credibility

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Email
American Heritage Dictionary:

cred·i·bil·i·ty

Top
(krĕd'ə-bĭl'ĭ-tē) pronunciation
n.
  1. The quality, capability, or power to elicit belief: "America's credibility must not be squandered, especially by its leaders" (Henry A. Kissinger).
  2. A capacity for belief: a story that strained our credibility.

Degree to which a communicator or communication is believed by the recipient. Credibility is particularly important when the message to be conveyed varies substantially from the recipient's current beliefs or attitudes. The credibility of such a message will be increased if delivered by a communicator who is expert, trustworthy, and appealing. A message may be credible if only two of the three criteria for the communicator are met, provided the two criteria hold dominance in that context. For example, many voters will take political advice from a celebrity who is considered trustworthy and appealing despite the celebrity's lack of political expertise, but they would probably not take medical advice from that celebrity.

Top

n

Definition: believableness
Antonyms: implausibility, improbability, unreasonableness

This entry contains information applicable to United States law only.

Believability. The major legal application of the term credibility relates to the testimony of a witness or party during a trial. Testimony must be both competent and credible if it is to be accepted by the trier of fact as proof of an issue being litigated.

The credibility of a witness or party is based upon the ability of the jury to trust and believe what he or she says, and relates to the accuracy of his or her testimony as well as to its logic, truthfulness, and sincerity. Personal credibility depends upon the qualities of a person that would lead a jury to believe or disbelieve what the person said.

Random House Word Menu:

categories related to 'credibility'

Top
Random House Word Menu by Stephen Glazier
For a list of words related to credibility, see:

  See crossword solutions for the clue Credibility.
Top

Credibility refers to the objective and subjective components of the believability of a source or message.

Traditionally, modern, credibility has two key components: trustworthiness and expertise, which both have objective and subjective components. Trustworthiness is based more on subjective factors, but can include objective measurements such as established reliability. Expertise can be similarly subjectively perceived, but also includes relatively objective characteristics of the source or message (e.g., credentials, certification or information quality).[1] Secondary components of credibility include source dynamism (charisma) and physical attractiveness.

Credibility online has become an important topic since the mid-1990s, as the web has increasingly become an information resource. The Credibility and Digital Media Project @ UCSB[2] highlights recent and ongoing work in this area, including recent consideration of digital media, youth, and credibility. In addition, the Persuasive Technology Lab[3] at Stanford University has studied web credibility and proposed the principal components of online credibility and a general theory called Prominence-Interpretation Theory.[4]

Contents

Journalistic credibility

According to the Society of Professional Journalists code of ethics, professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility.[5] abcdefghighdshgdgdsdASsdADFggsreqr5esrthatea

Scientific credibility

Scientific credibility has been defined as the extent to which science in general is recognized as a source of reliable information about the world.[6] The term has also been applied more narrowly, as an assessment of the credibility of the work of an individual scientist or a field of research. Here, the phrase refers to how closely the work in question adheres to scientific principles, such as the scientific method.[7] The method most commonly used to assess the quality of science is peer review and then publication as part of the scientific literature.[8] Other approaches include the collaborative assessment of a topic by a group of experts, this process can produce reviews such as those published by the Cochrane Collaboration,[9] or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.[10]

The general public can give a great deal of weight to perceptions of scientific authority in their decisions on controversial issues that involve scientific research, such as biotechnology.[11] However, both the credibility and authority of science is questioned by groups with non-mainstream views, such as some advocates of alternative medicine,[12] or those who dispute the scientific consensus on a topic, such as AIDS denialists.[13][14]

Street credibility

Often abbreviated street cred, whether someone's word on the street can be believed. Particularly important in the hip-hop and its sub-genre gangsta-rap scenes.[15] Where credence commands a level of respect vis-à-vis issues affecting those environments.

See also

Credibility Research Reviews

  • Metzger, M.J., Flanagin, A.J., Eyal, K., Lemus, D.R., & McCann, R. (2003). Credibility in the 21st century: Integrating perspectives on source, message, and media credibility in the contemporary media environment. In P. Kalbfleisch (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 27 (pp. 293–335). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Rieh, S.Y. & Danielson, D.R. (2007). Credibility: A multidisciplinary framework. In B. Cronin (Ed.), Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (Vol. 41, pp. 307–364). Medford, NJ: Information Today.

References

  1. ^ Flanagin and Metzger (2008), Digital media and youth: Unparalleled opportunity and unprecedented responsibility. In M. Metzger, & A. Flanagin (Editors), Digital media, youth, and credibility (pp. 5-28). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
  2. ^ Credibility.ucsb.edu
  3. ^ Captology.stanford.eu
  4. ^ Credibility.stanford.edu
  5. ^ SPJ.org (see Preamble)
  6. ^ Bocking, Stephen (2004). Nature's experts: science, politics, and the environment. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. p. 164. ISBN 0-8135-3398-8. 
  7. ^ Alkin, Marvin C. (2004). Evaluation roots: tracing theorists' views and influences. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage. p. 134. ISBN 0-7619-2894-4. 
  8. ^ Bocking, Stephen (2004). Nature's experts: science, politics, and the environment. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. p. 165. ISBN 0-8135-3398-8. 
  9. ^ What is a Cochrane review The Cochrane Collaboration, Accessed 05 January 2009
  10. ^ Agrawala, S. (1998). "Structural and Process History of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change". Climatic Change 39 (4): 621–642. doi:10.1023/A:1005312331477. http://www.springerlink.com/index/N302233443147421.pdf 
  11. ^ Brossard, Dominique; Nisbet, Matthew C. (2007). "Deference to Scientific Authority Among a Low Information Public: Understanding U.S. Opinion on Agricultural Biotechnology". International Journal of Public Opinion Research 19 (1): 24. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edl003. http://ijpor.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/19/1/24. Lay summary 
  12. ^ O'callaghan, F.V.; Jordan, N. (2003). "Postmodern values, attitudes and the use of complementary medicine". Complementary Therapies in Medicine 11 (1): 28–32. doi:10.1016/S0965-2299(02)00109-7. PMID 12667972. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0965229902001097 [dead link]
  13. ^ Smith TC, Novella SP (August 2007). "HIV denial in the Internet era". PLoS Med. 4 (8): e256. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040256. PMC 1949841. PMID 17713982. http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0040256. 
  14. ^ Epstein, Steven (1996). Impure science: AIDS, activism, and the politics of knowledge. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-21445-5. 
  15. ^ http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/street_cred

Literature

  • Chesney, T. (2006). An empirical examination of Wikipedia’s credibility. First Monday, 11(11). Available at firstmonday.org
  • Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. J. (2011). From Encyclopædia Britannica to Wikipedia: Generational differences in the perceived credibility of online encyclopedia information. Information, Communication, and Society, 14(3), 355-374. Available at [1]
  • Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. J. (2010). Kids and credibility: An empirical examination of youth, digital media use, and information credibility. Cambridge: MIT Press. Available at [2]
  • Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. (2008). Digital media and youth: Unparalleled opportunity and unprecedented responsibility. In M. Metzger, & A. Flanagin (Editors), Digital media, youth, and credibility (pp. 5–28). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Available at [3]
  • Flanagin, A.J., & Metzger, M.J. (2007). The role of site features, user attributes, and information verification behaviors on the perceived credibility of web-based information. New Media & Society, 9(2), 319-342. Available at [4]
  • Mattus, Maria (2007). Finding Credible Information: A Challenge to Students Writing Academic Essays. Human IT 9(2), 1-28. Hentet 2007-09-04 fra. Available at hb.se
  • Metzger, M.J., & Flanagin, A.J. (Eds.) (2008). Digital Media, Youth, and Credibility. Cambridge: MIT Press. Available at mitpressjournals.org
  • Metzger, M. J., Flanagin, A. J., & Medders, R. (2010). Social and heuristic approaches to credibility evaluation online. Journal of Communication, 60(3), 413-439. [5]
  • Metzger, M.J., Flanagin, A.J., Eyal, K., Lemus, D.R., & McCann, R. (2003). Credibility in the 21st century: Integrating perspectives on source, message, and media credibility in the contemporary media environment. In P. Kalbfleisch (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 27 (pp. 293–335). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Available at [6]
  • Rieh, Soo Young & Danielson, David R. (2007). Credibility: A multidisciplinary framework. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 41, 307-364.
  • Savolainen, R. (2007). Media credibility and cognitive authority. The case of seeking orienting information. Information Research, 12(3) paper 319. Available at informationr.net
  • Woods, E.F. (2011). Credibility for college study. "Verifying the Unverifiable", Digital media, File 24.

External links


Translations:

Credibility

Top

Dansk (Danish)
n. - troværdighed, omdømme, status

idioms:

  • credibility gap    troværdighedskløft

Nederlands (Dutch)
geloofwaardigheid

Français (French)
n. - crédibilité

idioms:

  • credibility gap    manque de crédibilité, scepticisme envers (un gouvernement, etc)

Deutsch (German)
n. - Glaubwürdigkeit

idioms:

  • credibility gap    Mangel an Glaubwürdigkeit

Ελληνική (Greek)
n. - αξιοπιστία, (καθομ.) αληθοφάνεια ή πειστικότητα στοιχείων αντιπαράθεσης

idioms:

  • credibility gap    έλλειψη αξιοπιστίας λόγω προφανούς διαφοράς μεταξύ λόγων και έργων

Italiano (Italian)
credibilità

idioms:

  • credibility gap    problema di credibilità

Português (Portuguese)
n. - credibilidade (f)

idioms:

  • credibility gap    falta (f) de credibilidade

Русский (Russian)
доверчивость

idioms:

  • credibility gap    явная ложь

Español (Spanish)
n. - credibilidad, verosimilitud

idioms:

  • credibility gap    margen de credibilidad

Svenska (Swedish)
n. - trovärdighet

中文(简体)(Chinese (Simplified))
可信用, 可靠, 确实性

idioms:

  • credibility gap    信用差距, 缺乏可信性

中文(繁體)(Chinese (Traditional))
n. - 可信用, 可靠, 確實性

idioms:

  • credibility gap    信用差距, 缺乏可信性

한국어 (Korean)
n. - 진실성, 위신

日本語 (Japanese)
n. - 信じうること, 信用, 信頼性

idioms:

  • credibility gap    言行不一致, 不信感

العربيه (Arabic)
‏(الاسم) مصداقيه‏

עברית (Hebrew)
n. - ‮אמינות, אמון‬


Post a question - any question - to the WikiAnswers community:

Copyrights:

Mentioned in