Perceived source credibility is fundamental to effective science communication. Recent years, however, have seen science become polarized and expert authority erode, complicating the notion that credibility equals persuasion. Two experiments address this tension, focusing on subcomponents of perceived source credibility—expertise and trustworthiness—for expert (N = 474) and nonexpert sources (N = 411). By manipulating the order by which participants learn about the source’s position on a scientific topic relative to their qualifications, the findings delineate when and how source credibility cues influence science communication, introducing nuance to the idea that credible sources can effectively communicate about value-laden topics.
Aristotle. (1991). On rhetoric: A theory of civic discourse (KennedyG. A.Trans.). Oxford University Press. (4th Century BCE)
2.
AttaranS.NotarantonioE. M.QuigleyC. J. (2015). Consumer perceptions of credibility and selling intent among advertisements, advertorials, and editorials: A persuasion knowledge model approach. Journal of Promotion Management, 21(6), 703–720. https://doi.org/10.1080/10496491.2015.1088919
3.
BeallL.MeyersT. A.KotcherJ. E.VragaE. K.MaibachE. W. (2017). Controversy matters: Impacts of topic and solution controversy on the perceived credibility of a scientist who advocates. PLOS ONE, 12(11), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0187511
4.
BennettM. (2022). Judging expert trustworthiness: The difference between believing and following the science. Social Epistemology, 36(5), 550–560. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2022.2106459
5.
BesleyJ. C.DudoA. (2024). Strategic science communication: A guide to setting the right objectives for more effective public engagement. Johns Hopkins University Press.
6.
BirnbaumM. H.StegnerS. E. (1979). Source credibility in social judgment: Bias, expertise, and the judge’s point of view. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(1), 48–74. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.1.48
7.
BucchiM. (2017). Credibility, expertise and the challenges of science communication 2.0. Public Understanding of Science, 26(8), 890–893. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662517733368
8.
ClarkJ. K.EvansA. T. (2014). Source credibility and persuasion: The role of message position in self-validation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(8), 1024–1036. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214534733
9.
Clemm von HohenbergB.GuessA. M. (2022). When do sources persuade? The effect of source credibility on opinion change. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 10(3), 328–342. https://doi.org/10.1017/xps.2022.2
10.
CohenJ.AtadE.MevorachT. (2023). Does it matter who tells the story? An experimental test of the effects of narrative perspective on credibility, identification, and persuasion. Communication Research Reports, 40(3), 101–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2022.2159799
11.
ColognaV.MedeN. G.BergerS.BesleyJ.BrickC.JoubertM.MaibachE. W.MiheljS.OreskesN.SchäferM. S.van der LindenS.AzizN. I. A.AbdulsalamS.ShamsiN. A.AczelB.AdinugrohoI.AlabreseE.AldohA.AlfanoM.& ZwaanR. A. (2025). Trust in scientists and their role in society across 68 countries. Nature Human Behaviour. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-02090-5
12.
CooleyD.Parks-YancyR. (2019). The effect of social media on perceived information credibility and decision making. Journal of Internet Commerce, 18(3), 249–269. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332861.2019.1595362
13.
CummingsL. (2020). Appeals to expertise. In CummingsL. (Ed.), Fallacies in medicine and health: Critical thinking, argumentation, and communication (pp. 151–190). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28513-5_5
14.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA.-G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193146
FestingerL. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.
17.
FraserT.AldrichD. P.PanagopoulosC.HummelD.KimD. (2022). The harmful effects of partisan polarization on health. PNAS Nexus, 1(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgac011
18.
GehrauV.FujarskiS.LorenzH.SchiebC.BlöbaumB. (2021). The impact of health information exposure and source credibility on covid-19 vaccination intention in Germany. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(9), 4678. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18094678
19.
GeigerN. (2022). Do people actually “listen to the experts”? A cautionary note on assuming expert credibility and persuasiveness on public health policy advocacy. Health Communication, 37(6), 677–684. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2020.1862449
GotliebJ. B.SarelD. (1991). Comparative advertising effectiveness: The role of involvement and source credibility. Journal of Advertising, 20(1), 38–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.1991.10673205
22.
HopkinsA.KempD. (2021). Credibility crisis: Brumadinho and the politics of mining industry reform. Wolters Kluwer.
23.
HousholderE. E.LaMarreH. L. (2014). Facebook politics: Toward a process model for achieving political source credibility through social media. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 11(4), 368–382. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2014.951753
24.
HovlandC. I.JanisI. L.KelleyH. H. (1953). Communication and persuasion; psychological studies of opinion change. Yale University Press.
25.
HovlandC. I.WeissW. (1951). The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 15(4), 635–650. https://doi.org/10.1086/266350
26.
HuntK. P.WaldD. M. (2020). The role of scientific source credibility and goodwill in public skepticism toward GM foods. Environmental Communication, 14(7), 971–986. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2020.1725086
KumkaleG. T.AlbarracínD.SeignourelP. J. (2010). The effects of source credibility in the presence or absence of prior attitudes: Implications for the design of persuasive communication campaigns. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40(6), 1325–1356. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00620.x
KuruO.PasekT.TraugottM. W. (2017). Motivated reasoning in the perceived credibility of public opinion polls. Public Opinion Quarterly, 81(2), 422–446. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfx018
33.
LeeC. H.SibleyC. G. (2020). Attitudes toward vaccinations are becoming more polarized in New Zealand: Findings from a longitudinal survey. EClinicalMedicine, 23, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100387
34.
LewandowskyS.EckerU. K. H.SeifertC. M.SchwarzN.CookJ. (2012). Misinformation and its correction. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(3), 106–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612451018
35.
McCroskeyJ. C.TevenJ. J. (1999). Goodwill: A reexamination of the construct and its measurement. Communication Monographs, 66(1), 90–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759909376464
36.
McCroskeyJ. C.YoungT. J. (1981). Ethos and credibility: The construct and its measurement after three decades. Central States Speech Journal, 32(1), 24–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510978109368075
37.
MiheljS.KondorK.ŠtětkaV. (2022). Establishing trust in experts during a crisis: Expert trustworthiness and media use during the COVID-19 pandemic. Science Communication, 44(3), 292–319. https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470221100558
38.
MunnukkaJ.UusitaloO.ToivonenH. (2016). Credibility of a peer endorser and advertising effectiveness. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 33(3), 182–192. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCM-11-2014-1221
O’KeefeD. J. (2003). Message properties, mediating states, and manipulation checks: Claims, evidence, and data analysis in experimental persuasive message effects research. Communication Theory, 13(3), 251–274. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2003.tb00292.x
43.
O’KeefeD. J. (2016). Persuasion theory and research. Sage.
PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60214-2
46.
PornpitakpanC. (2006). The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of five decades’ evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(2), 243–281. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02547.x
47.
RekkerR. (2021). The nature and origins of political polarization over science. Public Understanding of Science, 30(4), 352–368. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662521989193
48.
Schmid-PetriH.BienzeislerN.BeselerA. (2022). Effects of politicization on the practice of science Progress in Molecular Biology and Translational Science, 188, 45–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.pmbts.2021.11.005
49.
SchmidtA. L.ZolloF.ScalaA.BetschC.QuattrociocchiW. (2018). Polarization of the vaccination debate on Facebook. Vaccine, 36(25), 3606–3612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2018.05.040
50.
SonmezB.MakarovsK.AllumN. (2023). Public perception of scientists: Experimental evidence on the role of sociodemographic, partisan, and professional characteristics. PLOS ONE, 18(7), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287572
51.
TsfatiY.WalterN. (2019a). Credibility. In VosT. P.HanuschF. (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of journalism studies (pp. 380–385). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118841570.iejs0086
52.
TsfatiY.WalterN. (2019b). The world of news and politics. In OliverM. B.RaneyA. A.BryantJ. (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (4th ed., pp. 36–50). Taylor and Francis.
WalterN.EdgerlyS.SaucierC. J. (2021). “Trust, then verify”: When and why people fact-check partisan information. International Journal of Communication, 15, 4734–4754.
55.
WalterN.SalovichN. A. (2021). Unchecked vs. uncheckable: How opinion-based claims can impede corrections of misinformation. Mass Communication and Society, 24(4), 500–526. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2020.1864406
56.
WeismuellerJ.HarriganP.WangS.SoutarG. N. (2020). Influencer endorsements: How advertising disclosure and source credibility affect consumer purchase intention on social media. Australasian Marketing Journal, 28(4), 160–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2020.03.002
57.
WilsonP. (1983). Second-hand knowledge: An inquiry into cognitive authority. Greenwood Press.
58.
XiaoM.WangR.Chan-OlmstedS. (2018). Factors affecting YouTube influencer marketing credibility: A heuristic-systematic model. Journal of Media Business Studies, 15(3), 188–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/16522354.2018.1501146
59.
XuY.MargolinD.NiederdeppeJ. (2021). Testing strategies to increase source credibility through strategic message design in the context of vaccination and vaccine hesitancy. Health Communication, 36(11), 1354–1367.
60.
ZhangJ.FahmyS. (2015). Live tweeting at work: The use of social media in public diplomacy. In GolanG. J.YangS.-U.KinseyD. F. (Eds.), International public relations and public diplomacy: Communication and engagement (pp. 315–330). Peter Lang.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
