- Email: [email protected]
The role of source and the factors audiences rely on in evaluating credibility of health information
Public Relations Review 36 (2010) 81–83
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Public Relations Review
Research in Brief
The role of source and the factors audiences rely on in evaluating credibility of health information Elizabeth Johnson Avery ∗ Public Relations, The University of Tennessee, 476 Communications Building, Knoxville, TN 37996, United States
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 17 July 2009 Received in revised form 12 October 2009 Accepted 26 October 2009 Keywords: Public relations Public health Sources Credibility
a b s t r a c t In the wake of public relations crises of credibility such as FEMA’s staged press conference in response to the California wildfires, source credibility merits increased scholarly and practitioner scrutiny in order to maximize the effectiveness of the information practitioners release, particularly when the objective is to promote action vital to public health and well-being. Through a random national telephone survey (n = 400), this research analyzes how the source itself moderates credibility as well as the criteria important to audience evaluations of credibility. Results indicate practitioners are perceived as credible sources of health information and that audiences take a rather mindful route in their evaluations of source credibility. © 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Recent public relations crises such as FEMA’s staged press conference in response to the California wildfires compromise the credibility of public relations sources (Avery & Kim, 2008), thus making enhancing perceived source credibility an increasingly important effort for practitioners. Particularly when releasing information critical to public health and safety, establishing source trust is critical to motivate audiences to follow important directives, as trust determines message acceptance (Callison, 2001). Despite vast literature on the factors that moderate credibility, little is known about how perceived credibility differs by nature of the source of health information. In the source–journalist relationship, the credibility of the source of information subsidies has been well-established as one of the most important determinants in whether or not a journalist will use the information the practitioner provides (Sallot & Johnson, 2006). Credibility may likewise determine whether or not publics heed the medical advice and directives issued by health practitioners. Perhaps attributable to credibility, Dunleavy, Crandall, and Metsch (2005) found that access to expert medical sources of information such as physicians and pharmacists significantly predicted perceived access to primary health care among low-income drug users. Thus, perceived source credibility may be a strong predictor of motivation to seek, attend to, and follow public health directives. Beyond the professional title of the source, factors such as perceived expertise, transparency, and source familiarity may be central to evaluations of source credibility. The following research questions are asked to explore differences in perceived credibility of various source types and in the importance of criteria used to evaluate credibility: RQ1: What, if any, differences emerge between perceived credibility of sources of health information? RQ2: What source factors are most important to audience evaluations of the credibility of sources of health information?
∗ Tel.: +1 706 254 7020. E-mail address: [email protected]. 0363-8111/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.10.015
82
E.J. Avery / Public Relations Review 36 (2010) 81–83
1. Methods A random national sample of 400 adults, selected by random digit dialing, participated in telephone survey interviews for this study. Prior to the administration of the interviews, two waves of pilot testing were conducted to generate the interview guide. Age ranged from 18 to 90, and gender was balanced between males and females (55% and 45%, respectively). All 50 states plus the District of Columbia are represented by the sample. With regard to reported ethnicity, 83% of the respondents were Caucasian, 8% African-American, 4% Hispanic, and the remaining 5% of Asian, Native American, or bi-racial ethnicity. Overall, the sample of respondents was fairly representative with regard to age, gender, geography, and race. 2. Results Research Question 1 explores differences in perceived credibility of various sources of health information – journalists, public relations practitioners, private health companies’ officials, scientists, government agency officials, and doctors – that respondents measured on a scale of 1–5 with 1 being “very credible” and 5 being “not at all credible.” A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted; main effects reveal that perceived credibility of sources of information differed significantly (F(1, 400) = 177.651, p < .001). Follow-up analysis of means revealed that doctors were perceived as most credible (M = 1.48), followed by scientists (M = 2.15), public relations practitioners (M = 2.64), and then officials from government agencies (M = 2.92). The two least credibly perceived sources were journalists (M = 3.015) and, lastly, officials from private companies (M = 3.594). Notably, pair-wise comparisons revealed that public relations practitioner sources were perceived to be more credible than every other source type except doctors and scientists. Research Question 2 was asked to reveal the importance of various moderators of source credibility by having respondents rank expertise, title, knowledge level, reputation, years of experience, transparency, and familiarity on a scale of importance in their evaluations of credibility from 1 to 5, with 1 being “very important” and 5 being “not at all important.” Criteria were evaluated for sources of health information in general; area of practice (e.g. hospital, government, agency) was not specified to remove influence of existing perceptions of different areas. Thus, practitioners gain insight into the measures of credibility on which audiences rely regardless of the source’s field of practice and can incorporate those credibility indicators into their messages. Omnibus scores of a repeated measures ANOVA revealed a significant overall difference in importance of the factors used to evaluate credibility (F(1, 400) = 81.051, p < .001). Perceived expertise of the source was the most important criterion (M = 1.50), followed closely by transparency (M = 1.55) and perceived knowledge (M = 1.58) and then reputation (M = 1.65). Years of experience was the fifth most important in evaluation of credibility (M = 1.81), familiarity with sources the sixth (M = 1.99), and title was seventh (M = 2.75). The top three criteria – expertise, transparency, and knowledge – were not perceived significantly differently in importance. 3. Discussion Overall, source trust is both constitutive of and a function of credibility. It is not surprising, given their inherent expertise, that doctors and scientist were evaluated as the first and second most credible sources of health information. However, quite encouraging is that public relations practitioners were perceived to be the third most credible source of health information, which is surprising given Callison’s (2001) findings that they may suffer in perceived credibility. In fact, public relations practitioners were perceived to be significantly more credible disseminators of health information than officials from government agencies, journalists, and officials from private companies. These findings inform message strategy as they suggest practitioners are wise to utilize doctors and scientists for quotes and sourced information in the health information they release; however, given possible limitations in access to these experts, it is comforting that practitioners were not far behind in perceived credibility. Credibility of practitioners in the health arena may be bolstered as they acting in the interest of public health and not primarily motivated by organizational reputation maintenance (Avery & Kim, 2008). As such, practitioners must preserve their innate credibility through sound practice while conscientious of the responsibility placed on them to be accurate, transparent, and ethical, given publics will react to their messages. This finding brings into stark relief the responsibility practitioners have to their publics and to the organizations they represent. Further, there was overall significant difference in the importance of various criteria used to evaluate credibility. Perceived expertise, transparency, and knowledge of the source were the three most central criteria to audience evaluations of credibility. The applied value of these findings lies in that practitioners should incorporate indicators of these traits into their messages to enhance the perceived credibility of the sources they use. For example, following FEMA’s staged press conferences the agency should emphasize its efforts to build transparency to restore public trust and credibility. Theoretically, this finding suggests that audiences are quite mindful in their evaluations of the credibility of sources of health information; expertise, transparency, and knowledge were more important than more peripheral or surface level evaluations based on title and years of experience. Health information consumers may apply greater scrutiny to the source when consuming information vital to their health and well-being; if personal stake indeed moderates source evaluation, it follows that in crises and even risk contexts similar standards of scrutiny would apply. In sum, evaluation of the credibility of sources of health information seems to be a quite mindful process. Further, given that source credibility and trust are key to message acceptance (Callison, 2001), as credibly perceived sources practitioners may be quite effective purveyors of health information, and they must carefully protect that perceived credibility with responsible practice. Mindfulness of the moderating
E.J. Avery / Public Relations Review 36 (2010) 81–83
83
roles of source type and traits on audience evaluations of credibility will enable practitioners to enhance the power of their voices in the health arena and beyond. References Avery, E. J., & Kim, S. (2008). Comprising or compromising credibility? Use of spokesperson quotations in news releases issued by major health agencies. Public Relations Journal, 2, 1–18. Callison, C. (2001). Do PR practitioners have a PR problem? The effect of associating source with public relations and client-negative news on audience perceptions of credibility. Journal of Public Relations Research, 13, 219–234. Dunleavy, V. O., Crandall, L., & Metsch, L. R. (2005). A comparative study of sources of health information and access to preventive care among low income chronic drug users. Communication Research Reports, 22, 117–128. Sallot, L. M., & Johnson, E. A. (2006). To contact or not? Investigating journalists’ assessments of public relations subsidies and contact preferences. Public Relations Review, 32, 83–86.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Public Relations Review
Research in Brief
The role of source and the factors audiences rely on in evaluating credibility of health information Elizabeth Johnson Avery ∗ Public Relations, The University of Tennessee, 476 Communications Building, Knoxville, TN 37996, United States
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 17 July 2009 Received in revised form 12 October 2009 Accepted 26 October 2009 Keywords: Public relations Public health Sources Credibility
a b s t r a c t In the wake of public relations crises of credibility such as FEMA’s staged press conference in response to the California wildfires, source credibility merits increased scholarly and practitioner scrutiny in order to maximize the effectiveness of the information practitioners release, particularly when the objective is to promote action vital to public health and well-being. Through a random national telephone survey (n = 400), this research analyzes how the source itself moderates credibility as well as the criteria important to audience evaluations of credibility. Results indicate practitioners are perceived as credible sources of health information and that audiences take a rather mindful route in their evaluations of source credibility. © 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Recent public relations crises such as FEMA’s staged press conference in response to the California wildfires compromise the credibility of public relations sources (Avery & Kim, 2008), thus making enhancing perceived source credibility an increasingly important effort for practitioners. Particularly when releasing information critical to public health and safety, establishing source trust is critical to motivate audiences to follow important directives, as trust determines message acceptance (Callison, 2001). Despite vast literature on the factors that moderate credibility, little is known about how perceived credibility differs by nature of the source of health information. In the source–journalist relationship, the credibility of the source of information subsidies has been well-established as one of the most important determinants in whether or not a journalist will use the information the practitioner provides (Sallot & Johnson, 2006). Credibility may likewise determine whether or not publics heed the medical advice and directives issued by health practitioners. Perhaps attributable to credibility, Dunleavy, Crandall, and Metsch (2005) found that access to expert medical sources of information such as physicians and pharmacists significantly predicted perceived access to primary health care among low-income drug users. Thus, perceived source credibility may be a strong predictor of motivation to seek, attend to, and follow public health directives. Beyond the professional title of the source, factors such as perceived expertise, transparency, and source familiarity may be central to evaluations of source credibility. The following research questions are asked to explore differences in perceived credibility of various source types and in the importance of criteria used to evaluate credibility: RQ1: What, if any, differences emerge between perceived credibility of sources of health information? RQ2: What source factors are most important to audience evaluations of the credibility of sources of health information?
∗ Tel.: +1 706 254 7020. E-mail address: [email protected]. 0363-8111/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.10.015
82
E.J. Avery / Public Relations Review 36 (2010) 81–83
1. Methods A random national sample of 400 adults, selected by random digit dialing, participated in telephone survey interviews for this study. Prior to the administration of the interviews, two waves of pilot testing were conducted to generate the interview guide. Age ranged from 18 to 90, and gender was balanced between males and females (55% and 45%, respectively). All 50 states plus the District of Columbia are represented by the sample. With regard to reported ethnicity, 83% of the respondents were Caucasian, 8% African-American, 4% Hispanic, and the remaining 5% of Asian, Native American, or bi-racial ethnicity. Overall, the sample of respondents was fairly representative with regard to age, gender, geography, and race. 2. Results Research Question 1 explores differences in perceived credibility of various sources of health information – journalists, public relations practitioners, private health companies’ officials, scientists, government agency officials, and doctors – that respondents measured on a scale of 1–5 with 1 being “very credible” and 5 being “not at all credible.” A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted; main effects reveal that perceived credibility of sources of information differed significantly (F(1, 400) = 177.651, p < .001). Follow-up analysis of means revealed that doctors were perceived as most credible (M = 1.48), followed by scientists (M = 2.15), public relations practitioners (M = 2.64), and then officials from government agencies (M = 2.92). The two least credibly perceived sources were journalists (M = 3.015) and, lastly, officials from private companies (M = 3.594). Notably, pair-wise comparisons revealed that public relations practitioner sources were perceived to be more credible than every other source type except doctors and scientists. Research Question 2 was asked to reveal the importance of various moderators of source credibility by having respondents rank expertise, title, knowledge level, reputation, years of experience, transparency, and familiarity on a scale of importance in their evaluations of credibility from 1 to 5, with 1 being “very important” and 5 being “not at all important.” Criteria were evaluated for sources of health information in general; area of practice (e.g. hospital, government, agency) was not specified to remove influence of existing perceptions of different areas. Thus, practitioners gain insight into the measures of credibility on which audiences rely regardless of the source’s field of practice and can incorporate those credibility indicators into their messages. Omnibus scores of a repeated measures ANOVA revealed a significant overall difference in importance of the factors used to evaluate credibility (F(1, 400) = 81.051, p < .001). Perceived expertise of the source was the most important criterion (M = 1.50), followed closely by transparency (M = 1.55) and perceived knowledge (M = 1.58) and then reputation (M = 1.65). Years of experience was the fifth most important in evaluation of credibility (M = 1.81), familiarity with sources the sixth (M = 1.99), and title was seventh (M = 2.75). The top three criteria – expertise, transparency, and knowledge – were not perceived significantly differently in importance. 3. Discussion Overall, source trust is both constitutive of and a function of credibility. It is not surprising, given their inherent expertise, that doctors and scientist were evaluated as the first and second most credible sources of health information. However, quite encouraging is that public relations practitioners were perceived to be the third most credible source of health information, which is surprising given Callison’s (2001) findings that they may suffer in perceived credibility. In fact, public relations practitioners were perceived to be significantly more credible disseminators of health information than officials from government agencies, journalists, and officials from private companies. These findings inform message strategy as they suggest practitioners are wise to utilize doctors and scientists for quotes and sourced information in the health information they release; however, given possible limitations in access to these experts, it is comforting that practitioners were not far behind in perceived credibility. Credibility of practitioners in the health arena may be bolstered as they acting in the interest of public health and not primarily motivated by organizational reputation maintenance (Avery & Kim, 2008). As such, practitioners must preserve their innate credibility through sound practice while conscientious of the responsibility placed on them to be accurate, transparent, and ethical, given publics will react to their messages. This finding brings into stark relief the responsibility practitioners have to their publics and to the organizations they represent. Further, there was overall significant difference in the importance of various criteria used to evaluate credibility. Perceived expertise, transparency, and knowledge of the source were the three most central criteria to audience evaluations of credibility. The applied value of these findings lies in that practitioners should incorporate indicators of these traits into their messages to enhance the perceived credibility of the sources they use. For example, following FEMA’s staged press conferences the agency should emphasize its efforts to build transparency to restore public trust and credibility. Theoretically, this finding suggests that audiences are quite mindful in their evaluations of the credibility of sources of health information; expertise, transparency, and knowledge were more important than more peripheral or surface level evaluations based on title and years of experience. Health information consumers may apply greater scrutiny to the source when consuming information vital to their health and well-being; if personal stake indeed moderates source evaluation, it follows that in crises and even risk contexts similar standards of scrutiny would apply. In sum, evaluation of the credibility of sources of health information seems to be a quite mindful process. Further, given that source credibility and trust are key to message acceptance (Callison, 2001), as credibly perceived sources practitioners may be quite effective purveyors of health information, and they must carefully protect that perceived credibility with responsible practice. Mindfulness of the moderating
E.J. Avery / Public Relations Review 36 (2010) 81–83
83
roles of source type and traits on audience evaluations of credibility will enable practitioners to enhance the power of their voices in the health arena and beyond. References Avery, E. J., & Kim, S. (2008). Comprising or compromising credibility? Use of spokesperson quotations in news releases issued by major health agencies. Public Relations Journal, 2, 1–18. Callison, C. (2001). Do PR practitioners have a PR problem? The effect of associating source with public relations and client-negative news on audience perceptions of credibility. Journal of Public Relations Research, 13, 219–234. Dunleavy, V. O., Crandall, L., & Metsch, L. R. (2005). A comparative study of sources of health information and access to preventive care among low income chronic drug users. Communication Research Reports, 22, 117–128. Sallot, L. M., & Johnson, E. A. (2006). To contact or not? Investigating journalists’ assessments of public relations subsidies and contact preferences. Public Relations Review, 32, 83–86.