The DOI matches its Crossref record; 26 of the 26 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Goodwill: A reexamination of the construct and its measurement
Abstract
As a result of the controversy over the dimensionality of the ethos/source credibility construct and the associated plethora of empirical studies in the 1960s and 1970s, Aristotle's dimension of “goodwill” has been dismissed by many contemporary theorists and researchers. It is argued that this occurred as a result of errors made in the earlier empirical research and that “goodwill” can be measured, contrary to earlier claims, and should be restored to its former status in rhetorical communication theory. Empirical research is reported indicating the existence of the goodwill dimension as part of the structure of the ethos/source credibility construct and a measure of that dimension is provided with evidence for its reliability and validity.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“The scale originates from a widely cited study by McCroskey and Teven that validated a credibility scale composed of 3 related dimensions—goodwill (caring), competence, and trustworthiness [2].”
From Effects of Mock Facebook Workday Comments on Public Perception of Professional Credibility: A Field Study in Canada (2019) · cites this paper as [2]
Citations
Cites
Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957) · Cited by 9,433
A Second Generation Little Jiffy
Kaiser, H. F. (1970) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02291817 · Cited by 4,855
Norman, W. T. (1963) · Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0040291 · Cited by 2,619
(2017) · doi:10.5040/9798400682018.ch-003 · Cited by 2,248
Lumsdaine, A. A. (1954) · Educational Technology Research and Development · doi:10.1007/bf02713272 · Cited by 2,237
An Integrated Approach to Communication Theory and Research
Stacks, D. W. (2014) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203887011 · Cited by 1,014
DIMENSIONS FOR EVALUATING THE ACCEPTABILITY OF MESSAGE SOURCES
Berlo, D. K., Lemert, J. B., & Mertz, R. J. (1969) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1086/267745 · Cited by 831
An Introduction to Rhetorical Communication
McCroskey, J. C. (2015) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781315663791 · Cited by 746
Self-citationScales for the measurement of ethos
McCroskey, J. C. (1966) · Speech Monographs · doi:10.1080/03637756609375482 · Cited by 648
Self-citationEthos and credibility: The construct and its measurement after three decades
McCroskey, J. C., & Young, T. J. (1981) · Central States Speech Journal · doi:10.1080/10510978109368075 · Cited by 571
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Koehn S.C., 1996, Paper presented at the annual convention of the Speech Communication Association
- Walter O., 1948, The measurement of ethos.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Sokolova, K., & Kefi, H. (2020) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.01.011 · Cited by 1,650
Chatbot e-service and customer satisfaction regarding luxury brands
Chung, M., Ko, E., Joung, H., & Kim, S. J. (2018) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.10.004 · Cited by 1,005
Social Media as Information Source: Recency of Updates and Credibility of Information
Westerman, D., Spence, P. R., & Van Der Heide, B. (2014) · Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication · doi:10.1111/jcc4.12041 · Cited by 708
Appelman, A., & Sundar, S. S. (2015) · Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly · doi:10.1177/1077699015606057 · Cited by 667
“Along with the media credibility measures we had found, this gave us a list of 75 items, including such varied items as morality (McCroskey & Teven, 1999), passion (Kang & Yang, 2011), and compatibility (Sundar, 2008).”
BackgroundMasuda, H., Han, S. H., & Lee, J. (2022) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121246 · Cited by 576
Metadata
- Authors
- McCroskey, J. C., & Teven, J. J.
- Affiliations
- West Virginia University (US)
- Northwest Missouri State University (US)
- Venue
- Communication Monographs
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1999-03
- Volume
- 66
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 90-103
- ISSN
- 0363-7751 (ISSN-L)
- 1479-5787
- OpenAlex
- W1992262987
- Cited by
- 1,236
- References
- 26
- Citations by year
- 2026: 100 · 2025: 99 · 2024: 80 · 2023: 86 · 2022: 96 · 2021: 99 · 2020: 84 · 2019: 90 · 2018: 65 · 2017: 48 · 2016: 63 · 2015: 56 · 2014: 46 · 2013: 43 · 2012: 24
- FWCI
- 36.19
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Communication Monographs (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Communication › Rhetoric and Communication Studies
- Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Linguistics and Discourse Analysis
- Social Sciences › Communication › Interpersonal and Organizational Communication
- Keywords
- goodwill, ethos, source credibility
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
