College students' credibility judgments and heuristics concerning wikipedia

Information Processing and Management

Volumn 49, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 405-419

  Lim, Sook ^a  

^a ST CATHERINE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Bounded rationality; Credibility; Heuristic; Heuristic systematic model; Knowledge; Peripheral cue

Indexed keywords

EDUCATION; HEURISTIC METHODS; HEURISTIC PROGRAMMING; SURVEYS;

BOUNDED RATIONALITY; CREDIBILITY; HEURISTIC; KNOWLEDGE; PERIPHERAL CUE; SYSTEMATIC MODELING;

STUDENTS;

EID: 84886056629     PISSN: 03064573     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ipm.2012.10.004     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Association for Psychological Science (2011). Wikipedia initiative. Retrieved 06.12.11.
2. Borah, P. (2011). Seeking more information and conversations: Influence of competitive frames and motivated processing. Communication Research, 38(3), 303-325.
3. Bracken, C. C. (2006). Perceived source credibility of local television news: The impact of television form and presence. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 50(4), 723-741.
4. Braten, I., Strømsø, H., & Salmeron, L. (2011). Trust and mistrust when students read multiple information sources about climate change. Learning and Instruction, 21(2), 180-192.
5. Carr, N. (2010). The Shallows: What the Internet is doing to our brains. New York, NY: Norton.
6. Cassidy, W. P. (2007). Online news credibility: An examination of the perceptions of newspaper journalists. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(2). Retrieved 17.12.11.
7. Chaiken, S., & Ledgerwood, A. (2011). A theory of heuristic and systematic information processing. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology: Volume one (pp. 246-166). Sage Publications Ltd.
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 (first ed., pp. 73-96). New York, NY: The Guildford Press.
9. Chesney, T. (2006). An empirical examination of Wikipedia's credibility. First Monday, 11(11). .
10. Dochterman, M. A., & Stamp, G. H. (2010). Part 2: The determination of Web credibility: A theoretical model derived from qualitative data. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 11(1), 44-50.
11. Eysenbach, G. (2008). Credibility of health information and digital media: New perspectives and implications for youth. In M. Metzger & A. Flanagin (Eds.), Digital media, youth, and credibility (pp. 123-154). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
12. Ferran, C., & Watts, S. (2008). Videoconferencing in the field: A Heuristic processing model. Management Science, 54(9), 1565-1578.
13. Flanagin, A., & Metzger, M. (2011). From encyclopedia Britannica to Wikipedia: Generational differences in the perceived credibility of online encyclopedia information. Information, Communication & Society, 40(3), 355-374.
14. Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. (2008). Digital media and youth: Unparalleled opportunity and unprecedented responsibility. In M. Metzger & A. Flanagin (Eds.), Digital media, youth, and credibility (pp. 5-28). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
15. Fogg, B. J., Soohoo, C., Danielson, D., Marable, L., Stanford, J., & Tauber, E. R. (2002). How do people evaluate a web site's credibility?: Results from a large study. Yonkers, NY: Consumer Reports WebWatch.
16. Gaziano, C., & McGrath, K. (1986). Measuring the concept of credibility. Journalism Quarterly, 63, 451-462.
17. Gigerenzer, G., & Brighton, H. (2011). Homo heuristicus: Why biased minds make better inferences. In G. Gigerenzer, R. Hertwig, & T. Pachur (Eds.), Heuristics: The foundations of adaptive behavior (pp. 2-27). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
18. Gigerenzer, G. (2008). Bounded and rational. In G. Gigerenzer (Ed.), Rationality for mortals: How people cope with uncertainty (pp. 3-19). Cambridge, MA: Oxford University Press.
19. Gigerenzer, G. (2011). Moral satisficing: Rethinking moral behavior as bounded rationality. In G. Gigerenzer, R. Hertwig, & T. Pachur (Eds.), Heuristics: The foundations of adaptive behavior (pp. 201-221). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
20. Gigerenzer, G., Hertwig, R., & Pachur, T. (2011). Introduction. In G. Gigerenzer, R. Hertwig, & T. Pachur (Eds.), Heuristics: The foundations of adaptive behavior (pp. xvii-xxiii). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
21. Hall, C. C., Goren, A., Chaiken, S., & Todorov, A. (2009). Shallow cues with deep effects: Trait judgments from faces and voting decisions. In E. Borgida, J. L. Sullivan, & C. M. Federico (Eds.), The political psychology of democratic citizenship (pp. 73-99). Oxford University Press.
22. Head, A. J., & Eisenberg, M. B. (2010). How today's college students use Wikipedia for course-related research. First Monday, 15(3). Retrieved 17.12.11.
23. Head, A. J., & Eisenberg, M. B. (2011). How college students use the Web to conduct everyday life research. First Monday, 16(4). Retrieved 17.12.11.
24. Hesse, B. W., O'Connell, M., Augustson, E. M., Chou, W.-Y. S., Shaikh, Abdul R., & Rutten, L. J. F. (2011). Realizing the promise of Web 2.0: Engaging community intelligence. Journal of Health Communication, 16, 10-31.
25. Hilligoss, B., & Rieh, S. Y. (2008). Developing a unifying framework of credibility assessment: Concept, heuristics, and interaction in context. Information Processing and Management, 44(4), 1467-1484. (Pubitemid 351749762)
26. Hu, Y., & Sundar, S. S. (2010). Effects of online health sources on credibility and behavioral intentions. Communication Research, 37(1), 105-132.
27. Jensen, J. D. (2008). Scientific uncertainty in news coverage of cancer research: Effects of hedging on scientists' and journalists' credibility. Human Communication Research, 34(3), 347-369.
28. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
29. Kang, H., Bae, K., Zhang, Shaoke, & Sundar, S. (2011). Source cues in online news: Is the proximate source more powerful than distal sources? Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 88(4), 719-736.
30. Kim, S. (2010). Questioners' credibility judgments of answers in a social question and answer site. Information Research 15(2), paper 432. Retrieved 11.02.12.
31. Koh, Y. J., & Sundar, S. S. (2010). Heuristic versus systematic processing of specialist versus generalist sources in online media. Human Communication Research, 36, 103-124.
32. Lackaff, D., & Cheong, P. (2008). Communicating authority online: Perceptions and interpretations of Internet credibility among college students. The Open Communication Journal, 2, 143-155.
33. Liao, Q. V., & Fu, W. -T. (2011). Effects of aging and individual differences on credibility judgment of online health information. In Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society: CogSci 2011 Proceedings (pp. 384-389). The Cognitive Science Society.
34. Lim, S. (2009). How and why do college students use Wikipedia? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(11), 2189-2202.
35. Lim, S., & Simon, C. (2011). Credibility judgment and verification behavior of college students concerning Wikipedia. First Monday, 16(4). Retrieved 20.02.12.
36. Lucassen, T., Noordzij, M. L., & Schraagen, J. M. (2011). Reference blindness: The influence of references on trust in Wikipedia. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Science Conference 2011 ACM.
37. Metzger, M. J. (2007). 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, 58(13), 2078-2091. (Pubitemid 350229710)
38. Metzger, M. J., & Flanagin, A. J. (2011). Using Web 2.0 technologies to enhance evidence-based medical information. Journal of Health Communication, 16, 45-58.
39. Metzger, M. J., Flanagin, A. J., & Medders, R. B. (2010). Social and heuristic approaches to credibility evaluation online. Journal of Communication, 60, 413-439.
40. Meyer, P. (1988). Defining and measuring credibility of newspapers: Developing an index. Journalism Quarterly, 65, 567-574.
41. Newhagen, J., & Nass, C. (1989). Differential criteria for evaluating credibility of newspapers and TV news. The Journalism Quarterly, 66(2), 277-284.
42. Petty, R. E., & Brinol, P. (2011). The Elaboration likelihood model. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology: Volume one (pp. 224-245). Sage Publications Ltd.
43. Petty, R. E., & Brinol, P. (2008). Psychological processes underlying persuasion: A social psychological approach. Diogenes, 217, 52-67.
44. Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1999). The Elaboration likelihood model: Current status and controversies. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (1st ed., pp. 41-72). New York, NY: The Guildford Press.
45. Pew Internet and American Life Project (February 2012). What Internet users do on a typical day. Pew Research Center. Retrieved 27.06.12.
46. Pritchard, D. (2010). Cognitive ability and the extended cognition thesis. Synthese, 175, 133-151.
47. Rains, S. A., & Karmikel, C. D. (2009). Health information-seeking and perceptions of website credibility: Examining web-use orientation, message characteristics, and structural features of websites. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 544-553.
48. Reinhard, M.-A., & Sporer, S. L. (2010). Content versus source cue information as a basis for credibility judgments: The impact of task involvement. Social Psychology, 41(2), 93-104.
49. Rieh, S. Y. (2010). Credibility and cognitive authority of information. In Marcia J. Bates & M. N. Maack (Eds.), Encyclopedia of library and information science (3rd ed., pp. 1337-1344). New York, NY: CRC Press.
50. 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.
51. Self, C. C. (2009). Credibility. In D. W. Stacks & M. B. Salwen (Eds.), An integrated approach to communication theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 435-456). New York, NY: Routledge.
52. Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99-118.
53. Simon, H. A. (1990). Invariants of human behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 1-19.
54. Simon, H. A. (1979). Rational choice and the structure of the environment (1956). In H. A. Simon (Ed.), Models of thought (pp. 20-28). New Haven: Yale University.
55. Simon, H. A. (1997). Rationality in administrative behavior. In H. A. Simon (Ed.), Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organizations (4th ed., pp. 87-91). New York: The Free Press.
56. Sundar, S. S., Xu, Q., & Oeldorf-Hirsch, A. (2009). Authority vs. peer: How interface cues influence users. In Proceedings of the 27th international conference extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems (CHI'09) (pp. 4231-4236).
57. Sundar, S. S. (2008). The MAIN Model: A heuristic approach to understanding technology effects on credibility. In M. J. Metzger & A. J. Flanagin (Eds.), Digital media, youth, and credibility (pp. 73-100). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
58. Todd, P. M. (2002). Fast and frugal heuristics for environmentally bounded minds. In G. Gigerenzer & R. Selten (Eds.), Bounded rationality: The adaptive toolbox (pp. 51-70). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
59. Tormala, Z. L., & Petty, R. (2004). Source credibility and attitude certainty: A metacognitive analysis of resistance to persuasion. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(4), 427-442. (Pubitemid 39583460)
60. Tseng, S., & Fogg, B. J. (1999). Credibility and computing technology. Communications of the ACM, 42(5), 39-44. (Pubitemid 129576737)
61. Tsfati, Y., & Cappella, J. N. (2005). Why do people watch news they do not trust? The need for cognition as a moderator in the association between news media skepticism and exposure. Media Psychology, 7, 251-271. (Pubitemid 41175620)
62. Wang, Z., Walther, J. B., Pingree, S., & Hawkins, R. P. (2008). Health information, credibility, homophily, and influence via the Internet: Web sites versus discussion groups. Health Communication, 23, 358-368.
63. Wathen, 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), 133-144.
64. Wikipedia: Article feedback tool (2011). Retrieved 27.02.12.
65. Wikipedia: Version 1.0 editorial team/assessment (2011). Retrieved 27.02.12.