Research on factors influencing information credibility judgment is increasing, whereas their findings are mixed. This study conducted a meta-analysis of 85 empirical studies, synthesizing the effects of 12 frequently examined source, content, channel, and receiver factors on information credibility perception. Results reveal that message quality, source credibility, and message fluency have large correlations with credibility perception, while other factors show small-to-medium correlations. Personal topic knowledge does not have a significant relationship with credibility perception. Gender composition, information channel, topic, and research method significantly moderate the aggregated relationships. The theoretical and practical implications are discussed.
AbedinE.MendozaA.KarunasekeraS. (2021). Exploring the moderating role of readers’ perspective in evaluations of online consumer reviews. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 16(7), 3406–3424. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer16070184
2.
AllenJ.HowlandB.MobiusM.RothschildD.WattsD. J. (2020). Evaluating the fake news problem at the scale of the information ecosystem. Science Advances, 6(14), Article eaay3539. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aay3539
3.
AppelmanA.SundarS. S. (2016). Measuring message credibility: Construction and validation of an exclusive scale. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 93(1), 59–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699015606057
4.
BabbieE. (2004). The practice of social research (9th ed.). Wadsworth Publishing Company.
5.
BagoB.RandD. G.PennycookG. (2020). Fake news, fast and slow: Deliberation reduces belief in false (but not true) news headlines. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 149(8), 1608–1613. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000729
6.
BeckerA. B. (2021). When comedy goes to extremes: The influence of ideology and social identity on source liking, credibility, and counterarguing. Psychology of Popular Media, 10(1), 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000265
7.
BorensteinM.HedgesL. V.HigginsJ. P.RothsteinH. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. John Wiley & Sons.
BriñolP.PettyR. E. (2009). Source factors in persuasion: A self-validation approach. European Review of Social Psychology, 20(1), 49–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280802643640
10.
BryanovK.VziatyshevaV. (2021). Determinants of individuals’ belief in fake news: A scoping review determinants of belief in fake news. PLOS ONE, 16(6), Article e0253717. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253717
11.
BucyE. P.D’AngeloP.BauerN. M. (2014). Crisis, credibility, and the press: A priming model of news evaluation. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 19(4), 453–475. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161214541682
12.
ChihW. H.HsuL. C.OrtizJ. (2020). The antecedents and consequences of the perceived positive eWOM review credibility. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 120(6), 1217–1243. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-10-2019-0573
13.
ChoiW. (2020). Older adultsʼ credibility assessment of online health information: An exploratory study using an extended typology of web credibility. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 71(11), 1295–1307. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24341
DanielT. A.CampA. L. (2020). Emojis affect processing fluency on social media. Psychology of Popular Media, 9(2), 208–213. https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000219
16.
De KeersmaeckerJ.DunningD.PennycookG.RandD.G.SanchezC.UnkelbachC.RoetsA. (2020). Investigating the robustness of the illusory truth effect across individual differences in cognitive ability, need for cognitive closure, and cognitive style. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(2), 204–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167219853844
17.
DeshpandeS. N.van AsseltA. D. I.TominiF.ArmstrongN.AllenA.NoakeC.KhanK.SeverensJ. L.KleijnenJ.WestwoodM. E. (2013). Rapid fetal fibronectin testing to predict preterm birth in women with symptoms of premature labour: A systematic review and cost analysis. Health Technology Assessment, 17(40), 1–138. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta17400
18.
DuvalS.TweedieR. (2000). Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot–based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics, 56(2), 455–463. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000.00455.x
19.
EckerU. K. H.LewandowskyS.CookJ.SchmidP.FazioL. K.BrashierN.KendeouP.VragaE. K.AmazeenM. A. (2022). The psychological drivers of misinformation belief and its resistance to correction. Nature Reviews Psychology, 1(1), 13–29. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-021-00006-y
20.
EggerM.Davey SmithG. D.SchneiderM.MinderC. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ, 315(7109), 629–634. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629
21.
FiskeS. T.TaylorS. E. (1991). Social cognition. McGraw-Hill.
22.
FlanaginA. J.MetzgerM. J. (2000). Perceptions of internet information credibility. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 77(3), 515–540. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900007700304
23.
FlanaginA. J.MetzgerM. J.PureR.MarkovA.HartsellE. (2014). Mitigating risk in ecommerce transactions: Perceptions of information credibility and the role of user-generated ratings in product quality and purchase intention. Electronic Commerce Research, 14(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-014-9139-2
24.
FoggB. J. (2003, April5–10). Prominence-interpretation theory: Explaining how people assess credibility online. In CHI’03 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems (pp. 722–723). Association for Computing Machinery.
25.
GuessA. M.LernerM.LyonsB.MontgomeryJ. M.NyhanB.ReiflerJ.SircarN. (2020). A digital media literacy intervention increases discernment between mainstream and false news in the United States and India. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 117(27), 15536–15545. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1920498117
26.
HassanA.BarberS. J. (2021). The effects of repetition frequency on the illusory truth effect. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 6(1), Article 38. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-021-00301-5
27.
HedgesL. V.OlkinI. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Academic Press.
28.
HilligossB.RiehS. Y. (2008). Developing a unifying framework of credibility assessment: Construct, heuristics, and interaction in context. Information Processing & Management, 44(4), 1467–1484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2007.10.001
29.
HoltrupS.HenkeJ.SteffanD.MöhringW. (2023). The reciprocal effects of perceived accuracy and trust in news media: A two-wave online panel study in the context of the 2021 German federal election. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 10776990231202692. https://doi.org/10.1177/10776990231202692
30.
Huedo-MedinaT. B.Sánchez-MecaJ.Marín-MartínezF.BotellaJ. (2006). Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or I² index?Psychological Methods, 11(2), 193–206. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.11.2.193
31.
HwangY.JeongS. H. (2023). Education-based gap in misinformation acceptance: Does the gap increase as misinformation exposure increases?Communication Research, 50(2), 157–178. https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502221121509
32.
IsmagilovaE.SladeE.RanaN. P.DwivediY. K. (2020). The effect of characteristics of source credibility on consumer behaviour: A meta-analysis. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 53, Article 101736. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.01.005
33.
JungE. H.Walsh-ChildersK.KimH. S. (2016). Factors influencing the perceived credibility of diet-nutrition information web sites. Computers in Human Behavior, 58, 37–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.044
34.
KimY. K. (2007). A study on the influence of factors that makes web sites credible. Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science, 41(4), 93–111. https://doi.org/10.4275/KSLIS.2007.41.4.093
35.
KochT.ZerbackT. (2013). Helpful or harmful? How frequent repetition affects perceived statement credibility. Journal of Communication, 63(6), 993–1010. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12063
36.
LandrevilleK. D.NilesC. (2019). “And that’s a fact!:” The roles of political ideology, PSRs, and perceived source credibility in estimating factual content in partisan news. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 63(2), 177–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2019.1622339
37.
LaneroA.VázquezJ. L.Sahelices-PintoC. (2020). Heuristic thinking and credibility of organic advertising claims: The role of knowledge and motivations. Sustainability, 12(21), Article 8776. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12218776
38.
LeeE. J.ShinS. Y. (2021). Mediated misinformation: Questions answered, more questions to ask. American Behavioral Scientist, 65(2), 259–276. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764219869403
39.
LeeS. S.LiangF.HahnL.LaneD. S.WeeksB. E.KwakN. (2021). The impact of social endorsement cues and manipulability concerns on perceptions of news credibility. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 24(6), 384–389. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2020.0566
40.
LiJ. C. (2017). Evaluation strategies and influencing factors of social media information credibility. Journal of Information Science, 36(1), 181–186.
41.
LiR.SuhA. (2015). Factors influencing information credibility on social media platforms: Evidence from Facebook pages. Procedia Computer Science, 72, 314–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.12.146
42.
LiaoQ. V.FuW. T. (2014). Age differences in credibility judgments of online health information. ACM Transactions on Computer-human Interaction (TOCHI), 21(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1145/2534410
43.
LucassenT.MuilwijkR.NoordzijM. L.SchraagenJ. M. (2013). Topic familiarity and information skills in online credibility evaluation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(2), 254–264. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22743
44.
LuoC.WuJ.ShiY.XuY. (2014). The effects of individualism–collectivism cultural orientation on eWOM information. International Journal of Information Management, 34(4), 446–456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2014.04.001
45.
MaT. J.AtkinD. (2017). User generated content and credibility evaluation of online health information: A meta analytic study. Telematics and Informatics, 34(5), 472–486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2016.09.009
46.
MaltzE. (2000). Is all communication created equal?: An investigation into the effects of communication mode on perceived information quality. Journal of Product Innovation Management: An International, 17(2), 110–127. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5885.1720110
47.
MargolinD. B.HannakA.WeberI. (2018). Political fact-checking on Twitter: When do corrections have an effect?Political Communication, 35(2), 196–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2017.1334018
48.
MelicanD. B.DixonT. L. (2008). News on the net: Credibility, selective exposure, and racial prejudice. Communication Research, 35(2), 151–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650207313157
49.
MetzgerM. J. (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 Technology, 58(13), 2078–2091. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20672
50.
MetzgerM. J.FlanaginA. J. (2015). Psychological approaches to credibility assessment online. In SundarS. S. (Ed.), Handbook of the psychology of communication technology (pp. 445–466). Wiley-Blackwell.
51.
MetzgerM. J.FlanaginA. J.LemusD. R.MccannR. M. (2003). Credibility for the 21st century: Integrating perspectives on source, message, and media credibility in the contemporary media environment. Annals of the International Communication Association, 27(1), 307–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2003.11679029
52.
MetzgerM. J.FlanaginA. J.MeddersR. B. (2010). Social and heuristic approaches to credibility evaluation online. Journal of Communication, 60(3), 413–439. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01488.x
53.
Meyers-LevyJ.SternthalB. (1991). Gender differences in the use of message cues and judgments. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(1), 84–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224379102800107
54.
NyhanB.ReiflerJ. (2010). When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior, 32(2), 303–330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-010-9112-2
55.
OuM.HoS. S. (2022). A meta-analysis of factors related to health information seeking: An integration from six theoretical frameworks. Communication Research, 49(4), 567–593. https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502211043024
56.
OuM.HoS. S. (2023). Does knowledge make a difference? Understanding how the lay public and experts assess the credibility of information on novel foods. Public Understanding of Science, 09636625231191348. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625231191348
57.
PancerE.ChandlerV.PooleM.NoseworthyT. J. (2019). How readability shapes social media engagement. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 29(2), 262–270. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1073
58.
PetersonR. A.BrownS. P. (2005). On the use of beta coefficients in meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(1), 175–181. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.175
59.
RedlawskD. P.CivettiniA. J. W.EmmersonK. M. (2010). The affective tipping point: Do motivated reasoners ever “get it?”Political Psychology, 31(4), 563–593. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2010.00772.x
RosenthalR.DiMatteoM. R. (2001). Meta-analysis: Recent developments in quantitative methods for literature reviews. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 59–82. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.59
62.
SarkarS.ChauhanS.KhareA. (2020). A meta-analysis of antecedents and consequences of trust in mobile commerce. International Journal of Information Management, 50, 286–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.08.008
63.
SarwarS.UmberS.BajwaA. M. (2020). Effects of political polarization of media on contents credibility and consumers in Pakistan. Pakistan Social Sciences Review, 4(3), 599–609. https://doi.org/10.35484/pssr.2020(4-III)43
64.
SchwarzN.JalbertM. (2021). When (fake) news feels true: Intuitions of truth and the acceptance and correction of misinformation. In GreifenederR.JafféM.NewmanE. J.SchwarzN. (Eds.), The psychology of fake news: Accepting, sharing, and correcting misinformation (pp. 73–89). Routledge.
65.
SelfC. C. (1996). Credibility. In SalwenM. B.StacksD. W. (Eds.), An integrated approach to communication theory and research (pp. 421–441). Lawrence Erlbaum.
66.
ShanY. (2016). How credible are online product reviews? The effects of self-generated and system-generated cues on source credibility evaluation. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 633–641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.10.013
67.
StantonJ. V.CookL. A. (2019). Product knowledge and information processing of organic foods. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 36(1), 240–252. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCM-07-2017-2275
68.
SuiY.ZhangB. (2021). Determinants of the perceived credibility of rebuttals concerning health misinformation. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(3), Article 1345. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18031345
69.
SundarS. S. (2008). The MAIN model: A heuristic approach to understand- ing technology effects on credibility. In MetzgerM. J.FlanaginA. J (Eds.), Digital media, youth, and credibility (pp. 73–100). MIT Press.
70.
SundarS. S.MolinaM. D.ChoE. (2021). Seeing is believing: Is video modality more powerful in spreading fake news via online messaging apps?Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 26(6), 301–319. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmab010
TandocE. C.JrLingR.WestlundO.DuffyA.GohD.Zheng WeiL. (2018). Audiences’ acts of authentication in the age of fake news: A conceptual framework. New Media & Society, 20(8), 2745–2763. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817731756
73.
VendemiaM. A. (2017). (Re)Viewing reviews: Effects of emotionality and valence on credibility perceptions in online consumer reviews. Communication Research Reports, 34(3), 230–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2017.1286470
74.
VragaE. K.BodeL. (2018). I do not believe you: How providing a source corrects health misperceptions across social media platforms. Information, Communication & Society, 21(10), 1337–1353. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1313883
75.
WangS.ChuT. H.HuangG. (2023). Do bandwagon cues affect credibility perceptions? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. Communication Research, 00936502221124395. https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502221124395
76.
WathenC. N.BurkellJ. (2002). Believe it or not: Factors influencing credibility on the Web. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(2), 134–144. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.10016
77.
WesterwickA. (2013). Effects of sponsorship, web site design, and Google ranking on the credibility of online information. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18(2), 194–211. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12006
78.
WittenbergC.BerinskyA. J. (2020). Misinformation and its correction. In PersilyN.TuckerJ. A. (Eds.), Social media and democracy: The state of the field and prospects for reform (pp. 163–198). Cambridge University Press.
79.
YangS.KrauseN. M.BaoL.CaliceM. N.NewmanT. P.ScheufeleD. A.XenosM. A.BrossardD. (2023). In Ai we trust: The interplay of media use, political ideology, and trust in shaping emerging AI attitudes. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 10776990231190868. https://doi.org/10.1177/10776990231190868
80.
YinC.SunY.FangY.LimK. (2018). Exploring the dual-role of cognitive heuristics and the moderating effect of gender in microblog information credibility evaluation. Information Technology & People, 31(3), 741–769. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-12-2016-0300
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.
