Studies of the credibility of sources is a key research focus in the communication field, especially in journalism. Given the increase in misinformation as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic, source credibility is crucial for people to contrast news stories in an infodemic context. Our research, based on a demographic study (N = 2007) carried out in Spain during the COVID-19 pandemic, used a multifactor news credibility indicator to explore how different types of sources affected the perceived credibility of a fake news item on COVID-19 in the written digital press format. We also performed a cluster analysis to determine the subgroups profiled according to key sociodemographic variables (age, gender, and education). Our results indicate that expert and political sources had a null effect on news credibility, while citizen and celebrity sources had a clear negative effect. Furthermore, our fake news story that did not cite sources was awarded a positive level of credibility. We also found that age, gender, and education level were statistically significant in their association with news credibility.
Abu-AkelASpitzAWestR (2021) The effect of spokesperson attribution on public health message sharing during the COVID-19 pandemic. PLoS One16(2): e0245100. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245100.
2.
AlmenarEAran-RamspottSSuauJ, et al. (2021) Gender differences in tackling fake news: different degrees of concern, but same problems. Media and Communication9(1): 229–238. DOI: 10.17645/mac.v9i1.3523.
3.
BesalúRPont-SorribesC (2021) Credibility of digital political news in Spain: Comparison between traditional media and social media. Social Sciences10(5): 170.ISO–690.
4.
BesalúRPont-SorribesCMartíA (2021) Perceived credibility of tweets by opinion leaders during the COVID-19 pandemic in Spain. International Journal of Communication15(2021): 5158–5185.
5.
Blach-ØrstenMBurkalR (2014) Credibility and the media as a political institution. Nordicom Review35: 67–80. DOI: 10.2478/nor-2014-0104.
6.
BrennenJSSimonFMNielsenRK (2021) Beyond (Mis)Representation: visuals in COVID-19 misinformation. The International Journal of Press/Politics26(1): 277–299. DOI: 10.1177/1940161220964780.
7.
BridgmanAMerkleyELoewenPJ, et al. (2020) The Causes and Consequences of COVID-19 Misperceptions: Understanding the Role of News and Social Media. Harvard: Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review. Available at: https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-028.
8.
BucyEP (2003) Media credibility reconsidered: synergy effects between on-air and online news. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly80(2): 247–264. DOI: 10.1177/107769900308000202.
9.
BursztynLRaoARothCP, et al. (2020) Misinformation during a pandemic. NBER Working Paper No. 27417, JEL No. D1,I31,Z13.
10.
CastellsM (2013) Communication power. UK: Oxford University Press.
11.
ChanMLeeLFChenHT (2022) Avoid or authenticate? A multilevel cross-country analysis of the roles of fake news concern and news fatigue on news avoidance and authentication. Digital Journalism1–20. doi: 10.1080/21670811.2021.2016060.
ChungCJNamYStefanoneMA (2012) Exploring online news credibility: the relative influence of traditional and technological factors. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication17(2): 171–186. DOI: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2011.01565.x.
14.
FareedNJonnalagaddaPSwobodaCM, et al. (2021) Socioeconomic factors influence health information seeking and trust over time: evidence from a cross-sectional, pooled analyses of HINTS data. American Journal of Health Promotion: AJHP35(8): 1084–1094. DOI: 10.1177/08901171211018135.
15.
FerrésJPiscitelliA (2012) La competencia mediática: propuesta articulada de dimensiones e indicadores. [Media competence. Articulated proposal of dimensions and indicators]. Comunicar38: 75–82. DOI: 10.3916/C38-2012-02-08.
16.
FlanaginAJMetzgerMJ (2000) Perceptions of internet information credibility. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly77: 515–540. DOI: 10.1177/107769900007700304.
17.
FoggBJMarshallJLarakiO, et al. (2001) What makes Web sites credible? A report on a large quantitative study. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems2001, 3(1), 61–68. DOI:10.1145/365024.365037.
18.
García-AvilésJANavarro-MailloFArias-RoblesF (2014) La credibilidad de los contenidos informativos en Internet para los ‘nativos digitales’: estudio de caso. [The credibility of informational content on the Internet for ‘digital natives': a case study]. Palabra Clave17(3): 875–894. Retrieved November 15, 2022, from: http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S012282852014000300013&lng=en&tlng=es.
19.
GoEYouKHJungE, et al. (2016) Why do we use different types of websites and assign them different levels of credibility? Structural relations among users’ motives, types of websites, information credibility, and trust in the press. Computers in Human Behavior54: 231–239.
20.
GuessANaglerJTuckerJ (2019) Less than you think: Prevalence and predictors of fake news dissemination on Facebook. Science advances, 5(1), eaau4586.ISO690.
21.
GuntherAC (1992) Biased press or biased public? Attitudes toward media coverage of social groups. Public Opinion Quarterly56(2): 147–167. DOI: 10.1086/269308.
22.
Hao NguyenMGruberJFuchsJ, et al. (2020) Changes in digital communication during the COVID-19 global pandemic: implications for digital inequality and future research. Social Media + Society6: 2056305120948255. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2056305120948255.
23.
HovlandCJanisIKelleyH (1953) Source Credibility: A Philosophical Analysis. Communication and Persuasion. New Haven, GT: Yale University Press.
24.
JohnsonTJKayeBK (1998) Cruising is believing? Comparing internet and traditional sources on media credibility measures. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly75: 325–340. DOI: 10.1177/107769909807500208.
25.
JohnsonTJKayeBK (2000) Using is believing: the influence of reliance on the credibility of online political information among politically interested internet users. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly77: 865–879. DOI: 10.1177/107769900007700409.
26.
JohnsonTJKayeBK (2002) Webelievability: a path model examining how convenience and reliance predict online credibility. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly79: 619–642. DOI: 10.1177/107769900207900306.
27.
JoinerRStewartCBeaneyC (2015) Gender digital divide. Does it exist and what are the explanations? In: RosenLDCheeverNACarrierIM (eds), The Wiley Handbook of Psychology, Technology and Society. 1st edition. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley J and Sons, LTD Published. Pg. 74–88.
28.
KaiserHF (1974) An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika39: 31–36. DOI: 10.1007/BF02291575.
29.
KohringMMatthesJ (2007) Trust in News Media: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Scale. Communication Research, 231–252. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650206298071.
30.
LingR (2020) Confirmation bias in the era of mobile news consumption: the social and psychological dimensions. Digital Journalism8(5): 596–604. DOI: 10.1080/21670811.2020.1766987.
31.
Martí-DanésAPont-SorribesCBesalúR, et al. (2023) Desinformación en la población sénior: el impacto de la verificación en la credibilidad informativa. Cátedra Ideograma - UPF. Available at: https://bit.ly/3FwRORW.
32.
MasipPAran-RamspottSRuiz-CaballeroC, et al. (2020) Consumo informativo y cobertura mediática durante el confinamiento por el Covid-19: sobreinformación, sesgo ideológico y sensacionalismo. El Profesional de la Información29(3): 8. doi: 10.3145/epi.2020.may.12.
33.
McGinniesEWardCD (1980) Better liked than right: trustworthiness and expertise as factors in credibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin6(3): 467–472. DOI: 10.1177/014616728063023.
34.
MetzgerMJFlanaginAJEyalK, et al. (2003) Credibility for the 21st century: integrating perspectives on source, message, and media credibility in the contemporary media environment. In: KalbfleischPJ (ed) Communication Yearbook. Lawrence, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, vol. 27, pp. 293–335.
35.
MetzgerMJFlanaginAJMeddersRB (2010) Social and heuristic approaches to credibility evaluation online. Journal of Communication60: 413–439. DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01488.x.
36.
MeyerP (1988) Defining and measuring credibility of newspapers: developing an index. Journalism quarterly65(3): 567–574.
37.
ParkSMasseyPMStimpsonJP (2021) Primary source of information about COVID-19 as a determinant of perception of COVID-19 severity and vaccine uptake: source of information and COVID-19. Journal of General Internal Medicine36: 3088–3095. DOI: 10.1007/s11606-021-07080-1.
38.
PennycookGMcPhetresJZhangY, et al. (2020) Fighting COVID-19 misinformation on social media: experimental evidence for a scalable accuracy-nudge intervention. Psychological Science31(7): 770–780. DOI: 10.1177/0956797620939054.
Pont-SorribesCBesalúRCodinaL (2020) WhatsApp como canal de información política en España: credibilidad, perfil de usuarios y compartición de contenidos. Profesional de la información29(6).
41.
PrasadA (2022) Anti-science misinformation and conspiracies: COVID–19, post-truth, and science and Technology studies (STS). Science Technology and Society27(1): 88–112. DOI: 10.1177/09717218211003413.
42.
RaduR (2020) Fighting the ‘infodemic’: legal responses to COVID-19 disinformation. Social media + society6: 2056305120948190. DOI: 10.1177/2056305120948190.
43.
RagneddM (2017) The Third Digital Divide. A Weberian Approach to Digital Inequalities. London, New York: Routledge. 978-1-4724-7126-0.
44.
Rodríguez-FernándezMMMartínez-FernándezVAJuanatey-BogaO (2020) Credibilidad en la prensa online: Estrategia para la diferenciación y generación de audiencias [Credibility of online press: A strategy for distinction and audience generation]. El Profesional de la Información29(6): e290631. doi: 10.3145/epi.2020.nov.31.
45.
SundarSNassC (2001) Conceptualizing sources in online news. Journal of Communication51: 52–72. DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2001.tb02872.x.
46.
TheocharisYCardenalAJinS, et al. (2021) Does the platform matter? Social media and COVID-19 conspiracy theory beliefs in 17 countries. New Media and Society25: 3412–3437. DOI: 10.1177/14614448211045666.
47.
TsfatiY (2010) Online news exposure and trust in the mainstream media: exploring possible associations. American Behavioral Scientist54: 22–42.
48.
Vázquez-HerreroJNegreira-ReyMSixto-GarcíaJ (2022) Mind the gap! Journalism on social media and news consumption among young audiences. International Journal of Communication16: 2. doi: 10.1932/8036/20220005.
49.
WathenCNBurkellJ (2002) Believe it or not: factors influencing credibility on the Web. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology53: 134–144.
50.
WilsonEJSherrellDL (1993) Source effects in communication and persuasion research: a meta-analysis of effect size. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science21(2): 101–112. DOI: 10.1007/BF02894421.
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.
