Credibility,source identification and message acceptance: The case of political persuasion

Abstract

This paper addresses questions related to effects of source credibility on message acceptance. More specifically, we look at (a) the effects of attributed credibility of the source on message acceptance in situation of source identification versus non‐identification, and (b) the effects of attributed credibility of two competitive sources on the acceptance of their respective messages in positively versus negatively predisposed audiences.

Source identification and source competition relate to the more general problem of persuasion and inoculation. Political parties often strive to persuade partisan, hostile, or politically neutral audiences while simultaneously trying to inoculate them against the message of opposing parties. These processes of persuasion can take place in situations where the source is either identified (e.g., a well‐known politician clearly linked with a political party) or not identified (e.g., a journalist who presents a politician's point of view without naming him/her). In cases where the source has been identified, the audience may remember the message itself and yet forget who had advanced the message. This raises the question of the extent to which communicators should concern themselves with the attributed credibility of the source in situations of either source identification or non‐identification? And how important is credibility in reinforcing the support of partisans or in persuading neutral and hostile audiences? These are some of the issues we examine experimentally in this article.