The Relationship of Attitudinal Components to Trust in Media

Abstract

Past research has proposed that the receiver's relationship to the content of a message will affect credibility attributed to the source. Current literature proposes explanatory mechanisms that require empirical distinctions among the various components of attitude, yet researchers often employ measures of “attitude extremity” that confound these components. This study follows Guttman's mathematical theory of attitude and its distinctions between four attitude components: direction, intensity, closure, and involvement. In a survey of 358 adults, relationships between trust in television news and newspaper coverage and each of the four components were tested for six current issues. Significant relationships were found for all four components. Results suggest that existing hypotheses relating credibility to attitude have not anticipated that credibility might be related to more than one component. Interactions occur in which the relation of credibility to one component would be modified by the presence of some other component. Theorizing that introduces contingencies into the consideration of questions dealing with credibility is suggested.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Gunther, A. C. (1988). Attitude extremity and trust in media. Journalism Quarterly, 65, 279-287.

Gunther, A. C. (1992). Biased press or biased public: Attitudes toward media coverage of social groups. Public Opinion Quarterly, 56, 147-167.

Gunther, A. C. , & Lasorsa, D. L. (1986). Issue importance and perceptions of a hostile media. Journalism Quarterly, 63, 844-848.

Guttman, L. (1954). The principal components of scalable attitudes. In P. F. Lazarsfeld (Ed.), Mathematical thinking in the social sciences (pp. 216-257). Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Hovland, C. I. , & Weiss, W. (1951). The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 15, 635-650.

Insko, C. A. (1967). Theories of attitude change. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Johnson, B. T. , & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Effects of involvement on persuasion: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 106(2), 290-314.

Lord, C. G. , Ross, L. , & Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2098-2109.

Miller, N. (1965). Involvement and dogmatism as inhibitors of attitude change. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1, 121-132.

10.

Petty, R. E. , & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown.

11.

Salmon, C. F. (1986). Perspectives on involvement in consumer and communication research. In B. Dervin & M. Voigt (Eds.), Progress in the communication sciences (pp. 243-268). Reading, MA: Ablex.

12.

Sherif, C. W. , Sherif, M. , & Nebergall, R. E. (1965). Attitude and attitude change: The social judgment-involvement approach. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.

13.

Vallone, R. P. , Ross, L. , & Lepper, M. R. (1985). The hostile media phenomenon: Biased perception and perceptions of media bias in coverage of the Beirut massacre. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(3), 577-585.