This two-part study examines factors that can influence the perceived credibility of a science Web site. In the first part, respondents answered questions about their perceptions of science sites with the .com and .gov domain. Findings suggest that sites with a .gov domain are perceived to be more credible. Part 2 is an experiment in which respondents read a short science article from a site. Participants were randomly assigned to experimental conditions in which they were led to believe the site was from either a high- or moderate-credibility source and from a domain that contained either a .gov or .com extension. Ratings of the author, source, and the article were systematically influenced by the manipulations. Implications for science Web sites are presented in the discussion.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Blumler, J. G. 1979. The role of theory in uses and gratifications studies. Communication Research6:9-36.
2.
Eveland, W. P., Jr., and S. Dunwoody. 1998. Users and navigation patterns of a science World Wide Web site for the public. Public Understanding of Science7:285-311.
3.
Finberg, H., M. Stone, and D. Lynch. 2001. Digital journalism credibility study. Available from the Online News Association, Knight Foundation: http://www.journalists.org/Programs/Study.htm.
4.
Flanagin, A. J., and M. J. Metzger. 2000. Perceptions of Internet credibility. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly77 (3): 515-40.
5.
Fox, A., and L. Rainie. 2002. Vital decisions: How Internet users decide what information to trust when they or their loved ones are sick. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project.
6.
Gunther, A. C. 1988. Extremity of attitude and trust in media. Journalism Quarterly65 (2): 279-87.
7.
Hartz, J., and R. Chappell. 1997. Worlds apart: How the distance between science and journalism threatens America’s future. Nashville, TN: First Amendment Center.
8.
Hawkins, D. T. 1999. What is credible information? ONLINE, pp. 86-89. Available from http://www.onlineinc.com/onlinemag.
9.
Health on the Net Foundation. 2001. HONcode site-checker. Available from http://www.hon.ch/HONcode/HONcode_check.html.
10.
Jenkins, E. 1994. Scientific literacy. In The international encyclopedia of education, vol. 9, 2d ed., edited by T. Husen and T. Postlethwaite, 5345-50. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
11.
Johnson, H., and J. Scileppi. 1969. Effects of ego-involvement conditions on attitude change to high and low credibility communicators. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology13:31-36.
12.
Johnson, T. J., and B. Kaye. 1998. Cruising is believing? Comparing Internet and traditional sources on media credibility measures. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly. 75 (2): 325-40.
13.
Katz, E., J. G. Blumler, and M. Gurevitch. 1974. Utilization of mass communication by the individual. In The uses of mass communications: Current perspectives on gratifications research, edited by J. G. Blumler and E. Katz, 19-32. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
14.
Lasica, J. D. 2002. Online news on a tightrope. Available from http://www.ojr.org/ojr/business.
15.
Marquart, J., G. J. O’Keefe, and A. C. Gunther. 1995. Believing in biotech: Farmers’perceptions of the credibility of BGH information-sources. Science Communication16 (4): 388-402.
16.
Miller, J. 1998. The measurement of civic scientific literacy. Public Understanding of Science. 7 (3): 203-23.
17.
Newhagen, J., and C. Nass. 1989. Differential criteria for evaluating credibility of newspapers and TV news. Journalism Quarterly66 (2): 277-84.
18.
Ohanian, R. 1990. Construction and validation of a scale to measure celebrity endorsers’ perceived expertise, trustworthiness, and attractiveness. Journal of Advertising19:39-52.
19.
Papacharissi, Z., and A. Rubin. 2000. Predictors of Internet use. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media44 (2): 175-96.
20.
Popular Science. 2001. Popular Science: Best of the Web. Available from http://www.popsci.com/features/bow00.
21.
Rhine, R., and L. Severance. 1970. Ego-involvement, discrepancy, source credibility, and attitude change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology16:175-90.
22.
Rieh, S. Y., and N. J. Belkin. 1998. Understanding judgment of information quality and cognitive authority in the WWW. Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science35:279-89.
23.
Sapp, G. 1992. Science literacy: A discussion and information based definition. College and Research Libraries, p. 53.
24.
Sternthal, B., L. W. Phillips, and R. Dholakia. 1978. The persuasive effect of source credibility: A situational analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly42 (3): 285-314.
25.
Sundar, S. S. 1999. Exploring receivers’criteria for perception of print and online news. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly76 (2): 373-86.
26.
Tabachnick, B. G., and L. S. Fidell. 1989. Using multivariate statistics, 2d ed. NewYork: Harper and Row.
27.
Weigold, M. F. 2002. Communicating science: A review of the literature. Science Communication23 (2): 164-93.
28.
Wiener, J. L., and J. C. Mowen. 1986. Source credibility: On the independent effects of trust and expertise. In Advances in consumer research, vol. XIII, edited by R. J. Lutz, (pp.306-10). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
