Psychological approaches to credibility assessment online

The Handbook of the Psychology of Communication Technology

Volumn , Issue , 2015, Pages 445-466

  Metzger, Miriam J ^a   Flanagin, Andrew J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Contemporary media environment; Credibility assessment online; Credibility evaluation; Information assessment; Information processing; Psychological approaches; Social interaction

Indexed keywords

EID: 84929100899     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1002/9781118426456.ch20     Document Type: Chapter

References (90)

1. Bakshy, E., Karrer, B., & Adamic, L. A. (2009). Social influence and the diffusion of user-created content. Proceedings of the Tenth ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce (EC09) (pp. 325-334). Stanford, CA: ACM.
2. Brem, S. K., Russell, J., & Weems, L. (2001). Science on the web: Student evaluations of scientific arguments. Discourse Processes, 32(2-3), 191-213.
3. Byerly, G., & Brodie, C. S. (2005, April). Internet (and/or institutional) credibility and the user. Paper presented at the Internet Credibility and the User Symposium at the University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
4. Callister, T. A., Jr. (2000). Media literacy: On-ramp to the literacy of the 21st century or cul-de-sac on the information superhighway. Advances in Reading/Language Research, 7, 403-420.
5. 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.
6. Chaiken, S. (1987). The heuristic model of persuasion. In M. P. Zanna, J. M. Olsen, & C. P. Herman (Eds.), Social influence: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 5, pp. 3-39). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
7. Chaiken, S., & Trope, Y. (1999). Dual-process theories in social psychology. New York, NY: 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, NY: Guilford Press.
9. Cosley, D., Lam, S. K, Albert, I., Konstan, J. A., & Riedl, J. (2003). Is seeing believing? How recommender system interfaces affect users’ opinions. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '03), Vancouver, Canada.
10. Danielson, D. R. (2005). Web credibility. In C. Ghaoui (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human-computer interaction (pp. 713-721). Hersey, PA: Idea Group.
11. Del Giudice, K. V. (2010). Trust on the web: The impact of social consensus on information credibility (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL. Retrieved from http://purl.fcla.edu/fcla/etd/CFE0003240
12. Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 629-636.
13. Donath, J. (2007). Signals in social supernets. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), Article 12. Retrieved from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/donath.html
14. Eastin, M. S., Yang, M. S., & Nathanson, A. I. (2006). Children of the net: An empirical exploration into the evaluation of Internet content. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 50(2), 211-230.
15. Eysenbach, G. (2008). Credibility of health information and digital media: New perspective and implications for youth. In M. J. Metzger & A. J. Flanagin (Eds.), Digital media, youth, and credibility (pp. 123-154). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
16. Fink-Shamit, N., & Bar-Ilan, J. (2008). Information quality assessment on the web-An expression of behaviour. Information Research, 13(4), 357. Retrieved from http://informationr.net/ir/13-4/paper357.html
17. Flanagin, A. J., Hocevar, K., & Samahito, S. (2014). Connecting with the user-generated web: How shared social identity impacts online information sharing and evaluation. Information, Communication, and Society, 17, 6, 683-694.
18. Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. J. (2000). Perceptions of internet information credibility. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 77, 515-540.
19. 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.
20. Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. J. (2008). Digital media and youth: Unparalleled opportunity and unprecedented responsibility (pp. 5-27). In M. J. Metzger & A. J. Flanagin (Eds.), Digital media, youth, and credibility. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
21. Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. J. (2010). Kids and credibility: An empirical examination of youth, digital media use, and information credibility. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
22. Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. J. (2011). From Encyclopedia Britannica to Wikipedia: Generational differences in the perceived credibility of online encyclopedia information. Information, Communication, and Society, 14, 355-374.
23. Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. J. (2013). Trusting expert- versus user-generated ratings online: The role of information volume, valence, and consumer characteristics. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 1626-1634.
24. Flanagin, A. J., Metzger, M. J., Pure, R., Markov, A., & Hartsell, E. (2014). Mitigating risk in ecommerce transactions: Perceptions of information credibility and the role of user-generated ratings in product quality and purchase intention. Electronic Commerce Research, 14, 1-23.
25. Fogg, B. J. (2003). Prominence-interpretation theory: Explaining how people assess credibility online. Proceedings of CHI’03, Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 722-723). New York, NY: ACM.
26. 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. Proceedings of the 2003 Conference on Designing for User Experiences, San Francisco, CA. Retrieved from http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=997078.997097
27. Fogg, B. J., & Tseng, H. (1999). The elements of computer credibility. Proceedings of the CHI '99, Human Factors in Computing Systems, Pittsburgh, PA (pp. 80-87). New York, NY: ACM.
28. Forsyth, D. R. (2010). Group dynamics (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
29. Freeman, K. S., & Spyridakis, J. H. (2004). An examination of factors that affect the credibility of online health information. Technical Communication, 51, 239-263.
30. Fritch, J. W., & Cromwell, R. L. (2002). Delving deeper into evaluation: Exploring cognitive authority on the Internet. Reference Services Review, 30, 242-254.
31. Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. (2003). Trust and TAM in online shopping: An integrated model. MIS Quarterly, 27, 51-90.
32. Gigerenzer, G., & Todd, P. M. (1999). Simple heuristics that make us smart. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
33. Gladwell, M. (2005). Blink: The power of thinking without thinking. New York, NY: Little, Brown & Company.
34. Gross, M. (1999). Imposed queries in the school library media center: A descriptive study. Library & Information Science Research, 21, 501-521.
35. Gugerty, L., Billman, D., Pirolli, P., & Elliott, A. (2007). An exploratory study of the effect of domain knowledge on internet search behavior: The case of diabetes. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 51, 775-779.
36. Hargittai, E. (2002). Second-level digital divide: Differences in people’s online skills. First Monday, 7(4), np.
37. Hesse, B. W., O’Connell, M., Augustson, E. M., Chou, W., Shaikh, A. R., & Finney Rutton, L. J. (2011). Realizing the promise of web 2.0: Engaging community intelligence. Journal of Health Communication, 16, 10-31.
38. Hilligoss, B., & Rieh, S. Y. (2008). Developing a unifying framework for credibility assessment: Construct, heuristics, and interactions in context. Information Processing & Management, 44, 1467-1484.
39. 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 from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue2/hong.html
40. Horrigan, J., & Rainie, L. (2006). When facing a tough decision, 60 million Americans now seek the internet’s help: The internet’s growing role in life’s major moments. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2006/04/19/the-internets-growing-role-in-lifes-major-moments/
41. Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. H. (1953). Communication and persuasion. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
42. 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 and Mass Communication Quarterly, 77, 865-879.
43. Johnson, T. J., & Kaye, B. K. (2002). Webelievability: A path model examining how convenience and reliance predict online credibility. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 79, 619-642.
44. Kafai, Y., & Bates, M. (1997). Internet web-searching instruction in the elementary classroom: Building a foundation for information literacy. School Library Media Quarterly, 25, 103-111.
45. Keen, A. (2007). The cult of the amateur: How today’s Internet is killing our culture and assaulting our economy. London, UK: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.
46. Kruger, J., Wirtz, D., Van Boven, L., & Altermatt, T. W. (2004). The effort heuristic. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 91-98.
47. Lane, C., & Bachmann, R. (Eds.). (1998). Trust within and between organizations: Conceptual issues and empirical applications. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
48. Lang, A. (2000). The limited capacity model of mediated message processing. Journal of Communication, 50, 46-70.
49. Madden, M., & Fox, S. (2006). Riding the waves of Web 2.0. Retrieved from http://pewresearch.org/pubs/71/riding-the-waves-of-web-20
50. McKnight, D. H., Choudhury, V., & Kacmar, C. (2002). Developing and validating trust measures for e-commerce: An integrative typology. Information Systems Research, 13, 334-359.
51. Menchen-Trevino, E., & Hargittai, E. (2011). Young adults’ credibility assessment of Wikipedia. Information, Communication and Society, 14, 24-51.
52. 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 of Information Science and Technology, 58, 2078-2091.
53. Metzger, M. J., & Flanagin, A. J. (Eds.). (2008). Digital media, youth, and credibility. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
54. Metzger, M. J., Flanagin, A. J., Eyal, K., Lemus, D. R., & McCann, R. (2003). Credibility in the 21st century: Integrating perspectives on source, message, and media credibility in the contemporary media environment. In P. Kalbfeisch (Ed.), Communication yearbook 27 (pp. 293-335). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
55. Metzger, M. J., Flanagin, A. J., & Medders, R. B. (2010). Social and heuristic approaches to credibility evaluation online. Journal of Communication, 60, 413-439.
56. Metzger, M. J., Flanagin, A. J., Pure, R., Medders, R., Markov, A., Hartsell, E., & Choi, E. (2011). Adults and credibility: An empirical examination of digital media use and information credibility. Research report prepared for the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. University of California, Santa Barbara, CA.
57. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches. Dubuque, IA: Brown.
58. Pirolli, P. (2005). Rational analyses of information foraging on the Web. Cognitive Science, 29, 343-373.
59. Pure, R. A., Markov, A. R., Mangus, J. M., Metzger, M. J., Flanagin, A. J., & Hartsell, E. H. (2013). Understanding and evaluating source expertise in an evolving media environment. In T. Takševa (Ed.), Social software and the evolution of user expertise: Future trends in knowledge creation and dissemination (pp. 37-51). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-2178-7.ch003
60. Ridings, C., Gefen, D., & Arinze, B. (2002). Some antecedents and effects of trust in virtual communities. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 11(3-4), 271-295.
61. 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.
62. Ross, L., Greene, D., & House, P. (1977). The false consensus effect: An egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 279-301.
63. Sarker, S., Valacich, S. J., & Sarker, S. (2003). Virtual team trust: Instrument development and validation in an IS educational environment. Information Resources Management Journal, 16(2), 35-55.
64. Shami, N. S., Ehrlich, K., Gay, G., & Hancock, J. T. (2009). Making sense of strangers’ expertise from signals in digital artifacts. Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York, NY: ACM.
65. Shen, C., Chiou, J., & Kuo, B. (2011). Remedies for information asymmetry in online transaction: An investigation into the impact of web page signals on auction outcome. Internet Research, 21, 154-170.
66. Sillence, E., Briggs, P., Harris, P., & Fishwick, L. (2007). How do patients evaluate and make use of online health information? Social Science & Medicine, 644, 1853-1862.
67. Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69, 99-118.
68. Solomon, P. (1993), Children’s information retrieval behavior: A case analysis of an OPAC. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 44, 245-264.
69. Sundar, S. S. (2008). The MAIN model: A heuristic approach to understanding technology effects on credibility. In M. Metzger & A. Flanagin (Eds.), Digital media, youth, and credibility (pp. 73-100). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
70. Sundar, S. S., Oeldorf-Hirsch, A., & Xu, Q. (2008). The bandwagon effect of collaborative filtering technology. Proceedings of CHI’08 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 26, 3453-3458.
71. Sundar, S. S., Xu, Q., & Oeldorf-Hirsch, A. (2009). Authority vs. peer: How interface cues influence users. Proceedings of the 27th International Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’09), 27, 4231-4236.
72. Surowiecki, J. (2005). The wisdom of crowds. New York, NY: Anchor Books.
73. Taraborelli, D. (2007, June). Soft deference: How the Web is changing the way we trust. Paper presented at the fifth European Computing and Philosophy Conference (ECAP 2007), Twente, The Netherlands.
74. Tseng, S., & Fogg, B. J. (1999). Credibility and computing technology. Communications of the ACM, 42(5), 39-44.
75. Turner, J. C., Wetherell, M. S., & Hogg, M. A. (1989). Referent informational influence and group polarization. British Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 135-147.
76. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1131.
77. Utz, S. (2010). Show me your friends and I will tell you what type of person you are: How one’s profile, number of friends, and type of friends influence impression formation on social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 15, 314-335.
78. Utz, S., Kerkhof, P., & van den Bos, J. (2012). Consumers rule: How consumer review influence perceived trustworthiness of online stores. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 11, 49-58.
79. van Dijk, J. (2006). Digital divide research, achievements and shortcomings. Poetics, 34, 221-235.
80. Wallace, R., & Kupperman, J. (1997, March). On-line search in the science classroom: Benefits and possibilities. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
81. Walther, J. B., & Parks, M. R. (2002). Cues filtered out, cues filtered in: Computer-mediated communication and relationships. In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (3rd ed., pp. 529-563). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
82. Walther, J. B., Van Der Heide, B., Hamel, L., & Shulman, H. (2009). Self-generated versus other-generated statements and impressions in computer-mediated communication: A test of warranting theory using Facebook. Communication Research, 36, 229-253.
83. Walther, J. B., Wang, Z., & Loh, T. (2004). The effect of top-level domains and advertisements on health web-site credibility. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 6(3), np.
84. 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, 133-144.
85. Weinstein, N. D. (1980). Unrealistic optimism about future life events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 806-820.
86. Weinstein, N. D. (1987). Unrealistic optimism about susceptibility to health problems: Conclusions from a community-wide sample. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 10, 481-500.
87. Wilson, P. (1983). Second-hand knowledge: An inquiry into cognitive authority. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
88. Wu, I., & Chen, J. (2005). An extension of trust and TAM model with TPB in the initial adoption of on-line tax: An empirical study. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 62, 784-808.
89. Wu, K., Zhao, Y., Zhu, Q., Tan, X., & Zheng, H (2011). A meta-analysis of the impact of trust on technology acceptance model: Investigation of moderating influence of subject and context type. International Journal of Information Management, 31, 572-581.
90. Zhu, H., Huberman, B. A., & Luon, Y. (2011). To switch or not to switch: Understanding social influence in recommender systems. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.5147