A Further Examination of the Relationship between Source Expertise and Source Similarity

Abstract

problems with the research presented. Each of these areas will be addressed with the ultimate evaluation of the study left up to the reader. As stated in the article, the purpose of the study was to investigate the relationship between source expertise and source similarity (13:49). The study was neither perceived as nor intended to be anything more than an exploratory investigation (13:50). The first criticism offered by Bone, et al. was that there was little solid conceptual justification for the study and that the focus of the study should have been directed at clarifying source characteristics' effectiveness in terms of persuasion or some other response measure. While this is a worthwhile goal, in light of the numerous conflicting results which have been reported relating to the effectiveness of a similar or expert source (1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 14) and given the discussion which has occurred about possible explanations of these results (10, 11, 12), a different approach seemed warranted. Specifically, as argued by Swartz, the relationship between expertise and similarity had not yet been investigated. If a positive relationship between expertise and similarity were to be observed, the research focus should shift from trying to determine which source characteristic should be emphasized to achieve effectiveness (since a source possessing one characteristic would also possess the other) to assessing what factors impact source effectiveness. The new research direction would center on determining why a particular source type (i.e., expert) is effective for one communication but not another. The second criticism offered by Bone et al. was that there was a lack of definitions of the constructs investigated. While both expertise and similarity were