Reader perceptions of the credibility of university scientists as sources of environmental news

Who to regard as a credible source of environmental information has become a pressing concern given the increasing prevalence of environmental dilemmas and crises weighing upon society. The public learns of the majority of important environmental developments through the media, the avenue through which multiple voices claim to profess “The Truth” and attempt to influence a public that is largely interested in the environment but ignorant of the basic underlying science. This study focuses on one type of expert that is often cited in environmental news stories—the university scientist—and looks at some factors that influence public perception of source credibility.; In a 3 (participant involvement: low, moderate, or high) × 2 (citation style: direct quote or paraphrase) × 2 (scientist's funding source: private or public) mixed subjects factorial design, 240 college students in communications courses read two newspaper articles, one about water pollution and one about rain forest destruction. They rated the credibility of the scientists identified therein on Ohanian's (1990) 10-item scale.; A main effect occurred for general environmental involvement, such that the highly involved rated scientists as more credible, expert, and trustworthy than the other two involvement groups rated them. A main effect occurred for involvement in the specific environmental issue identified in the articles, again with the highly involved rating the scientists as more credible and trustworthy, but not more expert. No main effects occurred for citation style. Main effects for funding source occurred for trustworthiness, but not in a consistent direction as predicted. No interactions among the independent variables occurred. However, participants did distinguish between scientist and channel credibility, rating the scientists as more credible than the articles.; The lack of predicted effects does not signify a lack of importance of involvement, citation style, or funding source to ratings of source credibility; rather, they suggest that the mechanisms by which they influence credibility are likely more complex than initially thought and that additional attention to theoretical development involving source credibility is in order.