This randomized controlled experiment (N = 707) is the first to examine the role of video, source and user attributes in credibility assessment of online science news videos, and the impact of web-search on this role. We created a science news YouTube video in 12 versions (3 × 2 × 2 for source, quality and popularity). Each participant was randomly assigned to one version and was asked to rate the credibility of the source and the scientific information presented in the video. We found that perceived credibility is positively associated with perceived quality, as well as users’ YouTube experience. For those participants who did not conduct an online search during the assessment task, there was a positive association between the presenter’s perceived credibility and the video’s perceived credibility as well as its popularity; however, such associations were not present for participants who did conduct an online search.
AlmeidaCAlmeidaP (2018) Educational online video: Opportunities and barriers to integrate it in the entertainment consumption routines. In: Proceedings of the 2018 ACM international conference on interactive experiences for TV and online video, Seoul, Republic of Korea, 25 June, pp. 185–190. New York: ACM.
2.
AyehJKAuNLawR (2013) ‘Do we believe in TripAdvisor?’ Examining credibility perceptions and online travelers’ attitude toward using user-generated content. Journal of Travel Research52(4): 437–452.
3.
BanningSASweetserKD (2007) How much do they think it affects them and whom do they believe? Comparing the third-person effect and credibility of blogs and traditional media. Communication Quarterly55(4): 451–466.
4.
BärtlM (2018) YouTube channels, uploads and views: A statistical analysis of the past 10 years. Convergence24(1): 16–32.
5.
BerinskyAJHuberGALenzGS (2012) Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis20(3): 351–368.
BoothKMTrauthEM (2019) Moving beyond text: How teens evaluate video-based high stakes health information via social media. In: Proceedings of the iConference 2019: Information in contemporary society (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), vol. 11420, Washington, DC, 31 March–3 April, pp. 516–525. Berlin: Springer.
8.
BrameCJ (2016) Effective educational videos: Principles and guidelines for maximizing student learning from video content. CBE Life Sciences Education15(4): es6.
9.
CacioppoJTPettyRE (1982) The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology42(1): 116–131.
10.
CaslerKBickelLHackettE (2013) Separate but equal? A comparison of participants and data gathered via Amazon’s MTurk, social media, and face-to-face behavioral testing. Computers in Human Behavior29(6): 2156–2160.
11.
ChandlerJShapiroD (2016) Conducting clinical research using crowdsourced convenience samples. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology12(1): 53–81.
12.
ChenGMChenPSChangCWAbedinZ (2017) News video quality affects online sites’ credibility. Newspaper Research Journal38(1): 19–31.
13.
CumminsRGChambersT (2011) How production value impacts perceived technical quality, credibility, and economic value of video news. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly88(4): 737–752.
14.
DavisonWP (1983) The third-person effect in communication. Public Opinion Quarterly47(1): 1–15.
15.
Del GiudiceKV (2010) Trust on the web: The impact of social consensus on information credibility. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL. Available at: http://purl.fcla.edu/fcla/etd/CFE0003240
16.
DesaiTShariffADhingraVMinhasDEureMKatsM (2013) Is content really king? An objective analysis of the public’s response to medical videos on YouTube. PLoS ONE8(12): e82469.
17.
FangYH (2014) Beyond the credibility of electronic word of mouth: Exploring eWOM adoption on social networking sites from affective and curiosity perspectives. International Journal of Electronic Commerce18(3): 67–102.
18.
FlanaginAJMetzgerMJ (2013) Trusting expert versus user-generated ratings online: The role of information volume, valence, and consumer characteristics. Computers in Human Behavior29(4): 1626–1634.
19.
FlanaginAJMetzgerMJ (2019) Kids and Credibility. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
20.
FoggBJ (2003) Prominence-interpretation theory: Explaining how people assess credibility online. In: Proceedings of the CHI’03 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems, Fort Lauderdale, FL, 5–10 April, pp. 722–723. New York: ACM.
21.
FoggBJTsengH (1999) The elements of computer credibility. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Pittsburgh, PA, 15–20 May, pp. 80–87. New York: ACM.
22.
FoggBJSwaniPTreinenMMarshallJLarakiOOsipovichA, et al. (2001) What makes Web sites credible? In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Seattle, WA, 31 March–5 April, pp. 61–68. New York: ACM.
23.
ForzaniE (2018) How well can students evaluate online science information? Contributions of prior knowledge, gender, socioeconomic status, and offline reading ability. Reading Research Quarterly53(4): 385–390.
24.
FunkCGottfriedJMitchellA (2017) Science news and information today. Pew Research Center, 20September. Available at: www.pewresearch.org
25.
GabarronEFernandez-LuqueLArmayonesMLauAYS (2013) Identifying measures used for assessing quality of YouTube videos with patient health information: A review of current literature. Journal of Medical Internet Research2(1): e6.
26.
GaoQTianYTuM (2015) Exploring factors influencing Chinese user’s perceived credibility of health and safety information on Weibo. Computers in Human Behavior45: 21–31.
27.
HautzJFüllerJHutterKThürridlC (2014) Let users generate your video ads? The impact of video source and quality on consumers’ perceptions and intended behaviors. Journal of Interactive Marketing28(1): 1–15.
28.
HayatTHershkovitzA (2018) The role social cues play in mediating the effect of eWOM over purchasing intentions. Journal of Customer Behaviour17(3): 173–187.
29.
HayatTHershkovitzASamuel-AzranT (2019) The independent reinforcement effect: The role diverse social ties play in the credibility assessment process. Public Understanding of Science28(2): 201–217.
30.
HendriksFKienhuesDBrommeR (2015) Measuring laypeople’s trust in experts in a digital age: The Muenster Epistemic Trustworthiness Inventory (METI). PLoS ONE10(10): e0139309.
31.
HershkovitzABadarnehN (2018) Perceived credibility of scientific content on Facebook by grade-school students: The effect of popularity. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning21(2). Available at: http://www.eurodl.org/index.php?p=current&sp=brief&article=776
32.
JahngMRLittauJ (2016) Interacting is believing: Interactivity, social cue, and perceptions of journalistic credibility on Twitter. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly93(1): 38–58.
33.
JonesLWSinclairRCCourneyaKS (2003) The effects of source credibility and message framing on exercise intentions, behaviors, and attitudes: An integration of the elaboration likelihood model and prospect theory. Journal of Applied Social Psychology33(1): 179–196.
34.
KalogeropoulosA (2018) Online news video consumption: A comparison of six countries. Digital Journalism6(5): 651–665.
35.
KenigDKaminskyMHershkovitzA (2018) Teens choosing videos on YouTube: What makes them click? In: Proceedings of the 13th Chais conference for the study of innovation and learning technologies: Learning in the technological era, Ra’anana, Israel, pp. 280–283. Available at: https://www.openu.ac.il/innovation/chais2018/d2_4.pdf
36.
KimRParkHYKimHJKimAJangMHJeonB (2017) Dry facts are not always inviting: A content analysis of Korean videos regarding Parkinson’s disease on YouTube. Journal of Clinical Neuroscience46: 167–170.
37.
KrupnikovYLevineAS (2014) Cross-sample comparisons and external validity. Journal of Experimental Political Science1(1): 59–80.
38.
KuchtaMMiklošíkA (2017) Evolution of digital video consumption patterns. Communication Today8(2): 58–68.
39.
LangA (2000) The limited capacity model of mediated message processing. Journal of Communication50(1): 46–70.
40.
LazerDMJBaumMABenklerYBerinskyAJGreenhillKMMenczerF, et al. (2018) The science of fake news: Addressing fake news requires a multidisciplinary effort. Science359(6380): 1094–1096.
41.
LiM (2019) (Mis)matching: Journalistic uses of gender pronouns and names can influence implicit attitudes toward transgender people, perceived news content credibility, and perceived reporter professionalism. Newspaper Research Journal40(4): 517–533.
42.
MetzgerMJ (2007) Making sense of credibility on the web: Models for evaluating online information and recommendations for future research. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology58(13): 2078–2091.
43.
MetzgerMJFlanaginAJ (2015) Psychological approaches to credibility assessment online. In: SundarSS (ed.) The Handbook of the Psychology of Communication Technology, vol. 32. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 445–466.
44.
MetzgerMJFlanaginAJEyalKLemusDRMcCannRM (2003) Chapter 10: Credibility for the 21st century: Integrating perspectives on source, message, and media credibility in the contemporary media environment. Communication Yearbook27(1): 293–335.
45.
MetzgerMJFlanaginAJMarkovAGrossmanRBulgerM (2015) Believing the unbelievable: Understanding young people’s information literacy beliefs and practices in the United States. Journal of Children and Media9(3): 325–348.
MorrisMRCountsSRosewayAHoffASchwarzJ (2012) Tweeting is believing? Understanding microblog credibility perceptions. In: Proceedings of the ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work (CSCW), Seattle, WA, 11 February, pp. 441–450. New York: ACM.
48.
PaolacciGChandlerJIpeirotisPG (2010) Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making5(5): 411–419.
49.
PettyRECacioppoJT (1986) The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In: BerkowitzL (ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 19. New York: Academic Press, pp. 123–205.
50.
PornpitakpanC (2004a) The effect of celebrity endorsers’ perceived credibility on product purchase intention: The case of Singaporeans. Journal of International Consumer Marketing16(2): 55–74.
51.
PornpitakpanC (2004b) The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of five decades’ evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology34(2): 243–281.
52.
PotterJMcDougallJ (2017) Digital Media, Culture and Education: Theorising Third Space Literacies. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
53.
RedmilesEMKrossSMazurekML (2019) How well do my results generalize? Comparing security and privacy survey results from MTurk, web, and telephone samples. In: Proceedings of the 40th IEEE symposium on security and privacy, vol. 1, San Francisco, CA, 20–22 May, pp. 1326–1343. Berlin: Springer.
54.
ReicheltJSievertJJacobF (2014) How credibility affects eWOM reading: The influences of expertise, trustworthiness, and similarity on utilitarian and social functions. Journal of Marketing Communications20(1–2): 65–81.
55.
RosenthalS (2018) Motivations to seek science videos on YouTube: Free-choice learning in a connected society. International Journal of Science Education, Part B: Communication and Public Engagement8(1): 22–39.
56.
SaldañaMMcgregorSCde ZúñigaHG (2015) Social media as a public space for politics: Cross-national comparison of news consumption and participatory behaviors in the United States and the United Kingdom. International Journal of Communication9(1): 3304–3326.
57.
Sanz-MenéndezLCruz-CastroL (2019) The credibility of scientific communication sources regarding climate change: A population-based survey experiment. Public Understanding of Science28(5): 534–553.
58.
SnelsonC (2018) Video production in content-area pedagogy: A scoping study of the research literature. Learning, Media and Technology43(3): 294–306.
59.
SpartzJTSuLYFGriffinRBrossardDDunwoodyS (2017) YouTube, social norms and perceived salience of climate change in the American mind. Environmental Communication11(1): 1–16.
60.
StewartB (2015) Open to influence: What counts as academic influence in scholarly networked Twitter participation. Learning, Media and Technology40(3): 287–309.
61.
SundarSS (2008) The MAIN model: A heuristic approach to understanding technology effects on credibility. In: MetzgerMJFlanaginAJ (eds) Digital Media, Youth, and Credibility. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 73–100.
62.
TurcotteJYorkCIrvingJSchollRMPingreeRJ (2015) News recommendations from social media opinion leaders: Effects on media trust and information seeking. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication20(5): 520–535.
