Public Trust or Mistrust?: Perceptions of Media Credibility in the Information
Age
By
Spiro Kiousis
Doctoral Student
Department of Journalism
University of Texas
Austin, TX 78712
(512) 719-5572
[log in to unmask]
Submitted to the AEJMC annual conference in New Orleans, LA August 4-7, 1999
* The author would like to thank Dr. Nick Lasorsa and Dr. Jim Tankard for their
helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper. Public Trust or Mistrust?:
Perceptions of Media Credibility in the Information Age
Abstract
This paper explores perceptions of news credibility for television, newspapers,
and online news. A survey was administered to a randomly selected sample of
residents in Austin, Texas, to assess people's attitudes toward these three
media channels. Contingent factors that might influence news credibility
perceptions, such as media use and interpersonal discussion of news, were also
incorporated into the analysis. Findings suggest that people are generally
skeptical of news emanating from all three media channels but do rate newspapers
with the highest credibility, followed by online news, and television news
respectively. Furthermore, opinions about news credibility seem to be
correlated across media outlets. The data show a moderate linkage between
interpersonal discussion of news and perceptions of media credibility for
television news but not for newspapers and online news. Finally, a marginal
association between media use and public perceptions of credibility for
newspapers and television was found but not for online news.
Submitted to the AEJMC annual conference in New Orleans, LA August 4-7, 1999
Public Trust or Mistrust?: Perceptions of Media Credibility in the Information
Age
Public Trust or Mistrust?: Perceptions of Media Credibility in the Information
Age
Background
Introduction
Media credibility research has been an integral part of mass communication
scholarship since the field's earliest days. Whereas the seminal work on
credibility concentrated on dimensions of source credibility (e.g., Hovland &
Weiss, 1951), more contemporary literature has highlighted variations in the
perceived credibility attributed to different channels (e.g., Rimmer & Weaver,
1987). Despite this expanded scope in research, the realm of online news has
just recently been explored in media credibility analyses (e.g., Johnson & Kaye,
1998). Though helpful, such inquiries are restricted because they have normally
been based on samples of Internet users. Indeed, Johnson & Kaye (1998), who
performed a survey of news credibility on politically interested online users,
recommend that "future studies could be conducted among the general population
to determine the degree to which the Internet is viewed as credible and whether
it is indeed judged as more trustworthy than traditionally delivered
counterparts" (p. 335). Accordingly, the purpose of this project is to
ascertain how credible people believe online news to be in comparison to
television and print news through a probability sample of the general population
in one city.
To answer this broad research question, a survey was administered to a randomly
selected sample of residents in Austin, Texas, to assess people's perceptions of
news credibility. Specifically, media credibility was gauged by asking
respondents how they rated news from television, newspapers, and the Internet in
terms of factuality, profit making, privacy, community well-being, and
trustworthiness. Contingent factors that might affect perceptions of news
credibility were also examined, including media use and interpersonal
communication patterns.
Source Credibility
Before delving into more pertinent literature on the credibility of various
media channels,[1] it is critical that we review the general literature on
source credibility because most studies probing channel credibility are anchored
in this fundamental theoretical framework. The earliest research on credibility
investigated how modifications in source characteristics influenced people's
willingness to alter their attitudes on certain topics (e.g., Hovland et al.,
1953; Hovland et al., 1949). Carl Hovland and his associates ran a series of
experiments to determine what combinations of communicator qualities induced
attitude change in subjects. Usually, the steps involved in their research were
measuring subject attitudes on an issue, exposing them to manipulated messages
based on different source qualities, and then measuring attitude change after
the initial exposure. Source expertise and trustworthiness were envisaged as
two central attributes of source credibility.
Source, in these early investigations, was typically defined as an individual
mass communicator, such as a newscaster or world leader. However, Hovland et
al. (1953) did acknowledge that "the impact of a message probably depends also
upon the particular publication or channel through which it is transmitted"
(p.19). Therefore, even in these inaugural explorations, researchers
differentiated between attitudes toward the communicator and opinions about the
medium. This is a pivotal distinction upon which the current project hinges
because aspects of source credibility are not to be confused with elements of
medium credibility, although the two obviously do overlap.
The mass communication theory that underscored much of the early source
credibility work was the two-step flow model of communication. This theory
posits that mass media indirectly affect audiences by exerting influence on a
few "opinion leaders" in individual communities, who in turn, may shift the
attitudes of others within those same communities (Lazarsfeld et al., 1944;
Lazarsfeld & Merton, 1948; Berelson et al., 1954). The relevance of this model
to credibility research is that it synthesized how interpersonal communication
about news might shape people's perceptions of credibility. It suggests that
reliance on interpersonal communication is associated with reliance on mass
media, possibly transforming people's perceptions of credibility with the press
(a question that will be scrutinized in the current project). It should be
mentioned, however, that the two-step flow model has been strongly challenged by
scholars (e.g., Rogers & Shoemaker, 1971; Lin, 1971; Chaffee & Hochheimer,
1985), yet is germane because it offers a conceptual base that merges the impact
of media exposure and interpersonal discussion onto mass communication
processes.
Despite the many contributions flowing from the Hovland Model, scholars soon
criticized its vision of source credibility as too simplistic and static
(Markham, 1968). Berlo et al. (1970), for instance, presumed that source
credibility was "multidimensional" and that the factors identified by Hovland
had no theoretical foundation, nor had they withstood the rigors of empirical
testing. Through a series of factor analyses of semantic differential scales,
Berlo and his colleagues claimed that source credibility entailed safety,
qualifications, and dynamism.[2] Meanwhile, Whitehead (1968) added competency
and objectivity as vital components of credibility.[3] Indeed, one overarching
pattern that has resonated in credibility research is that academics have failed
to fully agree on the core dimensions of the concept.
More recent work on source credibility monitors public perceptions of political
candidates and individual journalists (e.g., Andsager, 1990; Pfau & Kang, 1991).
The primary method for such inquiries has been the controlled experiment in the
Hovland tradition. Slater & Rouner (1996), for example, submit that the
internal characteristics of messages, such as their aesthetic presentation or
their actual content, can also sway perceptions of source credibility. Hence,
credibility appears to be a variable that can be studied within the context of
the communicator, channel, or message itself. In addition, discussions
attempting to deal with the methodological problems of operationalizing the
intricate concept continue to linger (Infante, 1980). While a great deal of
knowledge has been accumulated from the experimental approach of designating
credibility as an attribute of the source, to understand differences in public
opinion concerning channel credibility, we must also visit the vast survey
research dedicated to this topic.
Medium Credibility
Westley and Severin (1964) are credited with conducting the first comprehensive
analysis of news credibility across media outlets. In their classic study, the
scholars noted that certain demographic variables (e.g., age, education, &
gender) mediate people's perceptions of news credibility. Moreover, they
discriminated between perceptions of media credibility and media preference. In
other words, people did not always feel their most preferred medium was the most
credible. They also found that television news was typically deemed more
accurate than print news. Some of the more important issues that surfaced from
this examination were: (1) to what extent did media use influence news
credibility ratings; (2) was the trend for high television credibility
consistent; and (3) were people's general perceptions of credibility uniform
across media channels (questions pursued in this study as well).
Media Credibility Scales
Paralleling the literature on source credibility, news media credibility
research has also been plagued by methodological concerns. The primary debate
revolves around how many factors news credibility scales actually measure. The
Gaziano & McGrath (1986) news credibility index is the most popular, although
some controversy has been generated from its application. In their initial
analysis, Gaziano & McGrath performed a factor analysis that located one
dominant factor of news credibility. Meanwhile, Meyer (1988) alleged that their
scale actually gauges two properties of news credibility: believability and
community affiliation. West (1994), attempting to compare the reliability of
both models using covariance structure modeling, found that Meyer's
believability dimension was reliable but the community affiliation dimension was
not. In addition, West observed that the Gaziano & McGrath scale gauged more
than one factor. On the other hand, Rimmer & Weaver (1987) report a Cronbach's
alpha score of .90 for a credibility scale based on Gaziano & McGrath's work,
implying that it does measure a single construct. Thus, media credibility seems
to be a concept that can be measured through a composite index or can be
subdivided into several smaller subvariables, depending upon the combination of
questions utilized (a problem addressed in the methods section).
Media Use
The early work on news credibility established that increases in media use were
usually accompanied by enhanced credibility ratings for whatever channel was
being scrutinized (Westley & Severin, 1964; Greenberg, 1966; Shaw, 1973; Cobbey,
1980). In contrast to this previous scholarship, however, Rimmer and Weaver
(1987) conjecture that media use is not strongly correlated with media
credibility, asserting that the type of question employed to estimate media use
may be distorting results. Specifically, they maintain that affective questions
of use (e.g., "Which medium do you prefer?") are normally being reported and
that actual frequency of media use measures are not necessarily connected with
news credibility ratings. Wanta & Hu (1994), in an investigation of agenda
setting, found no significant linkage between exposure (frequency of use) and
credibility but did find a relationship between reliance (how dependent
respondents said they were on a particular medium for information) and
credibility.[4] Nevertheless, the impact of media use remains enigmatic,
especially considering the rise of interactive media.
Interpersonal Discussion
Since mass media use has been linked to news credibility evaluations, it seems
that interpersonal communication behavior would also be relevant to forming such
opinions, yet it has only received minimal attention in empirical
investigations. Though media use is sometimes positively related to perceptions
of news credibility, one might surmise that a similar relationship would exist
with interpersonal discussion of news because interpersonal communication
behavior is often connected to media use (Atkin, 1972; Chaffee & McLeod, 1973;
Lenart, 1994). For example, Kraus & Davis (1976) describe a complementary
linkage between mass and interpersonal communication patterns, where people are
believed to supplement the information they secure from mass media with similar
information from interpersonal channels.
However, the complementary patterns of use do not necessarily lead to parallel
perceptions of credibility. In fact, some researchers have concluded that
expanded interpersonal communication undermines the influence of mass media on
attitudes (e.g., Erbring et al., 1980; Atwater et al., 1985). Specific to
credibility, Chaffee (1982) states that "several surveys have reported null or
even negative correlations between channel use and credibility; generally
interpersonal communication has been more prevalent in these cases" (p.63).
Moreover, McLeod et al. (1968-69) concur that interpersonal communication
patterns may account for the limited impact of media use on news media
credibility. Therefore, the literature suggests that there is an inverse
correlation between interpersonal communication and news media credibility,
although few studies have ever empirically tested this hypothesis.
Channel Credibility Competition
Several analysts indicate that television news is more credible than newspapers
(Carter & Greenberg, 1965; Lemert, 1970; Gaziano & McGrath, 1986). Indeed,
Westley & Severin's (1964) seminal study details that the "Roper's report showed
more people believe the news they learn from television than the other media..."
(p.325), a trend that has remained relatively stable in Roper polls over time.
In a more streamlined study of media credibility and news coverage of natural
disasters, Major & Atwood (1997) found that television credibility did not decay
in comparison to newspaper credibility when predicted natural disasters failed
to occur, hinting that opinions of television credibility may be more stable
than newspaper credibility perceptions.
Newhagen & Nass (1989) reason that the discrepancy in credibility ratings is
partially caused by the alternative standards people utilize to evaluate
television as opposed to newspapers. People tend to judge the journalists
delivering the news on television, but they assess the institution of the
newspaper itself when analyzing print media. Therefore, opinions of television
should be more favorable because survey respondents ally news anchors to
television credibility, in contrast to the nameless institution they link with
newspaper credibility. In short, Newhagen & Nass (1989) assert that television
news credibility is most influenced by local broadcasts, demonstrating that
television use might best be calibrated by monitoring both local and national
viewing patterns (an approach adopted for this study).
A final factor that may explain the conflicting ratings is the superior
technological quality of television news in comparison to print news. As
alluded to earlier, Slater & Rouner's (1996) discussion of message quality
proposes that peripheral characteristics about messages (e.g., their aesthetic
quality) may enhance source credibility. As a result, in the case of television
vs. print news, the ascent of television credibility ratings may have mirrored
the improvements in the technology of news transmittal over this medium. Of
course, the influence of web news (with its blending of newspaper and television
news attributes) on media credibility endures as a relatively unchartered
frontier.
There is also contradictory evidence with regard to how the credibility of
Internet information compares to traditional media, though evidence is scarce at
this point. In one of the first investigations of news credibility on the
Internet, Johnson & Kaye (1998) documented that online media are perceived as
more credible than print media, but both are judged as "somewhat" credible.
However, it is difficult to generalize their results because their sample
consisted only of politically interested Internet users and because their study
focused solely on public affairs information. On the other hand, some research
has found traditional media to be judged more credible than the Internet (e.g.,
Pew Research Center, 1996). Elsewhere, analysts have found mixed evidence
concerning the credibility of traditional and online media channels within the
same survey (e.g., Mashek et al., 1997). In an experimental setting, Sundar
(1998) discovered that the credibility of online news could be enhanced by
including quotes in stories (a technique used by traditional media outlets),
suggesting that channel credibility perceptions are similar across channels.
Due to these inconclusive findings, more empirical work is needed to understand
the dynamics of news credibility attitudes across media channels.
Uniformity of Credibility Perceptions
Whereas previous scholarship elucidates that levels of perceived news
credibility vary across channels, there is also some evidence that the general
direction of these opinions is related. For example, Gaziano & McGrath (1986)
and Newhagen & Nass (1989) convey that television and newspaper credibility are
positively correlated. Further, Chaffee (1982) and Wanta (1997) articulate that
people often seek out mass media with homogeneous content in order to reinforce
information they have just learned. As a consequence, this homogeneity in
content may partially explain why people's opinions of news credibility are
fairly consistent, since the news content they consume is also often homogenous
itself. This by no means indicates that such perceptions would be exactly the
same, just that they would be correlated.
Mapping out Credibility
According on the discussion above, we see that the boundaries between channel
and source credibility are somewhat blurred but are linked given their common
conceptual foundation. To sketch out their relationship, we argue that
credibility is defined as a characteristic of the media channel, which in turn,
is a component of the larger concept of source credibility. This depiction is
simultaneously based on the evolution of news credibility research from the
larger body of source credibility scholarship and on Hovland et al.'s (1953)
contention that source credibility is at least, to some degree, shaped by the
channel disseminating the message. Figure 1 illustrates this conceptualization.
- - - Figure 1 here - - -
This explication is more expansive than prior models (that either do not
distinguish between the terms or do not recognize their common theoretical
framework) because it allows for a separation of the concepts but admits that
they do overlap. Accordingly, this project essentially measures opinions about
media channels, but perceptions of individual sources (e.g., news anchors) will
inevitably also impact such opinions. Still, we are not exhaustively gauging
channel credibility per se because not all print, broadcast, and online media
are accounted for. While comparing credibility differences within channels
would be helpful (e.g., newspapers vs. magazines for print media), we felt the
broader channel comparison were more suitable for an exploratory study such as
this.
Significance of the Study
One key question that comes to the forefront at this juncture in news
credibility research is how will the proliferation of new technologies shift
public perceptions of news credibility? Will the credibility of newspapers
continue to plummet or will the presence of competing news sources cut into
people's trust of television news? The primary contribution of this study will
be to focus on such issues. Secondly, it is hoped that this project can also
serve as replication for previous trends that have been documented in media
credibility research. Ultimately then, this project should bolster our
comprehension of news credibility in the information age.
Hypotheses & Research Questions
According to the literature comparing television and newspaper credibility
ratings (e.g., Carter & Greenberg, 1965):
H1: Television news will be judged as more credible than newspapers.
Based on the conclusions of Gaziano & McGrath (1986) and Chaffee (1982)
regarding people's tendency to seek out homogenous content from mass media:
H2: People's perceptions of news credibility will be positively correlated
across all three media.
(Please note that this hypothesis does not contradict Hypothesis 1 because it
speculates
only on the direction of media credibility ratings, not the differences among
them).
Building on the literature suggesting that interpersonal communication behavior
reduces trust in media outlets (e.g., McLeod et al., 1968-69):
H3: The amount of interpersonal communication respondents devote to discussing
news will be negatively correlated to their perceptions of news credibility.
To assess the relationship between media use and perceived credibility and to
provide credibility ratings across media outlets, the following research
questions were also advanced:
RQ1: Will media use be related to perceived credibility?
RQ2: Which type of news medium will respondents rate most credible?
Method
Data Collection
The data were obtained from a cross-sectional survey conducted on a sample of
randomly selected residents in Austin, Texas, between February 26 and March 8,
1998. Students from two undergraduate and one graduate course administered the
survey from the University of Texas at Austin. All students were trained in
interviewing protocol and on the ethics of survey research. A technique called
"plus-one random digit dialing" was implemented to acquire a representative
sample (Poindexter & McCombs, 1997). Specifically, the sample was based on
telephone numbers in the "Greater Austin" Southwestern Bell phone book.
Respondents were selected by utilizing a computer program that randomly
generated page, column, and line numbers in the phone book for interviewers to
locate. Once found, 1 was added to the last digit of the base telephone number
and the interview was attempted (this step ensured that unlisted phone numbers
would also be included in the sample). If unsuccessful, the interviewer would
try back up to five times before repeating the process for a new number.
Comparisons to 1990 Census data show that the collected sample adequately
represented the area's population (see Appendix A for breakdowns of sample and
1990 Census data). The efficiency of reaching potential households in the
survey was 66%.[5] Of those reached, 818 people finished the survey for a
completion rate of 61%.[6] All figures fall within acceptable parameters for
survey data.
Media Credibility Index
To test the hypotheses and probe the research questions, survey respondents
were asked their opinions on news credibility for television, newspapers, and
online news. While media credibility has been gauged in several ways, five
indicators that consistently emerge in research are: how factual a medium is,
the extent to which it is motivated by money, whether it invades people's
privacy, what is its concern for the community, and whether it can be trusted
(Meyer, 1988; Gaziano & McGrath, 1986; Wanta, 1997; Johnson & Kaye, 1998).
Thus, these items comprised the media credibility index employed for this study.
This abbreviated scale was used because some researchers have suggested that the
original Gaziano & McGrath scale might be redundant and lengthy (e.g., Meyer,
1988; Rimmer & Weaver, 1987). At the same time, these questions were
comprehensive enough to touch on the believability and community affiliation
aspects of credibility employed by other scholars (e.g., Meyer, 1988; Wanta &
Hu, 1994). For the items mentioned above, a composite index of credibility was
created because adequate reliability scores were attained only when aggregating
all questions together rather than subdividing them into groups (to be presented
below).
In particular, respondents were asked whether they strongly agreed, agreed,
disagreed, or strongly disagreed with the following statements for these media:
television news, daily newspapers, and online news. Interviewers asked the
questions in the following manner.
We'd like you to think about the DAILY NEWSPAPER you are most familiar with.
Please tell me whether you strongly disagree, disagree, agree, or strongly agree
with each statement. THE DAILY NEWSPAPER:
Is factual.
Is concerned about making profits.
Invades people's privacy.
Is concerned about the community's well being.
Cannot be trusted.
Now, please tell me whether you strongly disagree, disagree, agree, or strongly
agree with these statements about TV news. TV NEWS:
Is factual.
Is concerned about making profits.
Invades people's privacy.
Is concerned about the community's well being.
Cannot be trusted.
Now, please tell me whether you strongly disagree, disagree, agree, or strongly
agree with these statements about ONLINE news. ONLINE NEWS:
Is factual.
Is concerned about making profits.
Invades people's privacy.
Is concerned about the community's well being.
Cannot be trusted.
Based on respondent agreement or disagreement with these statements, a
four-point Likert scale (0 to 4) was developed for each question to reflect the
various aspects of credibility. For example, someone who said they "strongly
agreed" with the statement that newspapers were factual would yield a score of 4
for that particular item. These scales were then collapsed into a credibility
index for each medium (television, newspaper, and web). Because certain
questions were reversed to avoid response sets (Poindexter & McCombs, 1997),
items were recoded as necessary so that higher scores would signify higher
levels of perceived credibility. Cronbach's alpha for the newspaper,
television, and web credibility indices were .60, .63, and .49 respectively.
The .49 score for web credibility is probably lower because these scales were
originally intended for newspaper and television news, not Internet news.[7]
To measure media use behavior, the following questions were posed to
respondents.
About how often do you watch local evening TV news?
1) never or seldom, 2) 1-2 days a week, 3) 3-4 days a week, 4) nearly every
day, 5) every day.
About how often do you watch network evening news?
1) never or seldom, 2) 1-2 days a week, 3) 3-4 days a week, 4) nearly every
day, 5) every day.[8]
How often would you say you read the daily newspaper?
1) never or seldom, 2) 1-2 days a week, 3) 3-4 days a week, 4) nearly every
day, 5) every day.
How often do you use the world wide web?
1) never, 2) 1-5 hours a week, 3) 6-10 hours a week, 4) 11-15 hours a week, 5)
16-20 hours a week, 6) more than 20 hours a week.
(This media use item was worded differently because another researcher involved
in the survey was analyzing Internet use in terms hours per week. Hopefully,
this should not disturb the current examination because the item still measures
frequency of use).[9]
To measure interpersonal discussion of news, the following question was given to
participants:
How often do you discuss news with your friends and family?
1) never or seldom, 2) 1-2 days a week, 3) 3-4 days a week, 4) nearly every day,
5) every day.
Thus, each of the items measuring media use and interpersonal communication
formed Likert scales for the data analysis phase of the research project.
To ascertain respondent perceptions about the definition of online news, the
following question was provided to participants:
When you think of online news, which of these do you most think of?
(1) news websites, (2) news and discussion groups, (3) chatrooms, (4) email
listservs,
(5) other. (respondents were asked to choose one)
This question was asked to outline what facets of the Internet people considered
to be online news.
Data Analysis
For the first hypothesis, a correlated groups t-test was chosen to compare the
mean scores of the television and newspaper credibility indices. This test was
selected because the assumption of independent samples for an ordinary t-test
would have been violated. This allowed us to enjoy the advantages of applying a
t-test without resorting to a less powerful statistical procedure.
For Hypotheses 2 and 3 and Research Question 1, Pearson r correlations were
utilized to analyze the data. Research Question 2 was analyzed using a repeated
measures ANOVA test. This test essentially extends the model of the correlated
groups t-test and was therefore selected to evaluate all three credibility
scales in a simultaneous analysis.
Before continuing, it should be mentioned that significance levels were
adjusted for this analysis because of the large sample size. Specifically,
because a large sample increases the possibility of Type 1 error (the
probability of rejecting the null hypothesis when it should not be), we adopted
a stricter threshold (p<.001) for determining statistical significance. As a
result, findings at the p<.05 or p<.01 level were viewed as "approaching"
significance or being "marginally" correlated.
Results
Before attending to the specific hypotheses and research questions, it would be
beneficial to examine some of the exploratory statistics for the key variables
included in the data analysis. Table 1 is offered below to summarize the
individual variables.
- - - Table 1 about here - - -
The large number of people who "didn't know" about their opinions toward online
news might be explained by the sparse time respondents spent on the Internet
despite their 80 percent access rate to it. For example, over half of the
sample (62.5 percent) spent less than five hours per week on the web or did not
use it at all, limiting their exposure to online news.[10]
To view the range of responses for credibility, the percentage distribution of
credibility ratings is presented in Table 2.
- - - Table 2 about here - - -
As far as definitions of online news, the most popular answers were news
websites (327 respondents=53%), email listservs (180 respondents=29%), news &
discussion groups (52 respondents=8%), chatrooms (36 respondents=6%), and other
(28 respondents=5%).[11] Thus, a majority of people agreed on its meaning, but
definitions were certainly not unanimous. In essence, this finding indicated
that when we asked about people's perceptions of online news, we were mainly
monitoring attitudes towards news websites.
H1: Television news will be judged as more credible than newspapers.
According to the descriptive statistics reported above, it appears that this
hypothesis was not supported because newspapers were perceived to be more
credible than television news (see Table 1), but a correlated groups t-test was
also performed to resolve if the difference was statistically significant. The
correlated groups t-test show that the difference is indeed significant
(t=11.39; df=780; p<.001). Therefore, Hypothesis 1 was not supported but was
significant in the opposite direction.
H2: People's perceptions of news credibility will be positively correlated
across all three media.
Pearson r correlations show that a positive relationship exists between
people's opinions of credibility across all three modalities. In particular,
the correlation between television and newspaper credibility is .58 (p<.001;
n=781). The correlation between television and web news credibility is .45
(p<.001; n=467). Finally, the correlation between newspaper and web news
credibility is .43 (p<.001; n=468). As a result, Hypothesis 2 seems to be
strongly supported by the data.
H3: The amount of interpersonal communication respondents devote to discussing
news will be negatively correlated to their perceptions of news credibility.
Pearson r correlations were again calculated to determine if this inverse
relationship exists. Based on the significance level of .001 advanced earlier,
interpersonal discussion about news and television credibility appear is only
modestly associated (r=-.11; p<.01). No linkage existed between interpersonal
discussion about news and perceptions of credibility for newspapers and web
news. Thus, the data only moderately confirm Hypothesis 3 for television news
credibility but do not for newspaper and web news credibility.
RQ1: Will media use be related to perceived credibility?
The data reveal that newspaper readership is marginally correlated to newspaper
credibility (r=.09; p<.05). Likewise, the correlation between viewing local
broadcast news and television news credibility is also marginally associated
(r=.07; p<.05). Conversely, no linkage occurred between national network news
viewing and television credibility. Moreover, no relationship existed between
web use and web news credibility. As a consequence, the data display some very
small linkages between media use and credibility for local media outlets (i.e.,
local newspaper and nightly broadcast news), although other variables certainly
seem to intervene in the relationship. Table 3 encapsulates these findings.
- - - Table 3 about here - - -
Collectively, media use seems to be only minimally connected to perceptions of
credibility for newspapers and television news but not online news.
RQ2: Which type of news medium will respondents rate most credible?
This research question attempts to identify the statistical significance of all
three credibility indices simultaneously. A repeated measures ANOVA was
executed to estimate the differences between means. [12] The results are
reported below in Table 4.
- - - Table 4 about here - - -
The repeated measures ANOVA supplies evidence that the means are significantly
different. To pinpoint exactly which means are different, paired group t-tests
were utilized for post-hoc comparisons, a technique often recommended by other
researchers (Hochberg & Tamahane, 1987). These comparisons confirm that all
three means are significantly different from one another. Specifically, the
t-values are: 11.39 (df=780; p<.001) for newspaper vs. television credibility;
-3.70 (df=466; p<.001) for television vs. online news credibility; and 4.23
(df=467; p<.001) for newspaper vs. online news credibility.
Thus, it seems that respondents thought newspapers were most credible
(avg.=2.16), followed by Internet news (avg.=2.07), and television news
(avg.=1.92) respectively. (Please note that means are slightly different from
Table 1 because the ANOVA procedure only examines cases where data were
available for all three indices). It should be remembered, however, that all
three medium scores fall within the "moderately credible" category so the means
are not radically different. Additional interpretation of the data will be
advanced in the subsequent section.
Discussion
Methodological Concerns
Before discussing the results, it is imperative that we review some of the
investigation's methodological caveats. Perhaps the most troubling problem is
that the sample size was much smaller for online news opinions than for the
other two media channels. Still, this should be expected because the Internet
is a relatively new medium that has not yet penetrated the entire population.
The fact that Austin has one of the highest diffusion rates for Internet access
made a traditional survey possible and is therefore, invaluable since most polls
conducted about the Internet are self-selected with participants normally
responding online. Another limitation involves the generalizibility of the
sample because Austin residents are typically more educated than the rest of the
nation yet are similar to other urban areas (Census, 1995). Of course, this
should not discount the results, but we should be careful in drawing any
sweeping conclusions about media credibility perceptions. Replication in rural
settings would be helpful to substantiate findings.
A final shortcoming that might be raised is that the online news questions
inevitably were partially influenced by attitudes toward traditional news
outlets because respondents looking at news in cyberspace may be visiting their
favorite print newspaper or broadcast news website. One problem with this view,
however, is that it assumes news websites are the only source of online news.
Respondents' answers to the online news definition question showed otherwise
(e.g., listservs represented 29 percent of definitions). In addition, this
criticism seems to suggest that looking at online news is no different than
experiencing it through traditional channels, when prior empirical work has
shown this is not the case (e.g., Fredin, 1997). As a result, we did not
perceive this to be a dramatic problem but do believe it should be acknowledged
when interpreting the findings.
Interpretation
The data analyses seem to uncover many interesting relationships that need to
be further discussed. First, one unforeseen outcome was that newspaper
credibility ratings exceeded television news credibility ratings, in the face of
the abundant empirical work that has recorded the opposite trend over past years
(e.g., Lemert, 1970; Gaziano & McGrath, 1986). Another noteworthy finding was
that Internet news was assigned more credibility than television news,
especially when pondering this channel's infancy. However, some research has
suggested that online material is judged more credible than information from
television (Brady, 1996).
One explanation for these results may be that the introduction of online sources
has changed public opinion of traditional media credibility. Regardless of
whether people actually have access to or use the web, its mere presence could
have reduced trust in television while concomitantly increased trust in
newspapers. The large body of "diffusion" literature submits that the
dissemination of new technology often shifts opinions of older media (Rogers,
1983; Rogers & Shoemaker, 1971).
An alternative interpretation may be that our sample deviated somewhat from the
1990 Census in terms of education, thereby accounting for these differences.
The University of Texas at Austin, for instance, is now the largest university
in the United States, and the booming high-tech industry in the surrounding area
constantly attracts employees with higher educational levels. Thus, one could
argue that this more educated sample would read more newspapers and use the
Internet with greater frequency, which would justify the incongruity in
credibility scores.
A final interpretation could be that the differences were not that staggering
simply because all three channels were judged "moderately credible." This
corroborates the findings of Johnson & Kaye (1998), who discovered differences
in news credibility across channels but a general skepticism of media (print &
online for their study) across the board. Hence, though it is vital that we
acknowledge there are multiple viewpoints pertaining to news credibility, we
must also be aware that people seem to be somewhat apprehensive about all three
media outlets.
In summary, one could infer that survey respondents appear to moderately
believe news that originates from all three media but do tend to give higher
credence to newspaper stories before Internet news and Internet news before
television news.
The definition of online news seems to be a pervasive topic for audiences.
Although the data show some agreement, consensus is far from being reached.
Nonetheless, the definition breakdowns do demonstrate that the majority of
people agreed on the meaning of the topic-they think it refers to news websites.
Another substantial observation involved the detected correlation among
perceptions of all three channels. This finding not only replicated the results
of previous scholars (e.g., Gaziano & McGrath, 1986; Newhagen & Nass, 1989), who
noticed a relationship between newspaper and television credibility, but extends
this observation to the domain of Internet news credibility as well. Survey
participants seem to perceive all three media in the same direction, indicating
that people probably have an overall perception of news credibility that only
slightly fluctuates across media. This verifies the t-test and ANOVA analyses
that reported differences but exposed generally moderate perceptions of
credibility for television, newspaper, and online news. Therefore, perceptions
of news credibility are fairly uniform, but some distinctions are made among
media outlets.
The lack of support for the relationship between interpersonal communication
and news credibility was not anticipated but might be explained by the social
atmosphere or lack thereof that is present when people interact with these
different media channels. For example, watching television is often thought of
as a group experience where audiences integrate the information they secure from
the medium into their daily conversations with others (e.g., Lull, 1990; McQuail
et al., 1972). As a result, the increased amount of interpersonal communication
undermines the credibility of the media channel, as proposed earlier by Chaffee
(1982). In contrast, reading newspapers and going online are activities people
ordinarily engage in alone, which diminishes the degree to which they promote
interpersonal discussion. Accordingly, the individualistic media channels
(newspapers and the Internet) found no linkage between news credibility and
interpersonal communication. Of course, future work should explore whether such
speculation is warranted.
Generally, it appears that media use is marginally connected with perceptions
of credibility. Measures of local television viewership were modestly
associated with television credibility. Similarly, perceptions of newspaper
credibility were modestly linked to newspaper readership behavior. On the other
hand, correlations between credibility perceptions for network news and web use
were not. In short, these data confirm the findings of Rimmer & Weaver (1987)
because our "frequency" media use questions were not strongly allied to
evaluations of news credibility. Nevertheless, respondents appeared to hold
stronger credibility opinions about local news outlets than other types of media
channels, an area that commands more attention in future scholarship.
Implications
Ultimately, it appears that further investigation of media credibility is
demanded given the rapid growth of online news. The convergence of media is not
only shaping media content but also seems to be linked to people's perceptions
of media as well. The heightened position of newspapers in credibility ratings
is encouraging for the newspaper industry, which has been waning in public
opinion polls for many years. However, the overall mediocre ratings of media
credibility should be disconcerting for professional journalists and mass
communication researchers alike. More scrutiny of this pattern is necessary to
determine if this observation was merely idiosyncratic to this survey, or has
the rise of online media truly modified public perceptions of press credibility
generally.
Notwithstanding the limited linkage with interpersonal communication, future
news credibility research should explore the consequences of interpersonal
discussion to shed light on the discrepant findings found in this study across
media channels. Such work might expand the concept of "media use" to a more
generic term such as "communication use," thereby providing hybrid measures of
media and interpersonal communication habits.
Another implication is that further analyses are required to pin down
definitions of online news. Will a universal definition be engendered or will
conceptions continue to remain elusive? Such explorations can help us determine
what criteria people apply to form opinions about Internet news credibility,
patterned after the work of Newhagen & Nass (1989) on television news.
The similarity of credibility perceptions for television, newspaper, and online
news suggests that people may orient themselves to media content that is
analogous across media channels, triggering parallel opinions of credibility.
Perhaps more strategies should be developed to elevate press credibility as a
whole rather than creating specialized recommendations for television,
newspaper, and online news separately. A panel study comparing participant news
exposure patterns, in terms of content, to their opinions of news credibility
might help cultivate such knowledge. Further research might also explore
whether the uniformity in credibility perceptions applies to sub-genres of news
such as magazines and prime-time television news programs (e.g., Dateline). For
instance, would differences be discerned if respondents were asked to give their
opinions on local vs. network television news?
In summary, the proliferation of new technologies has provided a fruitful forum
for future academic work on media credibility. The similarities and deviations
that arose from this study, in comparison to prior investigations, reflect the
need for a resurgence of news credibility analyses. It is hoped that the
present study can act as springboard for future intellectual discourse in this
area of mass communication.
Notes
Figures & Tables
Figure 1
[--- Pict Graphic Goes Here ---]
TABLE 1: Credibility Scores
Variable
Means
Std. Deviation
Possible Range
N
TV News Credibility Index
1.94
.64
0-4
796
Web News Credibility Index
2.08
.62
0-4
473*
Newspaper Credibility Index
2.17
.62
0-4
792
* Smaller N due to large number of respondents who answered "don't know" to
questions about online news credibility. Higher scores indicate higher levels
of perceived credibility.
TABLE 2: Credibility Scores by Media Channels
Low Cred.
Moderate Cred.
High Cred.
Chi-Square
N
Newspaper
65
(8%)
588
(75%)
136
(17%)
612***
789
(100%)
TV
116
(15%)
588
(74%)
88
(11%)
598***
792
(100%)
Web
54
(12%)
353
(75%)
64
(14%)
367***
471
(101%)*
* Value exceeds 100 percent due to rounding
*** p<.001
Note: The credibility categories were broken down as follows: 0-1.33=low
credibility, 1.34-2.66=moderate credibility, and 2.67-4=high credibility. These
categories were determined by simply dividing the four point range in
credibility scores into three equal intervals (4/3=1.33 range per category).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------
Table 3: Correlations between Media Use and Perceptions of News Credibility
Newspaper Cred.
TV Cred.
Web Cred.
Watch Local News
r=.04; n=789
r=.07*; n=793
r=-.01; n=471
Watch Network News
r=.01; n=788
r=-.01; n=792
r=.03; n=472
Read Newspapers
r=.09*; n=791
r=0; n=795
r=.04; n=472
Use Web
r=.02; n=562
r=-.02; n=565
r=.09; n=401
* p<.05
Table 4: Repeated Measures ANOVA for Mean News Credibility Scores
Source of Variation
SS
DF
MS
F
Sig. of F
Within + Residual
179.83
922
.20
Credibility
13.71
2
6.85
35.14
p<.001
Note: Tests for Within-Subject Effects.
Appendix A
(Sample & Census Demographic Breakdowns)
Age Austin Sample 1990 Census
(percents) (percents)
18-24 23* 21
25-29 15* 15
30-34 14* 14
35-39 12* 12
40-44 10* 9
45-49 9* 6
50-54 5* 5
55-59 3* 4
60-64 3* 4
65+ 6 10
Race/Ethnic Group
Caucasian/white 74 68
African-American/black 7* 10
Hispanic/Latino 12 19
Asian or Pacific Islander 4 .03
Native American 1* .003
Other 2 N/A
Gender
Male 48* 50
Female 52* 50
Income
Under $10k 9 15
$10-$19k 11 18
$20-$29K 17* 16
$30-$39k 14* 13
$40-$49k 13 9
$50-$59k 9* 6
$60-$74k 10* 12
$75-$99k 9 5
$100k+ 8 4
Education
Some high school 3 16
High school graduate 15 20
Some college/technical school 37* 34
College graduate 28 20
Some graduate school/graduate 7 10
* Sample statistic falls within confidence interval of plus or minus 3.5
percentage points at the 95% confidence interval.
** Special acknowledgment is given to Robyn Goodman for making the calculations
for this appendix.
Works Cited & Consulted
Andsager, Julie L. (1990). Perceptions of credibility of male and female
syndicated political columnists. Journalism Quarterly, 67, 485-491.
Atkin, Charles K. (1972). Anticipated communication and mass media information
seeking. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 188-99.
Atwater, Tony, Salwen, Michael B., & Anderson, Ronald B. (1985). Interpersonal
discussion as a potential barrier to agenda-setting. Newspaper Research
Journal, 6(4), 37-43.
Berelson, Bernard, Lazarsfeld, Paul, & McPhee, William. (1954). Voting.
Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press.
Berlo, David K., Lemert, James B., & Mertz, Robert J. (1970). Dimensions for
evaluating the acceptability of message sources. Public Opinion Quarterly,
33, 563-576.
Brady, Dwight J. (1996). Cyberdemocracy and Perceptions of Politics: An
Experimental Analysis of Political Communication on the World Wide Web.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Association for Public
Opinion Research, Chicago, Illinois.
Carter, Richard, & Greenberg, Bradley. (1966). Newspapers or television: which
do
you believe? Journalism Quarterly 42, 29-34.
Census (1995, March). Educational Attainment in the United States: March 1995.
[online]. Available: http://www.census.gov/prod/2/pop/p20/p20489ta.pdf.
Chaffee, Steven H. (1982). Mass media and interpersonal channels: competitive,
convergent, or complementary? In Gumpert, Gary, & Cathcart, Robert (eds.),
Inter/Media: Interpersonal Communication in a Media World. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Chaffee, S.H., & Hochheimer, J.L. (1985). The beginnings of political
communication
research in the United States: Origins of the "limited effects" model. In
Rogers, Everett, & Balle, Francis (eds.), The Media Revolution in America and in
Western Europe. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Co.
Chaffee, Steven H. & McLeod, Jack. (1973). Individual vs. social predictors of
information-seeking. Journalism Quarterly, 50, 237-45.
Cobbey, Robin. (1980, December 15). Audience attitudes and readership. ANPA
News
Research Reports 29, 8-9.
Erbring, Lutz, Goldenberg, Edie N., & Miller, Arthur H. (1980). Front-page
news and real world cues: A new look at agenda-setting by the media. American
Journal of Political Science, 24, 16-49.
Fredin, E.S. (1997). Rethinking the news story for the Internet: Hyperstory
prototypes and a model of the user. Journalism & Mass Communication Monographs
163, 1-47.
Gaziano, Cecile, & McGrath, Kristin. (1986). Measuring the concept of
credibility. Journalism Quarterly, 63, 451-462.
Greenberg, Bradley. (1966). Media use and believability, some multiple
correlates. Journalism Quarterly, 43, 665-732.
Hochberg, Y., & Tamahane, A.C. (1987). Multiple Comparison Procedures. New
York: Wiley.
Hovland, Carl I., Lumsdaine, Arthur A., & Sheffield, Fred D. (1949).
Experiments on Mass Communication: Studies in Social Psychology in World War
II. New
Haven: Yale University Press.
Hovland, Carl I., & Weiss, Walter . (1951). The influence of source
credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 15,
633-650.
Hovland, Carl I., Janis, Irving L., & Kelley, Harold H. (1953). Communication
and Persuasion. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.
Infante, Dominic A. (1980). The construct validity of semantic differential
scales for the measurement of source credibility. Communication Quarterly, 28
(2), 19-26.
Intelliquest Information Group, Inc. (1998). Latest Intelliquest Survey
Reports 62 Million American Adults Access the Internet/Online Services.
[online]. Available: http://www.intelliquest.com
Johnson, T.J., & Kaye, B.K. (1998). Cruising is believing?: Comparing the
internet and
traditional sources on media credibility measures. Journalism & Mass
Communication Quarterly 75, 2, 325-340.
Kraus, Sidney, & Davis, David. (1976). The Effects of Mass Communication on
Political Behavior. London, England: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Lazarsfeld, Paul F., Berelson, Bernard, & Gaudet, Hazel. (1944). The People's
Choice. New York: Duell, Sloan, and Pearce.
Lazarsfeld, Paul F., & Merton, Robert K. (1948). Mass communication, popular
taste and organized social action. In Bryson, Lyman (ed.), Communication of
Ideas. New York: Harper & Brothers.
Lemert, James B. (1970). News media competition under conditions favorable to
newspapers. Journalism Quarterly.
Lenart, Silvo. (1994). Shaping Political Attitudes, the impact of
interpersonal communication and mass media. London, England: Sage.
Lin, N. (1971). The Study of Human Communication. Indianapolis, Ind: Bobbs-
Merrill.
Lull, James. (1990). Inside Family Viewing: Ethnographic Research on
Television's
Audiences. New York: Routledge.
Major, Ann M., & Atwood, L. Erwin. (1997). Changes in media credibility when a
predicted disaster doesn't happen. Journalism Quarterly, 74, 797-813.
Markham, David. (1968). The dimensions of source credibility of television
newscasters. Journal of Communication, 18, 57-64.
Mashek, John.W., McGill, Lawrence, T., & Powell, Adam C. (1997). Lethargy '96:
How the Media Covered a Listless Campaign. Arlington, VA: The Freedom
Forum.
McLeod, Jack., Rush, Ramona R. & Friederich, Karl H.. (1968-69). The mass
media
and political information in Quito, Ecuador. Public Opinion Quarterly, 32, 575-
87.
McQuail, D., Blumler, J.G., & Brown, J.R. (1972). The television audience: A
revised
perspective. In McQuail, D. (ed.), Sociology of Mass Communications, pp.
135-165. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.
Meyer, Philip. (1988). Defining and measuring credibility of newspapers:
developing an index. Journalism Quarterly, 65, 567-572.
Newhagen, John, & Nass, Clifford. (1989). Differential criteria for evaluating
credibility of newspapers and TV news. Journalism Quarterly, 65, 567-574, 588.
Pew Research Center. (1996). One-in-Ten Voters Online for Campaign '96.
Available at
http://www.people-press.org/tec96-1.htm, November 1996.
Pfau, Michael, & Kang, Jong Geun. (1991). The impact of relational messages on
candidate influence in televised political debates. Communication Studies, 42,
114-128.
Poindexter, Paula M., & McCombs, Maxwell E. (1997). Making Research Relevant.
Final draft of unpublished book. University of Texas, Austin.
Rimmer, Tony, & Weaver, David. (1987). Different questions, different answers?
Media use and media credibility. Journalism Quarterly, 64, 28-36, 44.
Rogers, Everett M. (1983). Diffusion of Innovations, 3rd edition. New York:
Free Press.
Rogers, Everett M., & Shoemaker, F. Floyd. (1971). Communications of
Innovations. New York: Free Press.
Shaw, Eugene. (1973). Media credibility: taking the measure of a measure.
Journalism Quarterly, 50, 306-311.
Slater, Michael D., & Rouner, Donna. (1996). How message evaluation and source
attributes may influence credibility assessment and belief change. Journalism
Quarterly, 73, 974-991.
Stone, Gerald C. (1987). Examining Newspapers: what research reveals about
America's newspapers. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Sundar, S.Shyam. (1998). Effect of source attribution on perception of online
news stories. Journalism Quarterly, 75, 1, 55-68.
Wanta, Wayne. (1997). The Public and the National Agenda, how people learn
about important issues. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Publishers.
Wanta, Wayne, & Hu, Yu-Wei. (1994). The effects of credibility, reliance, and
exposure on media agenda-setting: A path analysis model. Journalism Quarterly,
71, 1, 90-98.
Westley, Bruce H., & Severin, Werner J. (1964). Some correlates of media
credibility. Journalism Quarterly, 41, 325-335.
Whitehead, Jack L. (1968). Factors of source credibility. Quarterly Journal
of Speech, 54, 59-63.
[1] For the purposes of this paper, the terms media channel and medium will be
used interchangeably.
[2] Some examples of the Berlo et al. semantic differential scales included
asking whether a source was "just--unjust" (Safety Factor),
"experienced--inexperienced" (Qualifications Factor), and "confident--not
confident' (Dynamism Factor).
[3] Whitehead's Competence Factor is similar to Berlo's Qualifications Factor
and the Objectivity Factor rates how "objective--subjective" a source is.
[4] In this examination, frequency questions were used allowing us to replicate
Rimmer & Weaver's (1987) observations. Ideally, we would have also liked to
incorporate preference and reliance questions as Wanta & Hu (1994) did, but
space was limited and frequency questions had applications for other researchers
involved in the survey. As a result, they were selected.
[5] The formula for efficiency of reaching households is possible households /
all numbers.
[6] The formula for the completion rate of the sample is completions / eligible
numbers.
[7] As alluded to earlier, statistical tests revealed that eliminating certain
questions would not improve the reliability of the scale.
[8] As suggested above, local and national network news viewing were separated
because other researchers have argued that opinions about television news
credibility are most influenced by local news broadcasts (e.g., Newhagen & Nass,
1989).
[9] Regardless, this question was somewhat problematic because it deals with
general use of the internet and does not focus on using the internet
specifically for news. However, a similar criticism could be made of typical
newspaper use questions since people surely read newspapers for purposes other
than acquiring news, including advertising, coupons, entertainment, etc. yet are
deemed appropriate for media credibility analyses. Likewise, we feel a general
measure of Internet use can serve as a proxy for estimating online news use and
was therefore justified in this study.
[10] We will consider this point further in the Discussion section.
[11] The total exceeds 100 percent due to rounding.
[12] A Credibility Factor with 3 levels was created with each index acting as a
level.
|
