DOCSLIB.ORG

What Makes Your Message Credible?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
What Makes Your Message Credible? Bachelor Thesis What makes your message credible? A descriptive study on the effect of source credibility on message credibility. Authors: Alexander Andersson Eliisa Kreegimäe Nicole Niiranen Supervisor: Michaela Sandell Examiner: Åsa Devine Term: Spring 19 – Semester 6 Course code: 2FE21E Date: 28-05-2019 Acknowledgement We would like to take this opportunity to show our gratitude to the people who have supported and helped us during the writing process. Firstly, we would like to say our utmost thank you to our tutor Michaela Sandell, who has been supportive, always been available and has given us useful advice throughout this journey. We appreciate all of the encouraging comments and that you never stopped believing in us. Secondly, we would like to thank Setayesh Sattari, for helping us with her knowledge on quantitative research, that guided us through the statistical phase of this study. Thirdly, we would like to say thank you to Åsa Devine, for the support and inputs during the seminars. Additionally, we would like to send a thank you to all of the participants within this research for their contribution to the findings, whom without this thesis would have not been possible to complete. Lastly, we would all like to thank our parents for the encouragement and unwavering support throughout this academic journey. We would not be here without you. Linnaeus University, Växjö, Sweden 28th of May 2019 Alexander Andersson Eliisa Kreegimäe Nicole Niiranen Abstract Message credibility is a commonly used term to indicate how well the recipients approve the message. Source credibility, on the other hand is a “communicator's positive characteristics that affect the receiver's acceptance of a message” (Ohanian, 1990, pp 41). It has been stated that an effect is apparent between the two, therefore the purpose of this study is to describe the effect of source credibility characteristics; trustworthiness, expertise and attractiveness on message credibility. The study utilized a quantitative research approach in order to describe the effect between the concepts. The researchers used a Likert-scale online questionnaire as the data collection method. The findings of this research suggest that all of the characteristics within the source credibility model are proven to have a significant and positive effect on the message credibility. Keywords; Message credibility, source credibility, trustworthiness, expertise, attractiveness Table of Contents 1.Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Problem Discussion .................................................................................................................................................. 2 1.3 Purpose .................................................................................................................................................................... 3 2. Literature review .................................................................................................................................................. 4 2.1 Source credibility ..................................................................................................................................................... 4 2.1.1 Trustworthiness ............................................................................................................................................... 4 2.1.2 Expertise .......................................................................................................................................................... 4 2.1.3 Attractiveness .................................................................................................................................................. 5 2.2 Message credibility .................................................................................................................................................. 5 3. Conceptual Framework ......................................................................................................................................... 7 3.1 Trustworthiness ....................................................................................................................................................... 7 3.2 Expertise .................................................................................................................................................................. 7 3.3 Attractiveness .......................................................................................................................................................... 8 3.3 Research model ....................................................................................................................................................... 8 4. Methodology ........................................................................................................................................................ 9 4.1 Research approach .................................................................................................................................................. 9 4.1.1 Deductive Research ......................................................................................................................................... 9 4.1.2 Quantitative research ...................................................................................................................................... 9 4.2 Data sources .......................................................................................................................................................... 10 4.3 Data collection method ......................................................................................................................................... 10 4.5 Data collection instrument .................................................................................................................................... 11 4.5.1 Operationalization and measurement of variables ....................................................................................... 11 4.5.2 Operationalization table ................................................................................................................................ 12 4.5 Sampling ................................................................................................................................................................ 15 4.6 Data Analysis Method ........................................................................................................................................... 16 4.6.1 Data Entry, Coding and Cleaning ................................................................................................................... 16 4.6.2 Descriptive Statistics ...................................................................................................................................... 17 4.6.3 Simple and Multiple linear regression ........................................................................................................... 18 4.7 Quality Criteria ...................................................................................................................................................... 19 4.7.1 Validity ........................................................................................................................................................... 19 4.7.3 Pre-Test ......................................................................................................................................................... 21 4.7.4 Reliability ....................................................................................................................................................... 21 4.7.6 Replication ..................................................................................................................................................... 22 4.8 Ethical Considerations ........................................................................................................................................... 22 4.9 Societal considerations .......................................................................................................................................... 23 5. Results ................................................................................................................................................................ 25 5.1 Demographics - Covariance questions .................................................................................................................. 25 5.2 Descriptive Statistics .............................................................................................................................................. 26 5.3 Reliability and Cronbach’s Alpha ........................................................................................................................... 28 5.4 Validity and Correlation Coefficient ...................................................................................................................... 29 5.5 Hypothesis Testing ................................................................................................................................................ 29 6. Discussion
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Does It Hold Water?
    Does it Hold Water? Summary Investigate logical fallacies to see the flaws in arguments and learn to read between the lines and discern obscure and misleading statements from the truth. Workplace Readiness Skills Primary: Information Literacy Secondary: Critical Thinking and Problem Solving Secondary: Reading and Writing Secondary: Integrity Workplace Readiness Definition: Information Literacy • defining information literacy • locating and evaluating credible and relevant sources of information • using information effectively to accomplish work-related tasks. Vocabulary • Critical Thinking • Trustworthy • Aristotle, Plato, • Inductive Reasoning • Logic Socrates • Deductive Reasoning • Logical fallacy • Systems thinking • Cause-Effect • Process • Argument • Analysis • Propaganda • Rhetorical • Credible/non- • Infer vs. Imply credible Context Questions • How can information literacy set you apart from your peers or coworkers? • How can you demonstrate your ability with information literacy skills in a job interview? • How does information literacy and critical thinking interrelate? How do they differ? • How is good citizenship tied in with being a critical thinker? • How have you used information literacy skills in the past? • What are some common ways that information literacy skills are used in the workplace? • What news and information sources do you trust? What makes them trustworthy? • What is the difference between news shows and hard news? • Why is it important to be able to discern fact from opinion? • Why is it important to determine a credible from a non-credible source? • What are the characteristics of a credible/non-credible source? • What is a primary, secondary, and tertiary source? • What is a website domain, and what can it tell you about a site's potential credibility? Objective: To teach you how to determine whether media messages are factual and provable or whether those messages are misleading or somehow flawed.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservatism and Pragmatism in Law, Politics and Ethics
    TOWARDS PRAGMATIC CONSERVATISM: A REVIEW OF SETH VANNATTA’S CONSERVATISM AND PRAGMATISM IN LAW, POLITICS, AND ETHICS Allen Mendenhall* At some point all writers come across a book they wish they had written. Several such books line my bookcases; the latest of which is Seth Vannatta’s Conservativism and Pragmatism in Law, Politics, and Ethics.1 The two words conservatism and pragmatism circulate widely and with apparent ease, as if their import were immediately clear and uncontroversial. But if you press strangers for concise definitions, you will likely find that the signification of these words differs from person to person.2 Maybe it’s not just that people are unwilling to update their understanding of conservatism and pragmatism—maybe it’s that they cling passionately to their understanding (or misunderstanding), fearing that their operative paradigms and working notions of 20th century history and philosophy will collapse if conservatism and pragmatism differ from some developed expectation or ingrained supposition. I began to immerse myself in pragmatism in graduate school when I discovered that its central tenets aligned rather cleanly with those of Edmund Burke, David Hume, F. A. Hayek, Michael Oakeshott, and Russell Kirk, men widely considered to be on the right end of the political spectrum even if their ideas diverge in key areas.3 In fact, I came to believe that pragmatism reconciled these thinkers, that whatever their marked intellectual differences, these men believed certain things that could be synthesized and organized in terms of pragmatism.4 I reached this conclusion from the same premise adopted by Vannatta: “Conservatism and pragmatism[] .
    [Show full text]
  • Argument, Structure, and Credibility in Public Health Writing Donald Halstead Instructor and Director of Writing Programs Harvard TH Chan School of Public Heath
    Argument, Structure, and Credibility in Public Health Writing Donald Halstead Instructor and Director of Writing Programs Harvard TH Chan School of Public Heath Some of the most important questions we face in public health include what policies we should follow, which programs and research should we fund, how and where we should intervene, and what our priorities should be in the face of overwhelming needs and scarce resources. These questions, like many others, are best decided on the basis of arguments, a word that has its roots in the Latin arguere, to make clear. Yet arguments themselves vary greatly in terms of their strength, accuracy, and validity. Furthermore, public health experts often disagree on matters of research, policy and practice, citing conflicting evidence and arriving at conflicting conclusions. As a result, critical readers, such as researchers, policymakers, journal editors and reviewers, approach arguments with considerable skepticism. After all, they are not going to change their programs, priorities, practices, research agendas or budgets without very solid evidence that it is necessary, feasible, and beneficial. This raises an important challenge for public health writers: How can you best make your case, in the face of so much conflicting evidence? To illustrate, let’s assume that you’ve been researching mother-to-child transmission (MTCT) of HIV in a sub-Saharan African country and have concluded that (claim) the country’s maternal programs for HIV counseling and infant nutrition should be integrated because (reasons) this would be more efficient in decreasing MTCT, improving child nutrition, and using scant resources efficiently. The evidence to back up your claim might consist of original research you have conducted that included program assessments and interviews with health workers in the field, your assessment of the other relevant research, the experiences of programs in other countries, and new WHO guidelines.
    [Show full text]
  • Biases in Research: Risk Factors for Non-Replicability in Psychotherapy and Pharmacotherapy Research
    Psychological Medicine, Page 1 of 12. © Cambridge University Press 2016 REVIEW ARTICLE doi:10.1017/S003329171600324X Biases in research: risk factors for non-replicability in psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy research F. Leichsenring1*†, A. Abbass2, M. J. Hilsenroth3, F. Leweke1, P. Luyten4,5, J. R. Keefe6, N. Midgley7,8, S. Rabung9,10, S. Salzer11,12 and C. Steinert1 1 Department of Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy, Justus-Liebig-University Giessen, Giessen, Germany; 2 Department of Psychiatry, Dalhousie University, Centre for Emotions and Health, Halifax, NS, Canada; 3 The Derner Institute of Advanced Psychological Studies, Adelphi University, NY, USA; 4 Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Leuven, Klinische Psychologie (OE), Leuven, Belgium; 5 Research Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, London, UK; 6 Department of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA; 7 The Anna Freud Centre, London, UK; 8 Research Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, UCL, London, UK; 9 Department of Psychology, Alpen-Adria-Universität Klagenfurt, Universitätsstr, Klagenfurt, Austria; 10 Department of Medical Psychology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany; 11 Clinic of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Georg-August-Universität Goettingen, Göttingen, Germany; 12 International Psychoanalytic University (IPU), Berlin, Germany Replicability of findings is an essential prerequisite of research. For both basic and clinical research, however, low rep- licability of findings has recently been reported. Replicability may be affected by research biases not sufficiently con- trolled for by the existing research standards. Several biases such as researcher allegiance or selective reporting are well-known for affecting results. For psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy research, specific additional biases may affect outcome (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Faith Seeking Understanding Motives of Credibility for Faith the Mystery
    Association of Hebrew Catholics Lecture Series The Mystery of Israel and the Church Fall 2013 – Series 12 Introduction to Theology: Faith Seeking Understanding Talk #7 Motives of Credibility for Faith © Dr. Lawrence Feingold STD Associate Professor of Theology and Philosophy Kenrick-Glennon Seminary, Archdiocese of St. Louis, Missouri Note: This document contains the unedited text of Dr. Feingold’s talk. It will eventually undergo final editing for inclusion in the series of books being published by The Miriam Press under the series title: “The Mystery of Israel and the Church”. If you find errors of any type, please send your observations [email protected] This document may be copied and given to others. It may not be modified, sold, or placed on any web site. The actual recording of this talk, as well as the talks from all series, may be found on the AHC website at: http://www.hebrewcatholic.net/studies/mystery-of-israel-church/ Association of Hebrew Catholics • 4120 W Pine Blvd • Saint Louis MO 63108 www.hebrewcatholic.org • [email protected] Motives of Credibility for Faith The great difficulty in making the act of divine faith and wisdom of the Revelation itself, and of the Person of lies in determining when and where God has spoken. God Christ in whom Revelation culminates, as will be explained does not appear directly to everyone; rather, He speaks below. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, quoting to mankind through intermediaries who are entrusted Vatican I, speaks of the first three motives of credibility: with a divine mission of being the instruments of God’s Thus the miracles of Christ and the saints, prophecies, Revelation.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is Christianity?
    What is Christianity? Charles Hedrick Piscataway, New Jersey January 2008 What is Christianity? This document tries to summarize Christian beliefs and practices. It was originally written as part of the Frequently Asked Questions collection for the Usenet newsgroup soc.religion.christian. It is intended as an introduction to Christianity for non-Christians, and also as background for those who want to follow the discussions in soc.religion.christian. For that reason it spends more time on a few controversies that are common in online discussions than might be merited by their actual importance. This is a snapshot of a web site. If you are interested in seeing the author’s most recent thoughts, take a look at http://geneva.rutgers.edu/src/christianity. If you are reading this document online, it should be possible to click on any area with a box around it. 2 Preface: About the Author 4 What are major Christian beliefs? 10 What is the “Gospel”? 21 What about heaven and hell? 27 Why do Christians believe this? Includes the Bible, revelation, tradition. 37 What is the Church? 46 The Christian Life 54 What is Christian worship? Includes the sacraments. 57 How do Christians act? Part 1: Law 61 How do Christians act? Part 2: Showing love 64 More about Christian beliefs: The Incarnation 72 More about Christian beliefs: The Trinity 78 More about Christian beliefs: Predestination and Free Will 1 Preface Charles Hedrick (the author of these essays) is, in no particular order • An elder in the Presbyterian Church (USA) • Moderator of the Usenet news group soc.religion.christian • University Director of Instructional and Research Technology and Chief Technology Officer at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey [provided for identification only; Rutgers University has no responsibility for the views presented here] (I am not the well-known scholar, Charles W.
    [Show full text]
  • Counselor Allegiance and Client Expectancy in Neuroscience-Informed Cognitive-Behavior Therapy: a 12-Month Qualitative Follow-Up Thomas A
    Boise State University ScholarWorks Counselor Education Faculty Publications and Department of Counselor Education Presentations 10-1-2017 Counselor Allegiance and Client Expectancy in Neuroscience-Informed Cognitive-Behavior Therapy: A 12-Month Qualitative Follow-Up Thomas A. Field City University of Seattle Eric T. Beeson Northwestern University Laura K. Jones University of North Carolina at Asheville Raissa Miller Boise State University This document was originally published in Journal of Mental Health Counseling by American Mental Health Counselors Association. Copyright restrictions may apply. doi: 10.17744/mehc.39.4.06 Volume 39/Number 4/October 2017/Pages 35l-365/doi: 10.17744/mehc.39.4.06 NEUROCOUNSELING Counselor Allegiance and Client Expectancy in Neuroscience-Informed Cognitive-Behavior Therapy: A 12-Month Qualitative Follow-Up Thomas A. Field, Eric T. Beeson, Laura K. Jones, and Raissa Miller This article presents summative findings from a 12-month multiphase mixed-methods pilot study examining counselor and client perceptions of neuroscience-informed cognitive-behavior ther­ apy (nCBT) following clinical application. Results from the first 6 months o f the study indicated that the counselor’s and client's beliefs about the credibility and effectiveness of nCBT (i.e., expectancy) remained stable from pretreatment to 6 months into treatment. The fourth phase of data collection at the 12-month interval followed an explanatory sequential process whereby the qualitative data were connected to earlier merged quantitative data to better understand initial findings from the first 6 months of the study. Results indicate that counselors’ initial comprehen­ sion and familiarity with the model, counselor-client trust, counselor delivery and suggestion, and client willingness to practice outside of session were key components to the dm’elopment of counselor and client belief (expectancy) in the model.
    [Show full text]
  • Middle-Ground Pragmatists: the Popularization of Philosophy in American Culture
    284 GeorgeCotkin to have culturalinfluence, then the philosopherhad to make his work accessibleto a widerpublic. The diffusionof suchknowledge was a neces-neces­ saryprecondition for democratic social reconstruction. The popularizationof pragmatism in the period after the First World War helpedto createa new formof pragmatism, "middle-ground" pragmatism. If middlebrowculture attempted to balance demandsfor accessibilitywith qualityand to reconcile authority with democracy, then middle-ground popu-popu­ larpragmatists wanted to retainthe essentials of pragmatism as developedby Dewey whilebeing open to new thinkersand concepts,especially those of GeorgeSantayana and the"tragic sense of life."3While continuing through-through­ outthe mid-mid-1920s 1920s to speakin thefamiliar language of social reconstruction, criticalintelligence, and scientificmethod, middle-ground pragmatists in-in­ creasinglyemphasized a stanceof moderationand distancelater made fa-fa­ mousin WalterLippmann's A Prefaceto Morals (1929). Middle-groundpragmatists also helpedto definethe chastened liberal-liberal­ ismthat dominated American intellectual life in thelate 1940s and 1950s. It has becomea commonplacein chartingthe history of American intellectuals to focuson how ReinholdNiebuhr, Daniel Bell, Lionel Trilling,and others, out of disillusionmentwith Marxism,adopted a new form of liberalism markedby irony, restraint, and disdain for utopian visions of social recon-recon­ struction. Rather than intending to refute the importance of this sea-change in thought,this essay suggests that middle-ground pragmatists antedated the move towardchastened liberalism by well over a decade, without any sustained engagement with radical politics.politics.4 4 Middle-ground pragmatism proved to be an appealing position because it allowed young intellectuals to popularize philosophical ideas and to battle against the insufficiencies of American cultural life in the 1920s.
    [Show full text]
  • Apologetics Guide Week 1 WEEK 1: INTRODUCTION TO
    Apologetics Guide Week 1 WEEK 1: INTRODUCTION TO APOLOGETICS; FAITH AND REASON Opening Questions: What has been your experience with apologetics (giving reason for the hope you have in Jesus)? Have you needed to defend your Christian belief in the past? Are faith and reason incompatible? If you believe, how did you come to faith? If you do not believe, what parts of the Christian faith and/or life is holding you back? For Discussion: There may be many things in life you do not understand. But that does not stop them from being true or real. Some things you cannot reason, cannot take apart by our wills or fully comprehend with our intellects or give verbalization to—things like love, death, time—but they are nonetheless real. What are some questions you have about faith in God? A Scenario (pick 2 readers to be Jill and Mom) Scene: Jill, a junior at a Christian college, is home for the summer. Jill is a Christian, and she came to faith through a youth retreat held by a local church when she was in high school. Jill’s Mom is glad her daughter has a community that is energizing and growing her, and she has noticed the joy and sense of purpose her daughter has, but she admits she doesn’t really get what the buzz is about. Jill longs for her mom to understand and experience for herself who God is, who Jesus is, and what life in faith is. Jill: Mom, in one of my classes at school, we learned about the kingdom of God—how through Jesus Christ, God is restoring and renewing life, renewing creation, restoring relationships.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding and Using Logos, Ethos, and Pathos
    School of Liberal Arts University Writing Center “Because writers need readers” Cavanaugh Hall 427 University Library 2125 (317)274-2049 (317)278-8171 www.iupui.edu/~uwc The Rhetorical Triangle: Understanding and Using Logos, Ethos, and Pathos Logos, ethos, and pathos are important components of all writing, whether we are aware of them or not. By learning to recognize logos, ethos, and pathos in the writing of others and in our own, we can create texts that appeal to readers on many different levels. This handout provides a brief overview of what logos, ethos, and pathos are and offers guiding questions for recognizing and incorporating these appeals. Aristotle taught that a speaker’s ability to persuade an audience is based on how well the speaker appeals to that audience in three different areas: logos, ethos, and pathos. Considered together, these appeals form what later rhetoricians have called the rhetorical triangle. Logos appeals to reason. Logos can also be thought of as the text of the argument, as well as how well a writer has argued his/her point. Ethos appeals to the writer’s character. Ethos can also be thought of as the role of the writer in the argument, and how credible his/her argument is. Pathos appeals to the emotions and the sympathetic imagination, as well as to beliefs and values. Pathos can also be thought of as the role of the audience in the argument. LOGOS (Reason/Text) ETHOS PATHOS (Credibility/Writer) (Values, Beliefs/Audience) The rhetorical triangle is typically represented by an equilateral triangle, suggesting that logos, ethos, and pathos should be balanced within a text.
    [Show full text]
  • Bias Is a Reciprocal Relationship 427
    \\jciprod01\productn\M\MAT\31-2\MAT209.txt unknown Seq: 1 13-MAR-19 14:24 Vol. 31, 2019 Bias Is a Reciprocal Relationship 427 Bias Is a Reciprocal Relationship: Forensic Mental Health Professionals and Lawyers in the Family Court Bottle by Dana E. Prescott* and Diane A. Tennies** I. Introduction The profession of law and its belief in the adversarial system as a means to discern factual truths in child custody litigation is deeply rooted in centuries of political and constitutional theory.1 Beyond political rhetoric and academic discourse, the definition of who is a parent and who has rights and responsibilities for children may mean that legal definitions, slower to evolve, are narrower than contemporary social definitions and demographic realties. Even as these social, legislative, and judicial adjustments occur over various time horizons, families in conflict must turn to the family court system to resolve the physical and legal custody of children. * Dana E. Prescott, JD, MSW, PhD is a lawyer licensed in Maine and Massachusetts. He may be contacted at [email protected]. The opin- ions expressed in this article are those of the authors and may not reflect the opinions of the AAML or the Journal. ** Diane A. Tennies, PhD, LADC is a clinical and forensic psychologist with a principle office in Bangor, Maine. She may be contacted at [email protected] 1 For a critical reflection on this history, see Rebecca Aviel, Why Civil Gideon Won’t Fix Family Law, 122 YALE L.J. 2106, 2120 (2012) (“This is a painfully glancing treatment of the fact that the adversarial model fits poorly with most pressing goals of family court, but the truth is that this disconnect is not news to scholars and reformers who study private custody disputes.“); Bar- bra A.
    [Show full text]
  • Stetson University Office of Title IX What Is Credibility?
    Credibility FOR COORDINATORS, HEARING OFFICERS, ADVISORS & INVESTIGATORS Stetson University Office of Title IX What is Credibility? Definition of credibility (Miriam Webster) 1 : the quality or power of inspiring belief 2 : capacity for belief In the Title IX process, Credibility refers to the process of weighing the accuracy and veracity of evidence. Credibility and honesty are not identical Stetson University Office of Title IX What role does credibility play in Title IX? Credibility gives weight to evidence All evidence must be evaluated for credibility in terms of the strength of source, content, and plausibility Credible evidence is used to determine responsibility findings The whole point to the process is to identify whether an incident (or incidents) were policy violations and credible evidence provides the support for a decision Stetson University Office of Title IX Who determines credibility? Investigators assess credibility; Hearing Officers determine credibility Investigators and Hearing Officers both ask questions that may go to credibility Investigators provide information that can support or contradict credibility of a source Only the Hearing Officer(s) make a final determination of credibility in the Title IX process Stetson University Office of Title IX Barriers to assessing credibility Bias towards members of a certain group – both positive and negative Previous experience with the individual – both positive and negative Inability to identify trauma-based responses and behaviors Inability to separate personal morals/beliefs from the situation False belief that witness corroboration is needed to establish credibility Limited information Interviewee fears sharing the information Stetson University Office of Title IX To assess credibility: Evaluate the source, content, and plausibility of what is offered in light of other evidence.
    [Show full text]