The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Conceptualizing sources in online news
Abstract
This study attempts a new conceptualization of communication “sources” by proposing a typology of sources that would apply not only to traditional media but also to new online media. Ontological rationale for the distinctions in the typology is supplemented by psychological evidence via an experiment that investigated the effects of different types of source attributions upon receivers' perception of online news content. Participants (N=48) in a 4-condition, between-participants experiment read 6 identical news stories each through an online service. Participants were told that the stories were selected by 1 of 4 sources: news editors, the computer terminal on which they were accessing the stories, other audience members (or users) of the online news service, or (using a pseudo-selection task) the individual user (self). After reading each online news story, all participants filled out a paper-and-pencil questionnaire indicating their perceptions of the story they had just read. In confirmation of the distinctions made in the typology, attribution of identical content to 4 different types of online sources was associated with significant variation in news story perception. Theoretical implications of the results as well as the typology are discussed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A Mathematical Theory of Communication
Shannon, C. E. (1948) · Bell System Technical Journal · doi:10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x · Cited by 88,486
Machines and Mindlessness: Social Responses to Computers
Nass, C., & Moon, Y. (2000) · Journal of Social Issues · doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00153 · Cited by 4,022 · cited 2×
“These researchers argue that technologies like computers invite ethopœia because of advanced features such as the use of language and voice, interactivity, and filling of roles traditionally held by humans ( Nass & Moon, 2000; Nass, Steuer, Henriksen, & Dryer, 1994).”
BackgroundSelf-citationThe Influence of Source Credibility on Communication Effectiveness
Hovland, C. I., & Weiss, W. (1951) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1086/266350 · Cited by 3,543
Mixing Humans and Nonhumans Together: The Sociology of a Door-Closer
Johnson, J. (1988) · Social Problems · doi:10.2307/800624 · Cited by 892
Gratifications Sought and Media Exposure: An Expectancy Value Model
PALMGREEN, P., & RAYBURN, J. D. (1982) · Communication Research · doi:10.1177/009365082009004004 · Cited by 243 · cited 1×
“The idea of expectations leading to communication consequences is echoed in the social learning literature (e.g., Bandura, 1965, 1971) as well as uses and gratifications research (e.g., Palmgreen & Rayburn, 1982; Babrow, 1989; Babrow & Swanson, 1988).”
Background
Cited by
Lee, M. K. (2018) · Big Data & Society · doi:10.1177/2053951718756684 · Cited by 1,338
Uses and Grats 2.0: New Gratifications for New Media
Sundar, S. S., & Limperos, A. M. (2013) · Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media · doi:10.1080/08838151.2013.845827 · Cited by 1,070
Self-citationIn AI we trust? Perceptions about automated decision-making by artificial intelligence
Araujo, T., Helberger, N., Kruikemeier, S., & de Vreese, C. H. (2020) · AI & SOCIETY · doi:10.1007/s00146-019-00931-w · Cited by 1,038
Messing, S., & Westwood, S. J. (2014) · Communication Research · doi:10.1177/0093650212466406 · Cited by 902
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
Metadata
- Authors
- Sundar, S.
- Venue
- Journal of Communication
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2001-03-01
- Volume
- 51
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 52-72
- ISSN
- 0021-9916 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2466
- OpenAlex
- W2042922813
- Cited by
- 530
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 21.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Conceptualizing sources in online news. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/joc/51.1.52
- The paper
- Sundar, S. (2001). Conceptualizing sources in online news. Journal of Communication. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/51.1.52
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
