 1999, New York, Oxford University Press
17. Gladwell M. Blink: The power of thinking without thinking 2005, York, Little, Brown & Company
18. Hilligoss B, Rieh S Y. Developing a unifying framework of credibility assessment: Construct, heuristics, and interaction in context. Information Processing and Management 2008, 44:1467-1484.
19. Johnson T J, Kaye B K. Wag the blog: How reliance on traditional media and the Internet influence credibility perceptions of Weblogs among blog users. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 2004, 81:622-642.
20. Johnson T, Zhang W, Bichard S. Revived and refreshed: Selective exposure to blogs and political websites. 2008, http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p233136_index.html, May 21)., Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Retrieved January 15, 2009, from
21. Krueger R A, Casey M A. Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research 2000, 3rd ed, Newbury Park, CA, Sage
22. Lang A. The limited capacity model of mediated message processing. Journal of Communication 2000, 50(1):46-70.
23. Madden M, Fox S. Riding the waves of " Web 2.0": More than a buzzword, but still not easily defined. 2006, http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Web_2.0.pdf, October 5)., Retrieved January 18, 2008, from
24. Meola M. Chucking the checklist: A contextual approach to teaching undergraduates Web-site evaluation. Libraries and the Academy 2004, 4:331-344.
25. Metzger M J. 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 2007, 58:2078-2091.
26. Morgan D L. Focus groups as qualitative research 1988, Newbury Park, CA, Sage.
27. Netcraft. 2007, http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_survey.html, December). December 2007 web server survey. Retrieved January 24, 2008, from Netcraft Web site:
28. November 19-December 20, 2008 Tracking survey. 2008, http://www.pewinternet.org/trends/User_Demo_Jan_2009.htm, Pew Internet & American Life Project, Retrieved January 14, 2009, from
29. Pirolli P. Rational analyses of information foraging on the Web. Cognitive Science 2005, 29:343-373.
30. Pirolli P, Card S. Information foraging. Psychological Review 1999, 106:643-675.
31. Ross L, Greene D, House P. The false consensus effect: An egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 1977, 13:279-301.
32. Simon H A. A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics 1955, 69(1):99-118.
33. Stroud N J. Media use and political predispositions: Revisiting the concept of selective exposure. Political Behavior 2007, 30:341-366.
34. Sundar S. The MAIN model: A heuristic approach to understanding technology effects on credibility. Digital media, youth, and credibility 2008, 73-100. Metzger MFlanagin A. (Eds.),, (pp., Cambridge, MA, MIT Press
35. Taraborelli D. Soft deference: How the Web is changing the way we trust. 2007, Paper presented at the 5th European Computing and Philosophy Conference, -ECAP 2007,, Twente, June 21-23, 2007.
36. Taraborelli D. How the Web is changing the way we trust. Current issues in computing and philosophy 2008, Waelbers KBriggle ABrey P. (Eds.),, Amsterdam, IOS Press
37. Tversky A, Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science 1974, 185:1124-1131.
38. 2006 American community survey-Detailed tables: Sex by age. 2006a, http://factfinder.census.gov/, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC, Retrieved February 12, 2009, from
39. 2006 American community survey-Detailed tables: Race. 2006b, http://factfinder.census.gov/, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC, Retrieved February 12, 2009, from
40. Vallone R P, Ross L, Lepper M R. The hostile media phenomenon: Biased perception and perceptions of media bias in coverage of the " Beirut Massacre." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1985, 49:577-585.
41. Walthen C N, Burkell J. Believe it or not: Factors influencing credibility on the Web. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2002, 53(2):134-144.
42. Walther J B, Wang Z, Loh T. The effect of top-level domains and advertisements on health web-site credibility. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2004, 6(3):e24.
43. Wilson P. Second-hand knowledge: An inquiry into cognitive authority 1983, Westport, CT, Greenwood Press
44. Wirth W, Bocking T, Karnowski V, von Pape T. Heuristic and systematic use of search engines. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 2007, 12:778-800.