Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science (한국문헌정보학회지)

Korean Society For Library And Information Science (한국문헌정보학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Participatory Web Users’ Information Activities and Credibility Assessment

  • Received : 2010.09.13
  • Accepted : 2010.10.06
  • Published : 2010.11.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Assessment of information credibility is a ubiquitous human activity given that people constantly make decisions and selections based on the value of information in a variety of information seeking and use contexts. Today, people are increasingly engaging in diverse online activities beyond searching for and reading information, including activities such as creating, tagging and rating content, shopping, and listening to and watching multimedia content. The Web 2.0 environment presents new challenges for people because the burden of information evaluation is shifted from professional gatekeepers to individual information consumers. At the same time, however, it also provides unprecedented opportunities for people to use tools and features that help them to make informed credibility judgments by relying on other people's ratings and recommendations. This paper introduces fundamental notions and dimensions of credibility, and contends that credibility assessment can be best understood with respect to human information behavior because it encompasses both the level of effort people exert as well as the heuristics they employ to evaluate information. The paper reports on a survey study investigating people's credibility judgments with respect to online information, focusing on the constructs, heuristics, and interactions involved in people's credibility assessment processes within the context of their everyday life information activities. Using an online activity diary method, empirical data about people's online activities and their associated credibility assessments were collected at multiple points throughout the day for three days. The results indicate that distinct credibility assessment heuristics are emerging as people engage in diverse online activities involving more user-generated and multimedia content. A heuristic approach suggests that people apply mental shortcuts or rules of thumb in order to minimize the amount of cognitive effort and time required to make credibility judgments. The paper discusses why a heuristic approach is key to reaching a more comprehensive understanding of people's credibility assessments within the information-abundant online environment.

Keywords

References

  1. Barry, C. L. 1994. "User-defined relevance criteria: An exploratory study." Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45(3): 149-159. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199404)45:3<149::AID-ASI5>3.0.CO;2-J
  2. Cool, C., & Belkin, N. J. 2002. "A classification of interactions with information." H. Bruce, R. Fidel, P. Ingwersen, & P. Vakkari, Eds. Emerging frameworks and methods: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference of Library and Information Science (CoLIS4), 1-15. Greenwood Village, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
  3. Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. J. 2008a. "Digital media and youth: Unparalleled opportunity and unprecedented responsibility." M. Metzger, & A. Flanagin, Eds. Digital media, youth, and credibility, 5-27. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
  4. Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. J. 2008b. "The credibility of volunteered geographic information." GeoJournal, 72(3-4): 137-148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-008-9188-y
  5. Fogg, B. J. 2003a. Persuasive technology: Using computers to change what we think and do. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
  6. Fogg, B. J. 2003b. "Prominence-interpretation theory: Explaining how people assess credibility online." Proceedings of CHI'03, Human Factors in Computing Systems, 722-723.
  7. Fogg, B. J., Marshall, J., Laraki, O., Osipovich, A., Varma, C., Fang, N., et al. 2001. "What makes web sites credible? A report on a large quantitative study." Proceedings of CHI'01, Human Factors in Computing Systems, 61-68.
  8. Hilligoss, B., & Rieh, S. Y. 2008. "Developing a unifying framework of credibility assessment: Construct, heuristics, and interaction in context." Information Processing and Management, 44(4): 1467-1484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2007.10.001
  9. Hong, T. 2006. "The influence of structural and message features on Web site credibility." Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(1): 114-127. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20258
  10. Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. H. 1953. Communication and persuasion. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  11. Janes, J. W., & Rosenfeld, L. B. 1996. "Networked information retrieval and organization: Issues and questions." Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 47(9): 711-715. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199609)47:9<711::AID-ASI7>3.0.CO;2-V
  12. Johnson, T. J., & Kaye, B. K. 1998. "Cruising is believing?: Comparing Internet and traditional sources on media credibility measures." Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 75(2): 325-340 https://doi.org/10.1177/107769909807500208
  13. Kim, S. 2010. "Questioners' credibility judgments of answers in a social question and answer site." Information Research, 15(1). [online]. [cited 2010. 6. 19]. .
  14. Kubey, R., Larson, R., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. 1996. "Experience Sampling Method [1] application to communication research questions." Journal of Communication, 46(2): 99-120. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1996.tb01476.x
  15. Lankes, R. D. 2008. "Credibility on the internet: Shifting from authority to reliability." Journal of Documentation, 64(5): 667-686. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410810899709
  16. Mashek, J. W., McGill, L. T., & Powell, A. C. 1997. Lethargy '96: How the Media Covered a Listless Campaign. Arlington, VA: The Freedom Forum.
  17. Metzger, M. J., Flanagin, A. J., Eyal, K., Lemus, D. R., & McCann, R. M. 2003. "Credibility for the 21st century: Integrating perspectives on source, message, and media credibility in the contemporary media environment." Communication Yearbook, 27: 293-335.
  18. Newhagen, J., & Nass, C. 1989. "Differential criteria for evaluating credibility of newspapers and TV news." Journalism Quarterly, 66(2): 277-284. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769908906600202
  19. O'Reilly, T. 2005. "What is Web 2.0?" [online] [cited 2007. 7. 9]. .
  20. Rieh, S. Y. 2002. "Judgment of information quality and cognitive authority in the Web." Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(2): 145-161. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.10017
  21. Rieh, S. Y. 2004. "On the Web at home: Information seeking and Web searching in the home environment." Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 55(8): 743-753. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20018
  22. Rieh, S. Y. 2010. "Credibility and cognitive authority of information." M. Bates, & M. N. Maack, Eds. Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences. 3rd ed., 1337-1344. New York: Taylor and Francis Group, LLC.
  23. Rieh, S. Y., & Belkin, N. J. 1998. "Understanding judgment of information quality and cognitive authority in the WWW." Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science, 35: 279-289.
  24. Rieh, S. Y., & Danielson, D. R. 2007. "Credibility: A multidisciplinary framework." B. Cronin Ed., Annual Review of Information Science and Technology V.41, 307-364. Medford, NJ:Information Today.
  25. Rieh, S. Y., & Hilligoss, B. 2008. "College students' credibility judgments in the information seeking process." M. Metzger, & A. Flanagin, Eds. Digital media, youth, and credibility, 49-72. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
  26. Rieh, S. Y., Kim, Y.-M., Yang, J. Y., & St. Jean B. 2010. "A diary study of credibility assessment in everyday life information activities on the Web: Preliminary findings." Paper to be presented at ASIS&T 2010 Annual Meeting, Pittsburgh, PA, October 22-27, 2010.
  27. Robins, D., & Holmes, J. 2008. "Aesthetics and credibility in Web design." Information Processing and Management, 44(1): 386-399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2007.02.003
  28. Roper, B. 1985. Public attitudes toward television and other media in a time of change. New York: Television Information Office.
  29. Sundar, S. S. 2008. "The MAIN Model: A heuristic approach to understanding technology effects on credibility." M. J. Metzger, & A. J. Flanagin, Eds. Digital Media, Youth, and Credibility, 73-100. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  30. Sundin, O., & Francke, H. 2009. "In search of credibility: Pupils' information practices in learning environments." Information Research, 14(4). [online]. [cited 2010. 5. 25]. .
  31. USC-Annenberg School Center for the Digital Future. 2007. "Online World as Important to Internet Users as Real World?" USC-Annenberg Digital Future Project. [online]. [cited 2010. 7. 9]. .
  32. Wathen, C. N., & Burkell, J. 2002. "Believe it or not: Factors influencing credibility on the Web." Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(2): 134-144. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.10016
  33. Wilson, P. 1983. Second-hand knowledge: An inquiry into cognitive authority. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.