The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The role of site features, user attributes, and information verification behaviors on the perceived credibility of web-based information
Abstract
Data from 574 participants were used to assess perceptions of message, site, and sponsor credibility across four genres of websites; to explore the extent and effects of verifying web-based information; and to measure the relative influence of sponsor familiarity and site attributes on perceived credibility.The results show that perceptions of credibility differed, such that news organization websites were rated highest and personal websites lowest, in terms of message, sponsor, and overall site credibility, with e-commerce and special interest sites rated between these, for the most part.The results also indicated that credibility assessments appear to be primarily due to website attributes (e.g. design features, depth of content, site complexity) rather than to familiarity with website sponsors. Finally, there was a negative relationship between self-reported and observed information verification behavior and a positive relationship between self-reported verification and internet/web experience. The findings are used to inform the theoretical development of perceived web credibility.
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
Information Privacy Concerns, Procedural Fairness, and Impersonal Trust: An Empirical Investigation
Culnan, M. J., & Armstrong, P. K. (1999) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.10.1.104 · Cited by 1,870
Source v. Content Effects on Judgments of News Believability
Austin, E. W., & Dong, Q. (1994) · Journalism Quarterly · doi:10.1177/107769909407100420 · Cited by 144
Cited by
Information credibility on twitter
Castillo, C., Mendoza, M., & Poblete, B. (2011) · Proceedings of the 20th international conference on World wide web · doi:10.1145/1963405.1963500 · Cited by 2,593
Social and Heuristic Approaches to Credibility Evaluation Online
Metzger, M. J., Flanagin, A. J., & Medders, R. B. (2010) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01488.x · Cited by 1,394
Self-citationMetzger, M. J. (2007) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.20672 · Cited by 871
Self-citationTrust and Credibility in Web-Based Health Information: A Review and Agenda for Future Research
Sbaffi, L., & Rowley, J. (2017) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.7579 · Cited by 537
Can Students Evaluate Online Sources? Learning From Assessments of Civic Online Reasoning
McGrew, S., Breakstone, J., Ortega, T., Smith, M., & Wineburg, S. (2018) · Theory & Research in Social Education · doi:10.1080/00933104.2017.1416320 · Cited by 533
Enter the Robot Journalist: Users' perceptions of automated content
Clerwall, C. (2014) · Journalism Practice · doi:10.1080/17512786.2014.883116 · Cited by 377
The Russian "Firehose of Falsehood" Propaganda Model: Why It Might Work and Options to Counter It
Paul, C., & Matthews, M. (2016) · doi:10.7249/pe198 · Cited by 344
Shen, C., Kasra, M., Pan, W., Bassett, G. A., Malloch, Y., & O’Brien, J. F. (2019) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/1461444818799526 · Cited by 209
Addressing parents’ vaccine concerns: a randomized trial of a social media intervention
Daley, M. F., Narwaney, K. J., Shoup, J. A., Wagner, N. M., & Glanz, J. M. (2018) · American Journal of Preventive Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2018.04.010 · Cited by 164
Vraga, E. K., Kim, S. C., & Cook, J. (2019) · Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media · doi:10.1080/08838151.2019.1653102 · Cited by 162
On the measurability of information quality
Arazy, O., & Kopak, R. (2011) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.21447 · Cited by 154
Kammerer, Y., Bråten, I., Gerjets, P., & Strømsø, H. I. (2013) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.10.012 · Cited by 129
Flanagin, A. J., Winter, S., & Metzger, M. J. (2020) · Information, Communication & Society · doi:10.1080/1369118x.2018.1547411 · Cited by 116
Self-citationTorres, R., Gerhart, N., & Negahban, A. (2018) · ACM SIGMIS Database: the DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems · doi:10.1145/3242734.3242740 · Cited by 113
Topic familiarity and information skills in online credibility evaluation
Lucassen, T., Muilwijk, R., Noordzij, M. L., & Schraagen, J. M. (2013) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.22743 · Cited by 110
Sidedness, commercial intent and expertise in blog advertising
Uribe, R., Buzeta, C., & Velásquez, M. (2016) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.102 · Cited by 109
An Empirical Study of Older Adult’s Voice Assistant Use for Health Information Seeking
Brewer, R., Pierce, C., Upadhyay, P., & Park, L. (2022) · ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems · doi:10.1145/3484507 · Cited by 89
Holton, A. E., Coddington, M., & Gil de Zúñiga, H. (2013) · Journalism Practice · doi:10.1080/17512786.2013.766062 · Cited by 80
Hochstein, R. E., Harmeling, C. M., & Perko, T. (2025) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1007/s11747-023-00982-y · Cited by 45
ARAM: A Technology Acceptance Model to Ascertain the Behavioural Intention to Use Augmented Reality
Marto, A., Gonçalves, A., Melo, M., Bessa, M., & Silva, R. (2023) · Journal of Imaging · doi:10.3390/jimaging9030073 · Cited by 31
Jeong, J.-S., & Kim, S. Y. (2024) · Health Communication · doi:10.1080/10410236.2023.2166698 · Cited by 27
Zhao, X., Ma, Z., Xu, S., & Austin, L. L. (2024) · Health Communication · doi:10.1080/10410236.2022.2154017 · Cited by 23
Designing information savvy societies: an introduction to assessability
Forte, A., Andalibi, N., Park, T., & Willever-Farr, H. (2014) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2556288.2557072 · Cited by 23
Sudaryanto, S., Hanim, A., Rosediana Dewi, I., Kartikasari, A. D., & Rusdiyanto, R. (2025) · Cogent Business & Management · doi:10.1080/23311975.2025.2503093 · Cited by 21
Designing Trustworthy User Interfaces
Zieglmeier, V., & Lehene, A. M. (2021) · 33rd Australian Conference on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3520495.3520525 · Cited by 19
The Psychology of Social Networking Vol.1: Personal Experience in Online Communities
Riva, G., Wiederhold, B. K., & Cipresso, P. (2015) · doi:10.1515/9783110473780 · Cited by 13
Investigation of students' use of online information in higher education using eye tracking
Kunz, A.-K., Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, O., Schmidt, S., Nagel, M.-T., & Brückner, S. (2024) · Smart Learning Environments · doi:10.1186/s40561-024-00333-6 · Cited by 12
Metadata
- Authors
- Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. J.
- Venue
- New Media & Society
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2007-04
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 319-342
- ISSN
- 1461-4448 (ISSN-L)
- 1461-7315
- OpenAlex
- W2123597250
- Cited by
- 796
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 77.90
- 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.