Source Credibility and Audiences

Aristotelian approach to source credibility

"Ethos (credibility) means a person of good character." People of good character have: MORALS (standards of ethics) GOOD SENSE (thinks things through before making decisions) GOOD WILL (cares about audience more than themselves)

Legal standard approach to source credibility (got wrong on quiz)

"Person of credibility meets standards of accuracy and objectivity." STANDARD OF EXPERTISE of authority Authority uses EVIDENCE, NOT FEELINGS- they know what they're doing Accurate observations

Extrinsic

(Initial) Prior to the event/context where the message will be presented Reputation (what do you know about someone?)

Source credibility perspectives

Aristotelian approach Legal standard approach Trait approach

Our attributions are tied to our ______, which are either _________ or ________. Relates to what theory?

Attribution Theory: attribute others' actions- when we do, we place motive on someone else Our attributions tied to our expectations, which are either confirmed or disconfirmed.

Definition of Source Credibility

Audience's perceptions about the communicator's believability.

Secondary qualities of credibility

Charisma Composure Sociability

How is expertise determined?

College degrees, licenses, certifications, "I've been there myself." "I know how to do this so let me show you." (Varying degrees of what's considered important- may have expertise in one area but not another; ex: Sully knows a lot about planes, but how much about St. Jude's?)

How source credibility is receiver-based and what theory this could relate back to

Credibility is something you give to someone else- they have none until you give it to them. ELM: people using the peripheral route go with who's giving the message.

Core quality of credibility: Expertise

Definition: Audience's perception of the communicator's knowledge, competence, qualifications, and training. Persuasive impact: strong, most persuasive factor of all 3; people are impressed by titles.

Core quality of credibility: Goodwill (Definition and examples?)

Definition: Has the audience's best interests at heart; perceived to care about the audience over themselves; takes a stand even if they know they'll take a hit from it. Empathy, responsiveness to another, not self-centered. Ex: Colin Kapernick- "I know I'll take heat for this but I'm doing it for them, not me." Corporate social responsibility statement of Ben & Jerry's

Core quality of credibility: Trustworthiness (Definition and examples?)

Definition: Perception of good character, truthfulness, sincerity, personal integrity, and safety (they make you feel safe). Meet our moral standards ex: Morgan Freeman = perceived #1 most trustworthy celebrity. Why? He always plays God, so he makes us feel safe- taken on a persona that he's trustworthy. Pastor owns Christian Brother's Home Repair- they must be honest Latin etymology (origin) is sincerity Sincerus: "without wax"; marble pillars had to be repaired by experts; evil craftsmen would use wax which didn't work; craftsmen who didn't use wax were sincere

Intrinsic (definition and stages)

Developed from a message being given. Two stages: Derived Terminal

Why research variations?

Different kinds of research focus on different qualities of credibility- some say it's important, some not- depends on situations. Hard to generalize findings from different studies

Credibility matters more with which type of processing and why? Relates to what theory? What strategy should low-credible sources use?

ELM: Peripheral processing where persuasion is most important- if you're not involved/have no responsibility/don't think, you rely on credibility. Use a high-credible source If you're a low-credible source delivering a message, work on the audience seeing the message/issue as salient to them- move the audience towards central processing where low credibility doesn't matter

3 core qualities of credibility

Expertise Character Goodwill

What is the strongest/most persuasive core quality of credibility and why?

Expertise- people are impressed by titles

Types/stages of credibility

Extrinsic (initial) Intrinsic (two stages: derived and terminal)

How is trustworthiness determined?

Eye contact: most important way we judge this (WESTERN notion; sign of disrespect in other countries) Reputation Supposed motivation If something's in the media, it must be trustworthy. ex: if it's on (certain news channel, the internet, etc.), it must be true!

Where does credibility ALWAYS come from?

From the receiver/audience (how they feel, think, etc.) to the message-giver/persuader

Good and bad strategies for message delivery (related to credibility)

Good credibility: clear eye contact, controlled movement, fluent (know words/names you're using and use the correct words) Written: bad grammar = bad, illiterate. Know where image you use comes from Use control you have over message

(high/low) credible sources have a great IMMEDIATE persuasive impact. What happens to this effect over time?

High But over time, the messenger and message get DISASSOCIATED and immediate impact fades away.

Receiver factors for establishing and maintaining credibility

Involvement Locus of control Authoritarianism Stress How do you capture all of these? You can't- research is difficult, must do one at a time

Two psychological concepts that impact attribution

Knowledge bias Reporting bias

Over time, a (high/low) credible source sticks with the message and gains a little bit of credibility

Low

In a situation where you have to justify your behavior, are high or low credible sources more effective? Based on what theory?

Low "I gotta think for myself" Cognitive dissonance theory (faced with two disharmonious thoughts- we'll do anything to get rid of this discomfort)

If you are neutral/know nothing about the messenger, your expectations will be ________.

Low You tend to lean towards negative, are more questioning of them. How can I accept a message from someone I know nothing about?

Message variables and strategies for establishing and maintaining credibility

Message discrepancy Use of Humor Message delivery Use of Evidence

Strategies for dealing with high discrepancy?

Must find highly credible source. If a message falls within audience's LOA, there's low discrepancy, you can get away w/ a low-credible source Ex: economic message- saving money. High credible source may damage message (ex: billionaire talking about saving money)

Use of humor- Pros and cons? How is it limited? What kind of humor works best in persuasion?

Pro: Can enhance people liking you and make them feel like you're more trustworthy. Con: Downgrades perceptions of expertise. Limited or appropriate, depends on context. Have to be very careful with usage Self-deprecating humor works in persuasion. (Might make people feel like you, but can also eat away at credibility.) Don't make fun of others/pick on people. (Be careful when describing "that other guy/product") Don't use humor that's in poor taste. (But what does that mean- Sexist? Racist? Ageist?) Many dangers to run into. You may tell jokes to one crowd that you can't to another. Need to be very careful.

Reporting bias

Psychological concept impacting attribution "The audience's perception that the messenger chose NOT to disclose certain facts/a certain POV." They're hiding something from you Damages their credibility. If a persuader gives a lot of information and reveals something unexpected, credibility increases. Ex: whistleblower: reports info from a company that nobody wants to talk about; "Me too" people

Knowledge bias

Psychological concept impacting attribution "When audience perceives that the messenger has a biased view of the topic or issue." We assume they have a STRONG bias. This will diminish their credibility. Why? Because they're showing their bias. Ex: Young female professor talks about affirmative action- assume that she has a positive bias because she's been supported by it, and that she's not able to be objective. When someone disconfirms a knowledge bias (ex: she ends up not supporting affirmative action), you have dissonance, increase their credibility and respect them more.

How is goodwill determined?

Public demonstrations, donations

Authoritarianism: Can you persuade those with high authority beliefs? What concept is this related to?

Receiver factor of credibility High belief in authority = whatever that authority figure says is okay. Followers grant authority. Related to dogmatism: close-minded thinking Whatever the leader says is the way it is- you can't/won't look at other sides Studied in politics and advertising (ex: if you love drinking coke, coke = the authority, you'll only drink coke) People have to hang onto something- create such loyalty that to think of going in another direction is impossible. No sense in trying to persuade them

Stress: Are highly stressed receivers more or less likely to pay attention to credibility? What about low stress?

Receiver factor of credibility Highly stressed receivers less likely to pay attention to credibility What does high stress mean? When do you hit high stress? Emotional, physical, psychological reaction that hits people differently Low-stress conditions: credibility plays a major role

Involvement

Receiver factor of credibility How salient is the message to the audience- receiver's idea of importance and view of the speaker

Locus of control: If people perceive they have no control over their life, they'll be persuaded by (high/low) credible sources. What if they do? Relates to what theory?

Receiver factor of credibility high- "That person looks like they have control over outside things." ex: you're low on money, politician says "I'll make the economy better", you believe them. If they feel they do: credibility doesn't matter Relates to theory of planned behavior and reasoned action (receiver's outlook on life)

Characteristics of source credibility

Receiver-based Dynamic (always changing) Multidimensional (mix of several elements) Situationally/contextually bound

What are face and facework? What theory does this relate to?

Relates to Impression management (Deals with excuses and justifications. We're always presenting ourselves in a way that we want to be seen. How we want to be perceived as credible. Spin doctors, impression management specialists try to fix when something's gone wrong.) Face: Public image Facework theory: We're always presenting a public image and it deals with politeness. (We can be trusted because we're polite.) Faceneed: I want you to think I'm associated with certain causes, ideas, or people. Want to show that I'm sincere and like you. Faceconcern: I'm tactful towards other people. We try to do things that say "I'm concerned about you."

Message discrepancy (Definition, expectations, complexity?)

Remember Social Judgment If you're saying something you know your audience doesn't believe High disagreement = high discrepancy. Very complex

Charisma

Secondary quality of credibility "Being dynamic, perceived power, attractiveness, or being inspirational." So personal, that it's difficult to describe how you see it in people- you just know.

Composure

Secondary quality of credibility Calm; cool; very self-assured- they know themselves. Can face issues head-on, don't get dramatic about things

Sociability

Secondary quality of credibility Perceived warmth, friendliness, outgoing Ex: Michelle Obama: effortless; Hillary Clinton: forced

Terminal

Stage of intrinsic credibility After the message is delivered What do you take away from it? What do you remember? Did it meet your expectations? (ex: will you see the movie again?)

Derived

Stage of intrinsic credibility During the message (ex: while you're watching the movie- is it meeting your expectations?)

What does the Sleeper Effect tell us in terms of credibility?

The persistence of source credibility over time. How long does credibility last? It's always dynamic and shifting- but how long do those shifts last? Highly credible sources have a great immediate persuasive impact. But over time, the messenger and message get disassociated and immediate impact fades away. "I remember the information, but not who told it to me." Over time, a low credible source sticks with the message and gains a little bit of credibility. Why? When you first hear something, messenger and message come in a package, which is great for immediate attitude change. But we want permanent attitude change, which comes from a message, not a messenger. Why persuasion must be repeated over and over.

Source factors for establishing and maintaining credibility

Things source might have that make them seem more credible to an audience Legitimation: "Message-giver makes message seem important, salient, powerful." Ex: branding, endorsements Mystification: speaker does something to make them sound like they have special expertise and impress you with their competence Ex: Starbucks special name for sizes Done through language (ex: acronyms, email signature) Identification: If speaker can create identification with audience, they try to model themselves after the message-giver (dress similar, talk similar) You don't speak to your friends like you do to your parents or at a job interview Modeling desire Physical attractiveness: If a credible source can do something to seem attractive to the audience, they'll be perceived as more credible What is attractiveness? Look at cultural and social standards Gets you past first step of the Hovland Yale model (attention) Role: opening the door. That's it, doesn't mean you'll be persuasive Likeability: relates to trustworthiness- do you believe a message is sincere? Does the source look trustworthy? Importance of introduction- if you're a source being introduced to new people, the person who brings you in is important. Sets up your credibility Might be advertising, a person, your voicemail message, your tweets/social media/LinkedIn Intrinsic credibility

Strategies related to the use of evidence in persuasion (What is important to remember?)

Use of evidence that audience will understand and relate to Remember comprehension: if the audience doesn't know what you're talking about, what quote you're using, they can't relate to or understand it

Trait approach to source credibility

Used by social scientists Person with good credibility is honest, an expert, sincere/trustworthy, with perceived similarity (people can identify with them) Allows feelings "I'm not going to do this because here's how I view this."

Where does permanent attitude change come from and what does it require?

When you first hear something, messenger and message come in a package, which is great for immediate attitude change. But we want PERMANENT attitude change, which COMES FROM A MESSAGE, not a messenger. Why persuasion requires repetition.

If a biased source testifies against their best interest, you're ____ likely to believe them.

more likely to believe them (ex: "Scared Straight"- criminals yelling at kids; Republicans speaking out against Trump)