Credibility Judgments Research Articles

The Testimony or the Eyewitness? Factors That Influence Eyewitness Credibility Assessment Conducted by (Future) Fact-Finders and Laypeople

ABSTRACT Purpose This study examined how the (in)consistency of eyewitness testimony and their relationship with the defendant affect assessments of eyewitness credibility and defendant culpability, along with decision confidence. Methods Judicial apprentices (N = 125) and students (N = 115) rated the guilt and credibility of testimony after reading a case summary. Results Eyewitness-defendant relationships influenced credibility judgements but not guilt assessments. Reminiscent details reduced credibility ratings and increased culpability judgements. Future judges exhibited greater confidence than laypeople. Conclusions The findings emphasize the need for ecologically valid research involving legal professionals to better understand evidence credibility and verdict decision-making.

The Roles of Identity- and Belief-Driven Motivated Reasoning and Source Credibility in Persuasion on Climate Change Policy

Developing effective messages to promote climate action requires an understanding of how these messages are processed by different groups. Though the influence of partisan identity on this processing is well established, much less is known about the role of preexisting climate beliefs. Furthermore, scholars have recently raised the possibility that what appear to be partisan effects on message judgments may simply be byproducts of accuracy-driven differences in perceived source credibility. Three online experiments revealed evidence that speaks to these conversations. The results show that message source, political affiliation, and preexisting climate beliefs combine nonadditively to affect persuasion. Furthermore, their effects are mediated by perceived source credibility. However, the evidence also suggests that this pattern emerged not because accuracy goals drive different perceptions of credibility but because credibility judgments are equally susceptible to directional motivated reasoning.

Assessing credibility in eWOM: a meta-analysis using the heuristic-systematic model

PurposeThe current research delves into how different cues in messages (such as argument quality, usefulness and informativeness) and cues related to the source (such as credibility and expertise) contribute to the perceived credibility of electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM). The investigation also explores whether source cues influence the overall impact of message cues.Design/methodology/approachThis study synthesizes findings from 100 previous empirical works through the application of meta-analysis.FindingsThe outcomes affirm the presence of both systematic and heuristic processing, the additive effects of both message and source cues and the bias effects of source cues. Moreover, the study identifies a connection between eWOM credibility and behavioral intention. Expanding on this, the research discovers that users’ tendency to avoid uncertainty moderates the impact of message and source cues on their judgment of eWoM credibility.Originality/valueThe research contributes to the eWOM literature by providing a heuristic-systematic model of eWoM credibility judgments. It provides new insights for online sellers, who can benefit from eWoM by fostering potential buyers' behavioral intention to purchase.

Credibility Judgments in Higher Education: A Mixed-Methods Approach to Detecting Misinformation from University Instructors

Given the convenience with which information can now be acquired, it is crucial to analyze cases of potential misinformation and disinformation in postsecondary education. Instructor credibility judgments were measured using descriptive survey research, and the main objective was to investigate trends related to misinformation, credibility, trust, bias, and others in graduate students and on a graduate program basis. Participants were surveyed from a land grant institution in the southeast United States where 186 graduate students completed an electronic survey on the detection of misinformation and similar experiences. Graduate students were divided based on graduate program into STEM (sciences, technology, engineering, and mathematics) and non-STEM groups. Quantitative methodologies included validated questionnaires developed by researchers containing Likert-type scale questions. Chi-square tests of independence and frequencies served as primary analyses. Participants in both STEM and non-STEM groups detected the following: misinformation, bias, challenges, intimidation, risk of measurable consequences, pressure to conform, and skepticism from post-secondary instructors. There were significant differences between the type of student for trust in claims (p < 0.05), while the perception of potential consequences tended to be different between the types of graduate students (0.05 < p < 0.10). Participants in both STEM and non-STEM groups reported perception bias in science material presentation, with STEM students reporting less bias. Qualitative methodologies included optional open response boxes to provide supporting details or narratives. Reliable and validated thematic coding following served as the primary analysis. Students disciplined in STEM and non-STEM faced misinformation, bias, challenges, intimidation, risk of measurable consequences, pressure to conform, and skepticism from post-secondary instructors. Graduate students reported consistent instances of misinformation and bias about science and agriculture topics in both science and non-science-focused classrooms.

Conversational presentation mode increases credibility judgements during information search with ChatGPT

People increasingly use large language model (LLM)-based conversational agents to obtain information. However, the information these models provide is not always factually accurate. Thus, it is critical to understand what helps users adequately assess the credibility of the provided information. Here, we report the results of two preregistered experiments in which participants rated the credibility of accurate versus partially inaccurate information ostensibly provided by a dynamic text-based LLM-powered agent, a voice-based agent, or a static text-based online encyclopedia. We found that people were better at detecting inaccuracies when identical information was provided as static text compared to both types of conversational agents, regardless of whether information search applications were branded (ChatGPT, Alexa, and Wikipedia) or unbranded. Mediation analysis overall corroborated the interpretation that a conversational nature poses a threat to adequate credibility judgments. Our research highlights the importance of presentation mode when dealing with misinformation.

Believe It or Not? Investigating the Credibility of Voice Assistants in the Context of Social Roles and Relationship Types

Recent advancements in artificial intelligence have empowered voice assistants to comprehend user input and provide contextually relevant responses more effectively. This paper aims to explore people’s relationship with voice assistants, examining factors like the sense of power, control, closeness, and parasocial relationships, and how relationship types relate to the credibility of voice assistants. To investigate this, we built on the foundation of interpersonal relationships and applied parasocial relationship theory as a framework for understanding the human–agent relationship. We conducted an online survey (N = 393). Our results show that people mainly perceive their relationship with voice assistants as either a servant–master relationship, student–teacher relationship, or equal partnership. This study highlights that voice assistants’ mimicry of human characteristics can make them more than tools—they can also be perceived as servants, teachers, or equal partners. Notably, a significant association exists between relationship type and credibility judgments towards voice assistants.

Nurse judgements of hospitalized patients' safety concerns are affected by patient, nurse and event characteristics: A factorial survey experiment.

To test the influences of patient, safety event and nurse characteristics on nurse judgements of credibility, importance and intent to report patients' safety concerns. Factorial survey experiment. A total of 240 nurses were recruited and completed an online survey including demographic information and responses to eight factorial vignettes consisting of unique combinations of eight patient and event factors. Hierarchical multivariate analysis was used to test influences of vignette factors and nurse characteristics on nurse judgements. The intraclass coefficients for nurse judgements suggest that the variation among nurses exceeded the influence of contextual vignette factors. Several significant sources of nurse variation were identified, including race/ethnicity, suggesting a complex relationship between nurses' characteristics and their potential biases, and the influence of personal and patient factors on nurses' judgements, including the decision to report safety concerns. Nurses are key players in the system to manage patient safety concerns. Variation among nurses and how they respond to scenarios of patient safety concerns highlight the need for nurse-level intervention. Complex factors influence nurses' judgement, interpretation and reporting of patients' safety concerns. Understanding nurse judgement regarding patient-expressed safety concerns is critical for designing processes and systems that promote reporting. Multiple event and patient characteristics (type of event and apparent harm, and patient gender, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and communication approach) as well as participant characteristics (race/ethnicity, gender, years of experience and primary hospital area) impacted participants' judgements of credibility, degree of concern and intent to report. These findings will help guide patient safety nurse education and training. STROBE guidelines. Members of the public, including patient advocates, were involved in content validation of the vignette scenarios, norming photographs used in the factorial survey and testing the survey functionality.

Virtual lab coats: The effects of verified source information on social media post credibility.

Social media platform's lack of control over its content made way to the fundamental problem of misinformation. As users struggle with determining the truth, social media platforms should strive to empower users to make more accurate credibility judgements. A good starting point is a more accurate perception of the credibility of the message's source. Two pre-registered online experiments (N = 525;N = 590) were conducted to investigate how verified source information affects perceptions of Tweets (study 1) and generic social media posts (study 2). In both studies, participants reviewed posts by an unknown author and rated source and message credibility, as well as likelihood of sharing. Posts varied by the information provided about the account holder: (1) none, (2) the popular method of verified source identity, or (3) verified credential of the account holder (e.g., employer, role), a novel approach. The credential was either relevant to the content of the post or not. Study 1 presented the credential as a badge, whereas study 2 included the credential as both a badge and a signature. During an initial intuitive response, the effects of these cues were generally unpredictable. Yet, after explanation how to interpret the different source cues, two prevalent reasoning errors surfaced. First, participants conflated source authenticity and message credibility. Second, messages from sources with a verified credential were perceived as more credible, regardless of whether this credential was context relevant (i.e., virtual lab coat effect). These reasoning errors are particularly concerning in the context of misinformation. In sum, credential verification as tested in this paper seems ineffective in empowering users to make more accurate credibility judgements. Yet, future research could investigate alternative implementations of this promising technology.

Dynamic source credibility and its impacts on knowledge revision.

Corrections to readers' misconceptions should result in higher belief when information sources are of high credibility. However, evaluations of credibility may be malleable, and we do not yet fully understand how changes to a source's credibility influence readers' credibility evaluations and knowledge revision outcomes. Thus, in two experiments, we examined how updating a source's credibility (Experiment 1: initially neutral sources later updated to be high-, low-, or neutral-credibility sources; Experiment 2: initially high- or low-credibility sources later updated to be low- or high-credibility sources) influenced knowledge revision and source credibility evaluations after readers engaged with refutation and non-refutation texts. Results showed that readers revised their credibility judgments from neutral-, high-, and low-credibility initial evaluations, indicating that source judgments are malleable rather than fixed. In addition, refutations from sources that are later revealed to be of high credibility can facilitate revision of both knowledge and initial source credibility evaluations.

Peer-supplied credibility labels as an online misinformation intervention

Misinformation is rampant on social media, and existing platform-supplied interventions offer limited effectiveness. In this study, we examine the effectiveness of credibility labels that dispute the accuracy of information when they are supplied by one’s peers at different levels of relationship closeness and political agreement. We investigate four variants of these labels using a 2 (strong vs. weak tie strength) x 2 (high vs. low political agreement) between-subjects factorial design. We find that credibility disputes raised by one’s co-partisans (peers with similar political beliefs) significantly reduced belief in misinformation, irrespective of one’s relationship closeness with the peer. Our findings also reveal that in contrast to prior literature, a peer’s knowledgeability may be more potent than trustworthiness in causing belief change, and that trust can sometimes manifest even in the credibility judgement of distant peers, when perceived to have expertise or a fact-checking tendency. We further highlight the dual nature of these credibility labels, discussing scenarios in which disputes by hyper-partisan members of the opposite party can enforce belief in misinformation. We conclude by discussing how peer-supplied credibility disputes can benefit social media, especially echo chambers with high political homophily, where disputes by a co-partisan may be met with less resistance and persuade significantly reduced belief in fake news.

The authenticity crisis

Authenticity of information is a term with a clear meaning, not in law, but in the area of information security. There, it involves two aspects, called source-authenticity and message-authenticity; they guarantee certainty about the origin of information, and about its integrity. Authenticity differs from veracity: whether information is true (holds) or not is independent of its authenticity. The authenticity crisis described in the title of this paper refers to the destabilising impact of the lack of authenticity of online information, for instance in fake news. The paper proposes systematic use of digital signatures to guarantee authenticity. A crucial point is that authenticity may be organised via technical means (namely via digital signatures), whereas veracity can not. Authenticity-guarantees make institutions recognisable online and provide people with useful tools for making their own credibility judgements.

Easy to read, easy to judge: Assessing readability as a heuristic for credibility in news

Despite calls for journalists and media agencies to address a disconnect between news audiences and news prose, content continues to increase in its difficulty to read and comprehend for the masses. While readability is often associated with audience comprehension and engagement, studies have neglected to assess whether readability is a factor in audience assessments of the credibility of content. Using an online experimental design, this study examines whether readability acts as a heuristic that helps news consumers make credibility judgments of news. Results show that readability tends not to be a predictor of credibility perception, regardless of partisanship strength or media use preferences. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Consumer responses to human-AI collaboration at organizational frontlines: strategies to escape algorithm aversion in content creation

AbstractAlthough Artificial Intelligence can offer significant business benefits, many consumers have negative perceptions of AI, leading to negative reactions when companies act ethically and disclose its use. Based on the pervasive example of content creation (e.g., via tools like ChatGPT), this research examines the potential for human-AI collaboration to preserve consumers' message credibility judgments and attitudes towards the company. The study compares two distinct forms of human-AI collaboration, namely AI-supported human authorship and human-controlled AI authorship, with traditional human authorship or full automation. Building on the compensatory control theory and the algorithm aversion concept, the study evaluates whether disclosing a high human input share (without explicit control) or human control over AI (with lower human input share) can mitigate negative consumer reactions. Moreover, this paper investigates the moderating role of consumers’ perceived morality of companies’ AI use. Results from two experiments in different contexts reveal that human-AI collaboration can alleviate negative consumer responses, but only when the collaboration indicates human control over AI. Furthermore, the effects of content authorship depend on consumers' moral acceptance of a company's AI use. AI authorship forms without human control lead to more negative consumer responses in case of low perceived morality (and no effects in case of high morality), whereas messages from AI with human control were not perceived differently to human authorship, irrespective of the morality level. These findings provide guidance for managers on how to effectively integrate human-AI collaboration into consumer-facing applications and advises to take consumers' ethical concerns into account.

Language as a Source of Epistemic Injustice in Organisations

AbstractAlthough there is now a substantial body of literature exploring the effects of language diversity in international management contexts, little attention has been paid to the ethical dimensions of language diversity at work. This conceptual paper draws on the concept of epistemic injustice in order to explore how language, and in particular corporate language policies, may act as a source of epistemic injustice within the workplace. It demonstrates how language competence affects credibility judgements about a speaker, and also considers how corporate language policies can create situations of hermeneutic injustice, in which marginalised groups are denied the vocabularies to understand their own experiences. Finally, ways in which such epistemic harms can be reduced are discussed, and the possibilities for management education to create epistemically responsible managers are highlighted.

Taking the Pulse of Georgia Local Election Officials After Senate Bill 202

In the aftermath of Republicans’ stinging losses in 2020 and 2021, which contributed to relinquishing the presidency and U.S. Senate majority, respectively, Georgia’s GOP lawmakers passed comprehensive electoral reform in Senate Bill (SB) 202. In this Field Note, we outline SB 202’s major provisions, and then present results of a survey querying Georgia local election officials (LEOs) to assess how SB 202 affected administrative performance in the 2022 midterm elections. Unquestionably, SB 202’s raft of reforms greatly altered Georgia’s administrative apparatus, but it is anything but clear that these changes in the aggregate either improved or detracted from the system it replaced. Indeed, the most credible judgment rendered from LEOs, is that administrative performance is case-specific, and therefore highly contingent upon the reform of interest.

How Affective Polarization Deepens the Partisan Divide in US Cable News Use

Abstract: Currently, not only are partisans’ feelings toward Democrats and Republicans sharply divided along party lines, but so too are their choices regarding news media. Regarding this polarization, most studies have considered partisans’ selective use of news outlets as a crucial factor in widening affective polarization. However, insufficient attention has been directed to the potential role of affective polarization in selective exposure. Accordingly, this study seeks to fill this gap by verifying the effect of affective polarization on selective exposure and examining a potential mechanism using two-wave panel data. Our findings demonstrate that the degree of affective polarization is positively related to partisan bias in the credibility judgment of pro-party and counter-party cable news channels. In turn, favorable in-group bias in the credibility judgment of cable news channels has a significant effect on selective exposure to cable news outlets, mediating the effect of individual-level affective polarization on selective exposure. Lastly, we discuss the theoretical implications of our findings.

Investigation on wireless communication reliability planning in cloud computing mMTC scenarios

With the development of cloud computing technology, cloud computing has been applied in various fields, but there is a lack of research in the Massive Machine Type Communication (mMTC) scenario. This article analyzed wireless communication reliability solutions in cloud computing mMTC scenarios to address this issue. Using the method of cloud computing, this article analyzed the reliability of wireless communication schemes and verified the effectiveness of the algorithm through credibility judgment and algorithm convergence characteristics under the guidance of wireless communication schemes. By analyzing the application of cloud computing in wireless communication solutions, this article analyzed the effectiveness of wireless communication solutions in the experimental section by comparing the error rate, success rate, and convergence of various algorithms. Through experimental analysis, it was found that the implementation success rate of chaotic particle swarm optimization algorithm was 5% higher than that of adaptive particle swarm optimization. The results indicated that cloud computing was well applied in wireless communication networks, thus providing reference significance for the application of cloud computing in other communication fields.

The effects of self-disclosure and gender on a climate scientist's credibility and likability on social media.

To examine whether different types of disclosure made by climate scientists on social media influence perceived source credibility (i.e. competence, integrity, benevolence) and likability, we conducted a 2 (self-disclosure type: personal vs political) × 3 (proportion of posts including a self-disclosure: 20% vs 50% vs 80%) × 2 (gender identity of scientist: male vs female) between-subjects experiment (N = 734). We found that people liked the scientist more for a personal than political disclosure, rated them as being more competent for a political disclosure, and liked a female scientist more than a male scientist. However, scientist's gender did not moderate the effect of disclosure type or the effect of participants' gender. Our results suggest distinct benefits when scientists deliver different types of messages on social media, although disclosure is unlikely to have substantial effects on lay judgments of scientists' credibility.

Factors Associated With Information Credibility Perceptions: A Meta-Analysis

Research on factors influencing information credibility judgment is increasing, whereas their findings are mixed. This study conducted a meta-analysis of 85 empirical studies, synthesizing the effects of 12 frequently examined source, content, channel, and receiver factors on information credibility perception. Results reveal that message quality, source credibility, and message fluency have large correlations with credibility perception, while other factors show small-to-medium correlations. Personal topic knowledge does not have a significant relationship with credibility perception. Gender composition, information channel, topic, and research method significantly moderate the aggregated relationships. The theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

The effect of individual differences in episodic future thought on credibility in occupation interviews

AbstractIn this paper, we describe three experiments that explored whether individual differences in episodic future thought (EFT) ability affects credibility when participants told the truth and lied about their occupation. Credibility was measured by the number of perceptual details, statement length, level of detail and plausibility in verbal accounts and sketches (Experiment 1) and by other participants' veracity judgments of the verbal accounts (Experiment 2) and sketches (Experiment 3). In Experiment 1, participants with higher EFT ability generated more detailed verbal accounts and more plausible sketches than those with lower EFT ability. In Experiments 2 and 3, EFT ability did not predict veracity judgements of the verbal accounts or sketches derived from Experiment 1. The findings across all experiments suggest that EFT ability affects the ability to generate credible accounts however, EFT ability does not affect credibility judgements.