The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Cruising is Believing?: Comparing Internet and Traditional Sources on Media Credibility Measures
Abstract
This study surveyed politically-interested Web users online to examine whether they view Web publications as credible as their traditionally- delivered counterparts. Credibility is crucial for the Internet because past studies suggest people are less likely to pay attention to media they do not perceive as credible. This study found online media tended to be judged more credible than their traditional versions. However, both online and traditional media were only judged as somewhat credible.
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
Cited by
Systematic Literature Review on the Spread of Health-related Misinformation on Social Media
Wang, Y., McKee, M., Torbica, A., & Stuckler, D. (2019) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112552 · Cited by 1,806
“We do know that people regard information from the internet as being as credible as conventional media such as television and radio, but not as that from newspapers (Johnson and Kaye, 1998; Kim and Johnson, 2009).”
Hilligoss, B., & Rieh, S. Y. (2008) · Information Processing & Management · doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2007.10.001 · Cited by 611
Online and in the know: uses and gratifications of the web for political information
Kaye, B. K., & Johnson, T. J. (2002) · Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media · doi:10.1207/s15506878jobem4601_4 · Cited by 492
Self-citationCollege student Web use, perceptions of information credibility, and verification behavior
Metzger, M. J., Flanagin, A. J., & Zwarun, L. (2003) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/s0360-1315(03)00049-6 · Cited by 448
Credibility: A multidisciplinary framework
Rieh, S. Y., & Danielson, D. R. (2007) · Annual Review of Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/aris.2007.1440410114 · Cited by 336
Online News Exposure and Trust in the Mainstream Media: Exploring Possible Associations
Tsfati, Y. (2010) · American Behavioral Scientist · doi:10.1177/0002764210376309 · Cited by 258
Choi, S. M., & Rifon, N. J. (2002) · Journal of Interactive Advertising · doi:10.1080/15252019.2002.10722064 · Cited by 248
Why They Don’t Trust the Media: An Examination of Factors Predicting Trust
Lee, T.-T. (2010) · American Behavioral Scientist · doi:10.1177/0002764210376308 · Cited by 243
Factors Influencing Information credibility on Social Media Platforms: Evidence from Facebook Pages
Li, R., & Suh, A. (2015) · Procedia Computer Science · doi:10.1016/j.procs.2015.12.146 · Cited by 225
“Prior studies commonly argue that when individual users rely more on a specific medium for information, they consider it to be more credible than other media [25, 26, 27].”
BackgroundWeb credibility assessment: Conceptualization, operationalization, variability, and models
Choi, W., & Stvilia, B. (2015) · Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.23543 · Cited by 168
Social distraction? Social media use and political knowledge in two U.S. Presidential elections
Lee, S., & Xenos, M. (2019) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2018.08.006 · Cited by 124
Salaudeen, M. A., & Onyechi, N. (2020) · Cogent Arts & Humanities · doi:10.1080/23311983.2020.1837461 · Cited by 43
“…and professionalism of mainstream media and digital media have yielded confounding results as some reveal that digital media are perceived as more credible (Johnson & Kaye, 1998; Wilson et al., 2011), while others reveal the opposite (Kiousis, 2001; Kovaic et al., 2010; Mehrabi et al., 2009).”
BackgroundBaxter, G., Marcella, R., & Walicka, A. (2019) · Journal of Documentation · doi:10.1108/jd-10-2018-0161 · Cited by 11
Metadata
- Authors
- Johnson, T. J., & Kaye, B. K.
- Venue
- Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1998-06
- Volume
- 75
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 325-340
- ISSN
- 1077-6990 (ISSN-L)
- 2161-430X
- OpenAlex
- W2028979216
- Cited by
- 538
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 43.72
- 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
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.
