Source Factors

Question 1

What is credibility? What are the primary dimensions of credibility?

Answer 1

• Credibility is the primary judgments made by a perceiver concerning the believability of a communicator
• primary dimensions are competence and trustworthiness

Question 2

What is competence? Describe the questionnaire items commonly used to assess competence.

Answer 2

• Competence is the expertise, expertness, qualification of a source.
• scales include: qualified- unqualified, informed-uninformed, intelligent-unintelligent, experienced-inexperienced, trained-untrained, skilled-unskilled, expert-inexpert

Question 3

What is trustworthiness? Describe the questionnaire items commonly used to assess trustworthiness.

Answer 3

• Trustworthiness is the safety, personal integrity, character, and honesty of the source.
• scales of: honest-dishonest, trustworthy-untrustworthy, biased- unbiased, openminded-closeminded, fair-unfair, selfish-unselfish, just-unjust

Question 4

Describe the research used to identify the primary dimensions of credibility. What is factor analysis?

Answer 4

1) To find primary dimensions of credibility, identify most frequently mentioned characteristics and turn them into scales. For example, if a high credibility communicator is described as qualified, make a scale of qualified to unqualified.
2) Have people rate a large number of communicators on these scales.
3) Researchers conduct factor analysis- a statistical analysis where you group scales together that are highly correlated together to represent a factor. For ex- qualified- unqualified, and expert-nonexpert are highly correlated, so they’re in the same factor (competence).
- two primary dimensions of credibility are competence and trustworthiness

Question 5

Identify factors influencing credibility. Which of these influence competence, and which trustworthiness?

Answer 5

Citation of evidence sources–> influences both
Organization–> influences both
Position advocated–> influences both

Knowledge of communicator’s education, occupation, experience, credentials–> influences both
Nonfluencies in delivery–> influences competence, not trustworthiness
Humor–> influences trustworthiness, not competence

Question 6

How can you remember the factors influencing credibility?

Answer 6

KOP KNH

Question 7

Describe the effect of knowledge of communicator’s education, occupation, experience, and training on competence and trustworthiness.

Answer 7

Influences judgments of competence and trustworthiness

Question 8

Describe the effect of nonfluencies of nonfluencies in delivery on competence and on trustworthiness.

Answer 8

Influence judgments of competence, not trustworthiness

- “um,” pauses, repetition of words or sounds

Question 9

Describe the effect of citation of evidence sources on competence and trustworthiness.

Answer 9

Influences judgements of competence and trustworthiness

Question 10

Describe the effect of the advocated position on competence and on trustworthiness. Explain the meaning of “unexpected position” in the context of this phenomenon.

Answer 10

When a communicator takes an unexpected position, they will be perceived as more competent and trustworthy.

• receiver perceives the source to be convinced on advocated position so much so they are willing to go against something they previously believed in
• source perceived to be stingy and gives generous gift (unexpected position) will get boost in credibility- be more competent and trustworth
• source perceived to be generous and gives stingy gift (unexpected opsition) will get boost in credibility- more competent and trustworthy

Question 11

Describe the effect of humor on competence and trustworthiness.

Answer 11

small amounts of appropriate humor will influence trustworthiness, not competence

Question 12

Describe effects of an organized message on competence and trustworthiness.

Answer 12

Whether the message is organized or disorganized influences judgments of competence and trustworthiness

Question 13

What is the ceiling effect? A floor effect?

Answer 13

• A ceiling effect is when a value cannot increase any further because it’s as high as it can go. For instance, if a communicator’s credibility is already high, if they cite additional sources, their credibility can’t increase further.
• A floor effect is when a value cannot decrease any further because it’s as low as it can go. For instance, if a communicator’s credibility is already low, if they stumble on their speech, their credibility can’t decrease further.

Question 14

Explain the idea that the magnitude of credibility’s effect on persuasive outcomes might vary. Identify two factors that influence the magnitude of credibility’s effect.

Answer 14

The magnitude of credibility is how much the credibility of the communicator (whether high or low) influences the persuasive outcomes.
The two factors that influence the magnitude of credibility is involvement and timing of communicator identification.

Question 15

Describe how involvement influences the magnitude of credibility’s effect. Under what sort of involvement condition will the effect of credibility be relatively larger?

Answer 15

Involvement is the direct personal relevance of the concept to you. As involvement increases, the magnitude of credibility decreases. Therefore, it makes less of a difference if the communicator has a high or low credibility. Because the receiver is involved, they pay more attention to the evidence and content and rely less on the heuristics (perceived credibility) to be persuaded.

Question 16

Describe how the timing of identification of the communicator influences the magnitude of credibility’s effect. What timing of identification leads to relatively larger effects of credibility?

Answer 16

The timing of communicator identification is when the communicator can be identified before or after the message is received. With delayed identification, the magnitude of the effect of credibility is decreased. It makes less of a difference whether the source is higher or lower in credibility because the message, its evidence, its arguments are heard on its own, and the knowledge of the communicator doesn’t influence this process. When the communicator is identified before the message, the magnitude of the effect of credibility is increased.

Question 17

Explain the idea that the direction of credibility’s effect on persuasive outcomes might vary. Identify a factor that influences the direction of credibility’s effect.

Answer 17

The direction of credibility is whether communicators that are high in credibility are more persuasive than communicators that are low in credibility, and vice versa.

• high credibility sources aren’t more persuasive than low.
• the factor that influences the direction of credibility is whether the message is pro-attitudinal or counter- attitudinal to the receiver’s attitudes.

Question 18

Under what conditions will higher-credibility sources be more persuasive than lower-credibility sources? And under what conditions will the opposite effect occur? Describe a potential explanation for the latter effect.

Answer 18

Higher credibility sources are more persuasive than lower-credibility sources when they argue something that is counter to the receiver’s attitude.

Lower credibility sources will be more persuasive than high credibility sources when arguing for a message that’s pro-attitudinal to the receiver’s attitude. When hearing this, the receiver will think of all the points that the communicator is missing, and generate more positive thoughts about the concept, and become more persuaded.

Question 19

What is the general rule of thumb concerning the effect of variations in liking (of the communicator) on persuasive outcomes? Explain how that general principle can be misleading (identify a limiting condition).

Answer 19

• Generally, liked sources are more persuasive than disliked sources. However, this isn’t true when credibility and liking conflict.
• Effects of liking are weaker than effects of credibility. (As involvement/ personal relevance increases, effects of liking diminish)

Question 20

Describe the relative strength of the effects of credibility and the effects of liking (on persuasive outcomes).

Answer 20

Effects of credibility are stronger than effects of liking.

Question 21

Describe how variations in involvement (personal relevance) influence the effects of liking. What involvement conditions lead to relatively larger effects of liking?

Answer 21

The higher the involvement, the higher the elaboration, the more attention to the actual argument, the less heuristics matter, so the less influential the effects of liking are
- when there’s less involvement, the effects of liking are high.

Question 22

Does perceived similarity (of receiver and source) influence persuasive outcomes directly or indirectly? Explain. Through what avenues does perceived similarity influence persuasive outcomes?

Answer 22

Perceived similarity influences persuasive outcomes indirectly by directly influencing liking and credibility.

Question 23

Can perceived similarities influence judgments of communicator credibility?

Answer 23

• Perceived similarities and differences can influence judgments of communicator credibility

Question 24

Identify a necessary condition for a perceived similarity to influence credibility judgments.

Answer 24

In order for perceived similarity to influence credibility judgments, the similarity must be relevant to the advocacy topic. For example, you trust a friend you find similar to you to choose a movie, but not in deciding foreign policy.

Question 25

Will all relevant perceived dissimilarities diminish credibility? Explain.

Answer 25

Not all relevant perceived similarities enhance credibility. You can think that this person has credibility in experience, but you find that the person doesn’t know anymore about the topic than you do. Therefore, having more experience (rather than perceived similarity) helps their credibility and less experience hurts their credibility.

Question 26

What is attitudinal similarity?

Answer 26

Liking similar things and disliking similar things

Question 27

How does perceived attitude similarity influence liking? Explain the connection between this phenomenon and balance. Can liking be influenced by perceived similarities that aren’t relevant to the message topic?

Answer 27

Having similar attitudes engenders liking. Even when the attitudes aren’t relevant to the topic, liking someone can persuade them to like the topic.

Question 28

Explain how other communicator characteristics influence persuasive topics indirectly.

Answer 28

Other communicator characteristics influence persuasive outcomes in the same way that similarity does: characteristics directly influence liking and credibility, and indirectly influence persuasive outcomes. Ex- physical attractiveness.