Propensity to trust and the influence of source and medium cues in credibility evaluation

Journal of Information Science

Volumn 38, Issue 6, 2012, Pages 566-577

  Lucassen, Teun ^a   Schraagen, Jan Maarten ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

credibility; information; medium; propensity; source; trust

Indexed keywords

CREDIBILITY; INFORMATION; MEDIUM; PROPENSITY; SOURCE; TRUST;

INFORMATION SCIENCE; INFORMATION SYSTEMS;

WEBSITES;

EID: 84870470475     PISSN: 01655515     EISSN: 17416485     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0165551512459921     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Taraborelli D Current issues in computing and philosophy. Waelbers K Briggle A Breg P, ed. Amsterdam: IOS Press ; 2008: 194-204.
2. Metzger MJ, Flanagin AJ, Medders RB. Social and heuristic approaches to credibility evaluation online. J Commun. 2010 ; 60: 413-439
3. Chaiken S, Maheswaran D. Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. J Personal Social Psychol. 1994 ; 66: 460-473
4. Sundar SS, Nass C. Conceptualizing sources in online news. J Commun. 2001 ; 51: 52-72
5. Kang H, Bae K, Zhang S, Sundar SS. Source cues in online news: Is the proximate source more powerful than distal sources?. Journalism Mass Commun Q. 2011 ; 88: 719-736
6. Lucassen T, Schraagen JM. Factual accuracy and trust in information: The role of expertise. J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol. 2011 ; 62: 1232-1242
7. Dutton WH, Shepherd A. Trust in the Internet as an experience technology. Inform Commun Soc. 2006 ; 9: 433-451
8. Sundar SS digital media,youth, and credibility. Metzger MJ Flanagin AJ, ed. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press ; 2008: 73-100.
9. Mayer RC, Davis JH, Schoorman FD. An integrative model of organizational trust. Acad Mgmt Rev. 1995 ; 20: 709-734
10. Kelton K, Fleischmann KR, Wallace WA. Trust in digital information. J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol. 2008 ; 59: 363-374
11. Metzger MJ. Making sense of credibility on the Web: Models for evaluating online information and recommendations for future research. J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol. 2007 ; 58: 2078-2091
12. Chaiken S. Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. J Personal Social Psychol. 1980 ; 39: 752-766
13. Klein GA, Calderwood R, Clinton-Cirocco A Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society annual meeting. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society ; 1986: 576-580.
14. Hilligoss B, Rieh SY. Developing a unifying framework of credibility assessment: Construct, heuristics, and interaction in context. Inform Process Mgmt. 2008 ; 44: 1467-1484
15. Fogg BJ CHI '03 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems. New York: ACM ; 2003: 722-723.
16. Giles J. Internet encyclopaedias go head to head. Nature. 2005 ; 438: 900-901
17. Cross T. Puppy smoothies: Improving the reliability of open, collaborative wikis. First Monday. 2006 ;: 11
18. Waters NL. Why you can't cite Wikipedia in my class. Commun ACM. 2007 ; 50: 15-17
19. Dooley PL Proceedings of the 6th international symposium on wikis and open collaboration, WikiSym '10. New York: ACM ; 2010: 1-2.
20. Fogg BJ, Tseng H. The elements of computer credibility. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems: the CHI is the limit. CHI '99 ; 1999 ; 1999. 80.
21. Lee MKO, Turban E. A trust model for consumer Internet shopping. Int J Electron Commerce. 2001 ; 6: 75-91
22. Wathen CN, Burkell J. Believe it or not: Factors influencing credibility on the Web. J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol. 2002 ; 53: 134-144
23. Johnson TJ, Kaye BK. Cruising is believing? Comparing Internet and traditional sources on media credibility measures. Journalism Mass Commun Q. 1998 ; 75: 325-340
24. McClung HJ, Murray RD, Heitlinger LA. The Internet as a source for current patient information. Pediatrics. 1998 ; 101: e2
25. Merritt SM, Ilgen DR. Not all trust is created equal: Dispositional and history-based trust in human-automation interactions. Human Factors. 2008 ; 50: 194-210
26. Cheung CM, Lee MK. Trust in Internet shopping: Instrument development and validation through classical and modern approaches. J Global Inform Mgmt. 2001 ; 9: 23-35
27. McKnight DH, Kacmar CJ, Choudhury V. Dispositional trust and distrust distinctions in predicting high- and low-risk internet expert advice site perceptions. e-Service J. 2004 ; 3: 35-58
28. Sundar SS, Knobloch-Westerwick S, Hastall M R. News cues: Information scent and cognitive heuristics. J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol. 2007 ; 58: 366-378
29. Lucassen T, Schraagen JM. Trust in Wikipedia: How users trust information from an unknown source. Proceedings of the 4th workshop on Information credibility, WICOW '10 ; 2010 ; 2010. 19.
30. Wikipedia. Wikipedia: Version 1.0 editorial team, http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Wikipedia:Version/1.0/Editorial/Team (accessed June 2012).
31. Costa PT, McCrea RR Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources ; 1992 :
32. Davis FD, Bagozzi RP, Warshaw PR. User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Mgmt Sci. 1989 ; 35: 982-1003
33. Preacher KJ, Hayes AF. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behav Res Meth. 2008 ; 40: 879-891
34. Hayes AF. Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Commun Monogr. 2009 ; 76: 408-420
35. HayesAF. PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling [White paper], http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf (2012, accessed June 2012).
36. Nisbett RE, Wilson TD. The halo effect: Evidence for unconscious alteration of judgments. J Personal Social Psychol. 1977 ; 35: 250-256
37. Alexa Internet. Alexa Top 500 Global Sites, http://www.alexa.com/topsites (accessed June 2012).
38. Lim S, Kwon N. Gender differences in information behavior concerning Wikipedia, an unorthodox information source?. Library Inform Sci Res. 2010 ; 32: 212-220
39. Feingold A. Gender differences in personality: a meta-analysis. Psychol Bull. 1994 ; 116: 429-456