You Don't Act like you Trust Me: Dissociations between Behavioural and Explicit Measures of Source Credibility Judgement

Abstract

This study compared explicit and behavioural measures of source credibility judgements based on two factors: a source's past record of accuracy and its production of predictions that participants would like to believe. The former is considered to be a rational factor for judging credibility, while the latter is considered nonrational (i.e., it does not predict actual credibility). In Experiments 1 and 2, participants saw an equal number of predictions from two sources, one of which was either highly or slightly more accurate/desirable than the other. In Experiment 3, either one source was high accuracy and the other high desirability, or one source was higher on both measures. For all experiments, participants then saw new accurate and inaccurate predictions and said which source they thought was most likely to produce each (behavioural task). Participants then gave a percentage rating for each source's perceived accuracy (explicit judgement task). Participants showed sensitivity to past accuracy differences using both tasks, but not to the size of the differences. Desirability influenced performance only on the behavioural task. However, when the two factors conflicted, participants responded solely using past accuracy information. Behaviours reflect source credibility judgements based on both rational and irrational factors, but participants appear to be both more strongly influenced by the rational factor and more aware of that influence.

Honesty biases trustworthiness impressions.

“…This preference may turn out extremely advantageous to the individual, as exploiting others' knowledge prevents from applying more costly and riskier exploratory strategies (Kendal et al, 2018). As a good reputation of being trustworthy and honest is built on truthful information shared by others, having a good reputation may work as a proxy for the quality of the other's information (Gordon & Spears, 2012). Thus, preferring the advice of honest others may disclose the attempt to improve decisional accuracy and reduce uncertainty by using likely truthful information.…”

“…Honesty might thus represent one important antecedent of trustworthiness impressions about advisers. On the one hand, honest group members are believed to be a source of truthful information (Gordon & Spears, 2012). Because sharing of truthful information increases the accuracy of both individual and group decisions (Becker, Brackbill, & Centola, 2017; Mellers et al, 2014) and information sharing is associated with trust (Burt & Knez, 1995), individuals may form trustworthiness impressions of an honest adviser that make them more willing to take the adviser’s advice.…”

Individual Differences Influence the Degree of Source Expertise Bias in Syllogistic Reasoning

“…Possible strong syllogisms were chosen because a pilot study had shown that no source credibility effects were present when impossible syllogisms were used. This result is likely explained by previous findings indicating that participants' experience with a given experimental task (i.e., in which for instance they realize that both sources are equally correct or incorrect) might supplant the influence of any credibility impressions they have of the sources (Gordon & Bryant, 2010). Possible weak syllogisms were not used either in order to ensure that all the conclusions seemed reasonable.…”

It is the same headline, just not as believable: The role of expectancy violations in perceptions about news attributed to multiple sources

“…To that extent, source trust can be deemed a favorable or unfavorable disposition toward sources based on prior experiences or other types of knowledge about those sources acquired from third parties. Such attitudes are often based on individual perceptions of the sources’ past records of accuracy (Gordon & Spears, 2012). People often expect that credible sources provide truthful information, which means perceptions of prior source accuracy lead to expectations that those sources provide trustworthy information in the future as well (Flanagin et al, 2020; Fragale & Heath, 2004).…”