The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Influence of Source Credibility on Communication Effectiveness
Abstract
In a new test of the process of forgetting, the authors found that subjects, at the time of exposure, discounted material from “untrustworthy” sources. In time, however, the subjects tended to disassociate the content and the source with the result that the original scepticism faded and the “untrustworthy” material was accepted. Lies, in fact, seemed to be remembered better than truths.
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
“Source expertise affects attitude change (Hovland and Weiss 1951; McCracken 1989; Ohanian 1991), level of confidence and positivity (Tormala, Briñol, and Petty 2007), and behavioral changes (Crisci and Kassinove 1973) and leads to higher levels of persuasion (Petty and Wegener 1998).”
From Driving Brand Engagement Through Online Social Influencers: An Empirical Investigation of Sponsored Blogging Campaigns (2019) · cites this paper as Hovland and Weiss 1951
In the citing paper
“Source credibility theory posits that the effectiveness of a persuasive message depends on the perceived credibility of its source (Hovland and Weiss, 1951).”
From Understanding consumer purchase intention in social media influencer marketing: the mediating role of parasocial relationship and trust in the Moroccan context (2026) · cites this paper as Hovland and Weiss, 1951
In the citing paper
“This finding is consistent with source credibility theory (Hovland and Weiss, 1951), which posits that the persuasive power of a source depends not only on its perceived attributes but also on the relational context in which communication occurs.”
From Understanding consumer purchase intention in social media influencer marketing: the mediating role of parasocial relationship and trust in the Moroccan context (2026) · cites this paper as Hovland and Weiss, 1951
In the citing paper
“Our findings show that trust in government is strongly associated with vaccine acceptance and can contribute to public compliance with recommended actions15.”
From A global survey of potential acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine (2021) · cites this paper as [15]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 1,001–1,005 of 1,005
Balaban, D. C., Mucundorfeanu, M., & Naderer, B. (2026) · Journal of Marketing Communications · doi:10.1080/13527266.2024.2413916 · Cited by 9
“Given this, the content of the message is being remembered instead (Hovland and Weiss 1951; Kumkale and Albarracin 2004; Priester et al. 1999).”
InfluentialLoveth, R.-O., & Emmanuel, I. (2025) · Journal of Media, Journalism & Mass Communication · doi:10.54536/jmjmc.v1i1.5644
Camargo, J. P., Guevara-Corzo, J., & Torres-Peña, J. A. (2026) · Urban Science · doi:10.3390/urbansci10100603
Nassim, S., Soulami, M., Hasinat, I., Nassim, I., & Touate, S. (2026) · Frontiers in Communication · doi:10.3389/fcomm.2026.1911649
Chi (1996) · doi:10.1002/(sici)1099-0720(199611)10:7
Metadata
- Authors
- Hovland, C. I., & Weiss, W.
- Affiliations
- Yale University (US)
- Venue
- Public Opinion Quarterly
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1951
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 635
- ISSN
- 0033-362X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2120061261
- Cited by
- 3,543
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 302 · 2025: 216 · 2024: 217 · 2023: 209 · 2022: 201 · 2021: 181 · 2020: 203 · 2019: 145 · 2018: 129 · 2017: 137 · 2016: 115 · 2015: 128 · 2014: 128 · 2013: 115 · 2012: 110
- FWCI
- 25.39
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Public Opinion Quarterly (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Deception detection and forensic psychology
- Keywords
- source credibility, communication effectiveness, forgetting, memory retention, trustworthiness, skepticism, persuasion, misinformation
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
