Should We Retire the Concept of Source Credibility? An Experimental Exploration of When Credibility Is (and Is Not) Useful

Perceived source credibility is fundamental to effective science communication. Recent years, however, have seen science become polarized and expert authority erode, complicating the notion that credibility equals persuasion. Two experiments address this tension, focusing on subcomponents of perceived source credibility—expertise and trustworthiness—for expert ( N = 474) and nonexpert sources ( N = 411). By manipulating the order by which participants learn about the source’s position on a scientific topic relative to their qualifications, the findings delineate when and how source credibility cues influence science communication, introducing nuance to the idea that credible sources can effectively communicate about value-laden topics.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Science Communication
Published
2025-04-21
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470251334094
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Misinformation and Its Impacts
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
8.40
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Should We Retire the Concept of Source Credibility? An Experimental Exploration of When Credibility Is (and Is Not) Useful

Nathan Walter, Emily A. Andrews, Erga Atad
2 citations
Science Communication
Misinformation and Its Impacts
8.40
article

Should We Retire the Concept of Source Credibility? An Experimental Exploration of When Credibility Is (and Is Not) Useful

Nathan Walter, Emily A. Andrews, Erga Atad
article en
2 citations

Abstract

Perceived source credibility is fundamental to effective science communication. Recent years, however, have seen science become polarized and expert authority erode, complicating the notion that credibility equals persuasion. Two experiments address this tension, focusing on subcomponents of perceived source credibility—expertise and trustworthiness—for expert ( N = 474) and nonexpert sources ( N = 411). By manipulating the order by which participants learn about the source’s position on a scientific topic relative to their qualifications, the findings delineate when and how source credibility cues influence science communication, introducing nuance to the idea that credible sources can effectively communicate about value-laden topics.

Science Communication
Northwestern University (US), Herzliya Medical Center (IL)
Openalex Percentile: Top 4%
Misinformation and Its Impacts
8.40
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.