↓ Skip to main content

Would a madman have been so wise as this?” The effects of source credibility and message credibility on validation

Overview of attention for article published in Memory & Cognition, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (58th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 Mendeley
Title
Would a madman have been so wise as this?” The effects of source credibility and message credibility on validation
Published in
Memory & Cognition, October 2016
DOI 10.3758/s13421-016-0656-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeffrey E. Foy, Paul C. LoCasto, Stephen W. Briner, Samantha Dyar

Abstract

Readers rapidly check new information against prior knowledge during validation, but research is inconsistent as to whether source credibility affects validation. We argue that readers are likely to accept highly plausible assertions regardless of source, but that high source credibility may boost acceptance of claims that are less plausible based on general world knowledge. In Experiment 1, participants read narratives with assertions for which the plausibility varied depending on the source. For high credibility sources, we found that readers were faster to read information confirming these assertions relative to contradictory information. We found the opposite patterns for low credibility characters. In Experiment 2, readers read claims from the same high or low credibility sources, but the claims were always plausible based on general world knowledge. Readers consistently took longer to read contradictory information, regardless of source. In Experiment 3, participants read modified versions of "The Tell-Tale Heart," which was narrated entirely by an unreliable source. We manipulated the plausibility of a target event, as well as whether high credibility characters within the story provided confirmatory or contradictory information about the narrator's description of the target event. Though readers rated the narrator as being insane, they were more likely to believe the narrator's assertions about the target event when it was plausible and corroborated by other characters. We argue that sourcing research would benefit from focusing on the relationship between source credibility, message credibility, and multiple sources within a text.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 20 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 30%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 25%
Professor 4 20%
Student > Postgraduate 2 10%
Researcher 1 5%
Other 2 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 11 55%
Unspecified 2 10%
Social Sciences 2 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 5%
Linguistics 1 5%
Other 3 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 October 2016.
All research outputs
#3,699,912
of 8,572,889 outputs
Outputs from Memory & Cognition
#414
of 1,007 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#104,125
of 253,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Memory & Cognition
#7
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,572,889 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 56th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,007 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 253,978 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.