TY - JOUR
T1 - Source cues in online news
T2 - Is the proximate source more powerful than distal sources?
AU - Kang, Hyunjin
AU - Bae, Keunmin
AU - Zhang, Shaoke
AU - Sundar, S. Shyam
PY - 2011
Y1 - 2011
N2 - With the rise of intermediaries such as portals, social-bookmarking sites, and microblogs, online news is often carried through multiple sources. However, the perceived credibility of different source cues attached to a single news story can be quite different. So, how do readers evaluate the story? Do users factor in all distal sources, or do they simply refer to the proximate source delivering the news? Using a 2 (involvement) x 2 (proximal source credibility) x 2 (distal source credibility) full-factorial between-subjects experiment (N = 231), we found that while highly involved readers considered both types of sources, low-involvement readers were primarily influenced by the proximate source.
AB - With the rise of intermediaries such as portals, social-bookmarking sites, and microblogs, online news is often carried through multiple sources. However, the perceived credibility of different source cues attached to a single news story can be quite different. So, how do readers evaluate the story? Do users factor in all distal sources, or do they simply refer to the proximate source delivering the news? Using a 2 (involvement) x 2 (proximal source credibility) x 2 (distal source credibility) full-factorial between-subjects experiment (N = 231), we found that while highly involved readers considered both types of sources, low-involvement readers were primarily influenced by the proximate source.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84862913955&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84862913955&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1177/107769901108800403
DO - 10.1177/107769901108800403
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84862913955
SN - 1077-6990
VL - 88
SP - 719
EP - 736
JO - Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly
JF - Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly
IS - 4
ER -