Effects of type and frequency of reference upon perceived source credibility and attitude change

An evaluative survey to assess the effectiveness of using an interactive workbook to deliver bereavement education to undergraduate student midwives

“…Credibility and trustworthiness are cited as external variables that may have a profound effect upon the amount of agreement an individual can secure (Aronson, 2008). Receiver judgments of communicator trustworthiness and especially expertise are found to be significantly influenced by information concerning the communicator's occupation, training, amount of expertise and the like (e.g., Hurwitz et al, 1992;Ostermeier, 1967;Swenson et al, 1984). With no prior knowledge of the data collector, students would have had no experience from which to judge their credibility or trustworthiness.…”

Examining the Correlations of Goodwill With Competence and Trustworthiness a Test in the Philippine Setting

“…While it may be proposed that the associations of goodwill with competence and trustworthiness do not guarantee its reliability as a measure of credibility, it should be noted that a chunk of available literature does not contest the validity of the first two ethos faces (Hellmueller & Trilling, 2012;Holtzman, 1966;McCroskey & Dunham, 1966;McCroskey & Young, 1981, as cited in McCroskey & Teven, 1999Ostermeier, 1967;Sereno, 1968). It follows then, that, if competence and trustworthiness are empirically proven determinants of credibility, with the correlations maintained by goodwill with the two, it might be safe to assume that it as well captures a considerable part of the ethos.…”

“…Although the above-mentioned clearly suggests that dynamism may be a factor of credibility, Ostermeier's (1967) research casts doubts on its role as an ethos determinant. His study demonstrates the validity and reliability of competence and trustworthiness but denies the consistency of dynamism.…”

“…The first side of such perspective supposes that instead of goodwill, dynamism is the third facet of source credibility (Sereno & Hawkins, 1967;Tuppen, 1974); while the other side is either silent on the existence of the third dimension or offer a different set of ethos factors, hence, neither confirming nor debunking either goodwill or dynamism as the third credibility facet (Hellmueller & Trilling, 2012;Holtzman, 1966;McCroskey & Dunham, 1966;Ostermeier, 1967;Sereno, 1968). It simply maintains the constancy of the first two dimensions-authoritativeness and character.…”

“…Its constancy as a factor of credibility is quite controversial as it is often interrogated (McCroskey & Teven, 1999). While the classical rhetorical theory and other empirical studies derived from such tenet suppose that it is a consistent and stable measure of ethos (McCroskey, 1986;McCroskey & Teven, 1999;Teven, 2008), contemporary research argues that goodwill may not be the third dimension of source credibility; that ethos might have only two dimensions-competence (also referred to as authoritativeness) and trustworthiness (also labeled as character); that a different set of determinants of ethos exist; or that goodwill is subsumed in other elements of ethos (Eisend, 2006;Holtzman, 1966;McCroskey, 1966;McCroskey & Dunham, 1966;McCroskey & Teven, 1999;Ostermeier, 1967;Sereno, 1968;Sereno & Hawkins, 1967;Tuppen, 1974). Although varying in claims, all these presuppositions share a common inquiry on the validity of goodwill as a gauge of source credibility.…”