|
|||||
Source Credibility
Research
last
updated 2/17/2016
Definitional Concepts
i. Credibility is in the eye of the beholder - faked credibility is as good as the real thing (AP p. 124) ii. Credibility is situational and contextual iii. Credibility is an interactive process among sources, messages, and receivers iv. Credibility influences both believing and yielding v. The effect of credibility on attitude change is smaller in the central route (AP 14)
Cronkite and Liska described four categories of factors influencing source credibility
i. Source characteristics - looks, vocalics, gestures, verbal style, organization of message. ii. Attributes inferred about the source - intelligence, occupation, knowledge, race goes either way (see AP 12, p.124-5) iii. Functions the source performs - relating to the topic (e.g. addict as source on drug use) iv. Criteria employed by receivers to judge source suitability to speak are situational
Other General Source Characteristics affecting credibility (from a variety of other researchers)
i. attitude similarity and common ground - occasionally dissimilarity is helpful ii. social adjustment iii. status and recognition iv. dynamism and humor v. evidence and information vi. physical characteristics - (be appropriate in dress, etc) vii. communication skills (appropriate to situation - vocal pleasantness, linguistic diversity, audience and feedback analysis skills)
How to deal with irredeemable low ethos (AP 14)
i. act in ways contrary to your apparent self-interest -- violate listener expectations for the source ii. create the impression that you are not trying to influence others (e.g. let them "overhear" private conversations, hidden camera, etc.)
Manufacturing Credibility (AP 14 & 15)
i. make sure public knows of your successes, many small or trivial ones are fine - set low expectations. ii. media models are more effective at influence than preaching (1) bandwagon effect works! (2) media models
can teach that a behavior is appropriate
and legitimate. |