Download Credibility of Social Network Sites for Political Information Among

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication
Credibility of Social Network Sites for Political
Information Among Politically Interested Internet
Users∗
Thomas J. Johnson
University of Texas at Austin, School of Journalism, 300 W. Dean Keeton, Austin, TX 78712, USA
Barbara K. Kaye
University of Tennessee, Knoxville, School of Journalism & Electronic Media, Knoxville, Tennessee 37996, USA
Scholars have confirmed that political candidates are increasingly turning to social network sites
(SNS) to persuade voters to vote for them, and that these sites have become prominent sources of
political information. But a fundamental question arises about the sustainability of social networks
as a campaign tool: How much do users trust the information they find there? This study employed an
online survey to examine the degree to which politically interested online users view SNS as credible.
SNS were ranked the least credible among the nine traditional and online sources examined. Reliance
on social networks proved the strongest predictor of SNS credibility.
Key words: Credibility, social network sites, Facebook, election campaigns, 2008 election.
doi:10.1111/jcc4.12084
When campaigning for president in 2008, Barack Obama successfully employed social network sites
(SNS) such as MySpace and Facebook, specialty sites such as BlackPlanet and AsianAve, as well as his
own site mybarackobama.com to connect with voters, mobilize an army of volunteers, and amass a huge
campaign war chest through his legion of contributors (Fraser & Dutta, 2008; Stelter, 2008). Obama’s
intense reliance on the Internet, especially on SNS, was thought to be critical to his victory. Moreover,
because SNS had such a strong influence on voters, the 2008 presidential race was dubbed “The Facebook
Election” (Fraser & Dutta, 2008; Johnson & Perlmutter, 2010). Furthermore, some scholars credit SNS
with significantly aiding the Republican landslide in the 2010 midterm election (Geiber, 2011).
The 2008 election underscored the importance of SNS as a campaign tool (Metzgar & Maruggi,
2010), and showed the world that they are popular venues of political persuasion. During the campaign,
40 percent of all SNS users relied on them chiefly to discover their friends’ political interests, 29 percent
to see their friends’ political affiliation and 22 percent for campaign or candidate information (Smith &
Rainie, 2008).
Most Internet credibility studies have focused on the Internet as a whole or on online news sites
(Johnson & Kaye, 2009). A few studies have examined credibility of components of the Internet such as
∗ Accepted
by previous editor Maria Bakardjieva
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19 (2014) 957–974 © 2014 International Communication Association
957
blogs (Johnson & Kaye, 2004; Johnson, Kaye, Bichard, & Wong, 2007; Kim, 2012), bulletin boards/lists
and chat/instant messaging (Kaye & Johnson, 2006) as well as candidate and issue-oriented sites (Johnson & Kaye, 2009). However, few studies have explored credibility of SNS even though political candidates are increasingly turning to SNS to persuade voters. Therefore, a fundamental question arises about
the sustainability of SNS as a campaign tool: How much do users trust the information they find there?
This is an important question because a source must be judged as credible for voters to rely on it (Johnson
& Kaye, 1998, 2002; Metzger, Flanagin, Eyal, Lemus & McCann, 2003). Although it could be assumed
that Obama’s success in 2008 was attributable, at least in part, to the perceived credibility of SNS, it is
also possible that their influence was due to a novelty effect or some other reason related to the nature
of the campaign.
This study, therefore, questions the degree to which politically interested online users, that is, people
who visit politically oriented websites, blogs, discussion groups and SNS for political news and information, view SNS as credible. An online survey asked respondents to judge SNS on believability, fairness,
accuracy, and depth of information. Additional focus is placed on the connection between perceptions
of credibility and reliance on SNS.
Literature Review: Internet Credibility
It has been long recognized that credibility is not inherent to a source (Berlo, Lemert & Mertz, 1969).
Credibility is a judgment made by the user based on a host of factors, including believability, accuracy, fairness, depth, trustworthiness, bias, completeness, reliability (Gaziano & McGrath, 1986; Metzger
et al, 2003) as well as ease of use and attractiveness of a site (Metzger, 2007). Because there are now so
many easy and convenient ways, such as SNS and blogs, to post information on the Internet, it is often
not filtered through professional gatekeepers. Further, sites lack traditional indicators of authority such
as author identity and established reputation, which puts the burden of determining credibility more
squarely on the shoulders of the users (Metzger, 2007; Metzger et al., 2003).
Because credibility is based on user’s perceptions several researchers have developed models that
explain how individuals determine site credibility (e.g. Fogg, 2003; Metzger, 2007). Many of these credibility models are based on information processing models such as the Elaboration Likelihood Model
(Petty & Cacioppo, 1986) and the Heuristic-Systematic Model (Chaiken, 1980). The degree, then, to
which online messages and sites are scrutinized for their credibility depends on users’ ability to evaluate
the site or message (e.g., their Internet experience and their critical abilities to evaluate information) and
how motivated they are to ensure that the information they receive is accurate and credible. For instance,
users surfing the Internet for entertainment may not assess the credibility of a site at all or rely on surface
characteristics of a site such as its appearance, while those highly motivated to get accurate information,
such as someone recently diagnosed with a serious disease, might engage in a more rigorous, systematic
approach to credibility assessment such as verifying the author’s qualifications or credentials or turning
to other sources to validate the information (Metzger, 2007).
Studies examining students found that they rarely or only occasionally systematically verify information and that their actual verification behavior (e.g. clicking links to external sites to verify information)
is even more sporadic (Flanagin & Metzger, 2000; 2007). In information processing terms, then, people
rely on more peripheral cues or heuristics (that is, information processing strategies that rely on useful
mental short cuts, rules of thumb or general guidelines) rather than systematic or central processing
(more systematic and rigorous approaches) to determine site credibility (Metzger, Flanagin & Medders,
2010).
Those assessing the credibility of SNS are highly likely to rely on peripheral cues or heuristics because
heavy users of SNS for political information use these sites for entertainment and to talk and debate
958
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19 (2014) 957–974 © 2014 International Communication Association
with others rather than for in-depth political information (Kaye, 2010). Further, users are more likely
to support an opinion if it is advocated by many of those in their social network, and they are likely to
believe information that comes from individuals they already trust or from people who seem to hold
similar political views (Metzger, et al, 2010).
Genre Credibility
The Internet is comprised of several components, such as SNS and blogs. Because each component is
different from one another in terms of interactivity, synchronicity, how information is retrieved, how it
is used, and users’ expectations, credibility of each is judged by different criteria (Flanagin & Metzger,
2008; Metzger, et al., 2003; Johnson & Kaye, 2009).
The term “genre credibility” refers to the assessment of credibility of different Internet components
(Flanagin & Metzger, 2007). Genre credibility draws distinctions among Internet components based on
various characteristics. For example, some Internet components, such as chat and instant messaging,
which are more interactive and synchronous than others, are used for interpersonal communication,
while less interactive and asynchronous ones, such as websites, are used for information seeking and
guidance (Flanagin & Metzger, 2000; Johnson & Kaye, 2009).
SNS Use and Credibility
In their seminal work, boyd and Ellison (2007) defined SNS as “web-based services that allow individuals
to (1) construct a public or semipublic profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users
with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made
by others within the system.” They specifically listed Facebook and YouTube as examples of SNS1 .
SNS are clearly a way to connect with friends, family, and other known individuals. Accessing SNS
is interesting and entertaining. SNS also serve as a forum for political discussion and expression as well
as an outlet for political information (Kaye, 2010). For example, 40% of all SNS users and 50% of young
adults used SNS to discover or share information about politics and the 2008 elections, with 22% specifically looking for information about a candidate or campaign (Smith & Rainie, 2008). Additionally, more
than 20% received 2010 midterm campaign news through SNS (Smith, 2011).
Facebook and YouTube are SNS that are among the top three most popular destinations for U.S.
Internet users (McIntyre, 2012) and social networks have passed e-mail as the most common way to
connect with others online (Nielsen, 2009). Because SNS information bounces among millions of users
every day it may be difficult to quickly discern fact from fiction, news from opinion, and scientific forecast from speculation. Understandably, assessing the credibility of SNS messages is complicated because
information comes from a variety of sources, ranging from expertly vetted articles from well-respected
publications and websites to views spouted from “friends” one has never met. Furthermore, social media
allow people to search for political information and express their political views, which makes them consumers and producers of political information. Information also appears in many formats from status
updates, wall posts, videos, and articles that link to individuals and groups, some who may try to present
unbiased information, and others who argue on behalf or against political issues and candidates. Such
information may provide users with new perspectives, reinforce existing values, or users may choose to
ignore the information entirely (Hanson, Cunningham, Sharma, & Ponder, 2010; Kushin & Yamamoto,
2010).
While research that has specifically examined credibility of SNS has been lacking, Flanagin and
Metzger (2011) explored the credibility of Wikipedia, a site that features information that ranges from
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19 (2014) 957–974 © 2014 International Communication Association
959
expertly researched and written content to individuals simply spouting off their own views or trying to
advance an agenda. They discovered that Wikipedia was rated as moderately credible, but not as credible
as more established encyclopedias such as Encyclopædia Britannica. The authors noted that the problem
of determining credibility on such user-generated sites as Wikipedia and SNS is that information about
the source can be masked or missing, or hard to interpret because information can be “co-produced,
repurposed from one site, channel, or application to another” (Flanagin & Metzger, 2011, p. 358).
The vast array of user-generated content that zips across far-flung computer connections underscores
the importance of determining SNS credibility. Of question are the personal characteristics, political attitudes, and uses of SNS that influence the perception of what is and what is not credible SNS information.
Moreover, sources that are used for information gathering are usually judged as more credible than ones,
such as SNS, that are used for interpersonal communication (Flanagin & Metzger, 2000; Johnson & Kaye,
2009).
Personal Characteristics and Perceptions of Credibility
Since the early days of credibility research, studies have shown people rely on a source’s trustworthiness
and expertise in making credibility judgments (Hovland, Janis, & Kelley, 1953; Hovland, Lumsdaine, &
Sheffield, 1949) and it seems that this holds true for online information as well (Metzger, Flanagin, &
Medders, 2010). Individuals are likely to connect to sites and messages that support their beliefs (Woolley, Limperos, & Oliver, 2010). The credibility of SNS information is enhanced if it comes from those
who share the users’ values and interests (Metzger, et al., 2010). In general, information that supports a
receiver’s worldview is convincing and confirming and thus it is judged as more legitimate and credible
than challenging information (Johnson & Kaye, 2009).
SNS users have a considerable degree of control of who they “friend,” and they typically select friends
who they are acquainted with offline (boyd & Ellison, 2007), thus real life friends are likely to congregate
on the same SNS and groups within a site. People are also likely to spend more time on SNS with friends
who they share an offline connection than those they are hardly acquainted with (Ellison, Lampe, Steinfield, & Vitak, 2010). When individuals limit the size of their SNS pool of friends to those they know
personally or to those who share similar interests, there is a greater likelihood that the information that
circulates among these homogeneous group members will be judged as credible (Kaye & Johnson, 2011;
Metzger et al., 2010). Furthermore, certain elements of social networks, particularly political groups
and fan pages that members can join or like (e.g. Humans and Dogs Against Mitt Romney, Overturn
Obamacare) attract likeminded individuals who engage in highly partisan and polarized discussion in
support of their cause and against their political opponents (Woolley, et al., 2010).
The proliferation of specialty SNS also fosters the congregation of users with similar backgrounds and
interests. For instance, LinkedIn is a business-oriented site that attracts the more educated with higher
incomes (Papacharissi, 2009). Schmooze is an SNS that draws Jewish people, AsianAve targets Asians,
Glee.com is for the professional gay community, and Mormons gather in LDS LinkUp for Mormons.
But not all social networks revolve around a single theme or issue, or are comprised of likeminded
individuals or face-to-face friends; many, like Facebook, are more general and attract individuals with
a variety of viewpoints and opinions (Hanson et al., 2010). When dissimilar individuals and strangers
are linked, they are likely to come across information and viewpoints that challenge their own beliefs
(Hanson et al., 2010; Kushin & Yamamoto, 2010). But while people may encounter a wide range of views
on SNS, reliance on SNS has not been linked to either seeking information that supports ones’ views
or avoiding information that challenges them (Kaye & Johnson, 2011). Indeed, the more heavily people
rely on SNS, the more likely it is that they will be inadvertently exposed to information that challenges
960
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19 (2014) 957–974 © 2014 International Communication Association
their viewpoints (Kim, 2011), especially while scanning status updates or wall posts (Brundidge, 2010).
But mere exposure to conflicting information does not mean that people will pay attention to it or judge
its credibility.
Reliance on SNS and Perceptions of Credibility
SNS, like all media, depend on loyal followers for their existence. Such sites need to build a consistent
following because the more heavily people rely on a medium the more credible they judge it (Johnson
& Kaye, 1998; Kiousis, 2001; Wanta & Hu, 1994). This relationship seems to hold true not only with
mainstream sources but also with online ones as well. For instance, studies of blogs, bulletin boards, and
chat rooms report reliance as the strongest predictor of judgments of high credibility (Johnson et al.,
2007; Johnson & Kaye, 2004, 2009: Kim, 2012). Apparently reliance is such an important predictor of
the credibility of Internet components because the more experience users have with each component the
greater their ability to judge its credibility (Johnson & Kaye, 2004, 2009; Johnson, et al., 2007).
Political Attitudes and Perceptions of Credibility
For SNS to be effective campaign tools they need a loyal audience who views them as credible. These
users who deem SNS as credible purveyors of political news are those who participate in civic activities.
For instance, those who use SNS for political reasons (i.e. visiting candidate profiles on an SNS and
sending messages to the candidate) are likely to participate in civic activities such as volunteering for local
organizations or government boards (Johnson, Zhang, Bichard, & Seltzer, 2010; Utz, 2009; Valenzuela,
Park, & Kee, 2009). Further, they report high levels of political interest, campaign interest, civic duty, and
political efficacy as well as a greater likelihood to vote and lower levels of political cynicism (Hanson,
et al., 2010; Kaye, 2010).
Demographics and Perceptions of Credibility
Credibility may be mitigated or strengthened by demographic characteristics. For instance, age has traditionally been the defining characteristic of SNS with those 18–24 being more than twice as likely to have
created a SNS profile than older individuals. Consequently, the average SNS user has typically attended
some college but has a low income (Lenhart, 2009). However, recently the greatest growth in SNS site
use has been from those in the 35–49 age range, thus new SNS users are older with a higher income and
more education (Nielsen, 2009). SNS users also tend to be women, presumably because they are more
likely than men to engage in interpersonal discussion online (Hargittai, 2007; Kaye, 2010). Ethnicity
seems to influence use as well. African-Americans and Hispanics are more likely than Whites to have a
SNS profile, perhaps because of sites such as BlackPlanet and Migente.com (Lenhart, 2009).
Hypotheses and Research Questions
The literature review offers a look at source credibility in general, the role of social networks, and how
they are viewed in terms of credibility. But there is still a dearth of knowledge about the connections
among social networks, reliance on SNS for political information, and the influence of political and
personal attributes on perceptions of credibility of political information posted on SNS. Also, little is
known about whether political information is perceived as more or less credible when posted on SNS
compared to other online sources of information. To further investigate perceptions of credibility of
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19 (2014) 957–974 © 2014 International Communication Association
961
political information on SNS and the relationships among credibility reliance and political attitudes and
demographic characteristics, this study of politically interested Internet users asks the following research
questions and offers the following hypotheses:
R1: To what degree will politically interested Internet users judge SNS as credible?
R2: How does the credibility of SNS compare to the credibility of political and candidate websites,
political and candidate blogs, YouTube and online versions of newspapers, broadcast and cable
television news?
H1: Those who rely on SNS for news and political information will judge them more credible than
those who do not rely on SNS.
H2: Reliance on SNS will significantly predict SNS credibility after controlling for demographic and
political variables.
H3: Reliance on political and candidate websites, political and candidate blogs, YouTube and online
versions of newspapers, broadcast and cable television news predict SNS credibility after
controlling for demographic and political variables.
Method
Data Collection
Target respondents for this study were politically interested Internet users. To reach this subset of general
online users, a survey was posted online the 2 weeks before and the 2 weeks after the 2008 presidential
election. This procedure is the same used in other published studies (Johnson & Kaye, 2004, 2007, 2009;
Kaye, 2005, 2007) in which politically interested Internet users were notified of a survey and asked to
fill it out through an announcement containing the survey URL. The survey promotion was posted on
politically oriented websites, blogs, newsgroups, mailing lists/listservs, and SNS that represented a cross
section of political ideologies2 Additionally, respondents were encouraged to “snowball” the survey to
politically interested friends and family by clicking on a link that automatically forwarded it.3
This convenience sample of politically interested Internet users yielded 4,241 completed surveys.
The survey software recorded the number of individuals who accessed the survey and the number who
completed it - a 37.6% cooperation rate.4
Dependent Variable
This study focuses on credibility of SNS5 as the dependent variable. As in other studies, credibility was
assessed as a multidimensional index consisting of believability, fairness, accuracy, and depth of information (Gaziano & McGrath, 1986; Johnson & Kaye, 2002, 2004). Respondents were asked their perceptions
of credibility of the following online venues of political information: SNS, political websites, candidate
websites, political blogs, candidate blogs, YouTube, online broadcast television news, online cable news,
and online newspapers. Respondents indicated on a 5-point scale the believability, fairness, accuracy,
and depth of each source.
Independent Variables
Political Attitudes
Political knowledge and political interest in general, and in the 2008 presidential campaign, were
measured on a 1–10 scale with 1 signifying not at all knowledgeable or interested to 10 indicating
highly knowledgeable or interested. Strength of political party affiliation was also measured on a 1–10
962
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19 (2014) 957–974 © 2014 International Communication Association
scale with 1 meaning very weak party ties and 10 signifying a very strong affiliation. Political ideology
was measured on a 5-point scale: 1) very liberal, 2) liberal, 3) moderate, 4) conservative, 5) very
conservative.
Self-efficacy and trust were assessed using a 5-point scale that consisted of 1) strongly disagree, 2)
disagree, 3) neutral, 4) agree, 5) strongly agree. The self-efficacy and trust measures were taken from
the National Election Studies. Self-efficacy was assessed by the following four statements: “I consider
myself well qualified to participate in politics,” “I feel I could do as good of a job in public office as most
other people,” “I think that I am better informed about politics and government than most people,” and
I feel that I have a pretty good understanding of the important political issues facing our country.’’ Trust
in the government was measured by “Most of our leaders are devoted to the service of our country,”
“Politicians never tell us what they really think,” and “I don’t think public officials care much about what
people like me think.” The polarity was reversed on last two statements of the trust index. The trust and
efficacy measures were combined into separate self-efficacy and trust indexes (3–15 score range). The
reliability for the self-efficacy and trust indexes is .70 and.73, respectively.
Reliance
Respondents were asked how much they rely on SNS, political websites, candidate websites, political
blogs, candidate blogs, YouTube, online broadcast television news, online cable news, and online newspapers for political information on a 5-point scale; 1) never rely, 2) rarely rely, 3) sometimes rely, 4) rely,
5) heavily rely.
Demographics
Respondents were asked their gender, age as of their last birthday, and their estimated income for 2008.
They also selected their highest level of education from a list that ranged from “less than high school” to
“terminal degree” such as Ph.D., M.D., J.D.
Data Analysis
First, mean scores were calculated for believability, fairness, accuracy, and depth of the online and traditional sources. The four credibility measures were then combined into a credibility index with scores
ranging from 4–16 for each of the online sources. Cronbach’s alpha for each online source is as follows:
SNS .85, political websites .81, candidate websites .84, political blogs .79, candidate blogs .82, YouTube
.88, online broadcast television news .89, online cable news .86, and online newspapers .93. Next, paired
sample t-tests compared perceptions of credibility of SNS to each of the online sources of political
information.
Lastly, hierarchical regression was run to determine the strength of reliance as a predictor of perceptions of credibility of SNS. Nine regressions were run, each testing the reliance of one of the nine online
sources. For each regression demographics were entered as the first block, political variables (political
knowledge, political interest, campaign knowledge, campaign interest, strength of party ties, political
ideology, self-efficacy, and trust) were the second block. For each regression reliance for one of the online
sources was entered into the third block.
Results
Respondent Profile
Frequencies indicate that the majority of 4,241 respondents are politically engaged and interested. Just
over three-quarters claim they are very knowledgeable (76.6%) and interested (79.3%) in politics. About
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19 (2014) 957–974 © 2014 International Communication Association
963
nine in 10 report that they were very knowledgeable about the 2008 presidential election (89.7%) and
that they were very politically interested (90.8%).
Ideologically, 39.2% of the respondents claim they are conservative/very conservative, 38.7%
liberal/very liberal, and 22.9% moderate. Political party affiliation closely mirrors ideology with
35.6% Republicans and 38.4% Democrats. Independents make up 18.1% and the remaining (7.9%)
belonging to other parties such as Green or Libertarian. Respondents are generally moderately tied
to their political party of choice; 44.4% express strong party ties, 35.9% moderate ties, and 19.7%
weak ties.
In general, respondents are moderately trusting of the government (60.5%). Only one in 10
(10.2%) is highly trusting and three out of 10 (29.3%) express little trust. The respondents, however, are highly self-efficacious with 73.2% believing they have the power to bring about political
change.
Of the online sources under study, political blogs and politically oriented websites are relied
on/heavily relied on by the largest percentage of respondents (67.0% and 53.4%, respectively). In
comparison, only 4.5% rely on/heavily rely on SNS, 6.3% on candidate blogs, 7.1% on online broadcast
television news sites, 8.5% candidate websites and 11.4% on YouTube for political information. Online
newspapers are relied on/heavily relied on by about one-third of respondents (31.3%) and online cable
news sites by 19.7%.
Male respondents outnumber females by a two to one ratio (66.7% to 33.3%). The majority of respondents are college graduates and higher (76.5%) with only about 2% not having finished high school. The
typical respondent is white (91.8%), 46.4 years of age, and brings in $92,500 per year. This demographic
profile closely matches those found in other studies of online users for political information: primarily
well-educated, white males (Smith, 2009).
Credibility of Online Sources for Political Information
The first research question asks the degree to which respondents perceive SNS as credible sources of political information. In general, politically interested users rated SNS as barely credible sources of political
information. On a scale of 1–5 respondents rated believability 1.87, fairness 1.89, accuracy 1.87, and
depth 1.74. The overall credibility index of SNS, which includes all four measures, is 7.4 (scale 4–20).
Moreover, when compared to the other online sources, SNS are rated the lowest in overall credibility and
on each individual measure (Table 1).
Continuing comparisons of the credibility of SNS to other online sources, as addressed by the second
research question, political blogs emerge as the most credible source (12.3 credibility index) although
they are deemed only moderately credible. Political blogs are also the most highly rated on all four credibility measures - believability (3.13), fairness (2.72), accuracy (2.97), depth (3.53). Political websites
(11.7) and online newspapers (10.7) are the next highest-rated sources in terms of credibility (Table 1).
Further, paired sample t-tests indicate that SNS are significantly less credible than the other online
sources. Overall, none of the online sources of political information are seen as highly credible. At best,
online sources are moderately credible, with the exception of SNS that are viewed as barely credible
(Table 2).
This study hypothesized that politically interested respondents who more heavily rely on SNS will
rate them as more credible than respondents with lower levels of reliance on SNS. The hypothesis is
supported as 445 users who heavily rely on SNS rated their overall credibility higher (m = 8.8, range
4–20) than those who are less reliant on these sites (m = 7.4), though SNS are rated as generally low in
credibility. Additionally, those who heavily rely on SNS rated them more believable (2.24) fair (2.23),
accurate (2.21) and in depth (2.14) than other users.
964
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19 (2014) 957–974 © 2014 International Communication Association
Table 1 Believability, Fairness, Accuracy, and Depth of SNS and Online Sources Mean Scores (Scale
1–5)
Believability
SNS
Political Web
Sites
Candidate Web
Sites
Political Blogs
Candidate
Blogs
YouTube
Online
Broadcast
TV News
Online Cable
TV News
Online
Newspapers
Fairness
Accuracy
Depth
Credibility
Index (4–20)
1.87 (n = 4148) 1.89 (n = 4085) 1.87 (n = 4062) 1.74 (n = 3984) 7.4 (n = 3903) 𝛼 = .85
2.98 (n = 4188) 2.60 (n = 4148) 2.79 (n = 4121) 3.30 (n = 4032) 11.7 (n = 3969) 𝛼 = .81
2.37 (n = 4166) 2.02 (n = 4133) 2.26 (n = 4092) 2.48 (n = 4014) 9.1 (n = 3898) 𝛼 = .84
3.13 (n = 4189) 2.72 (n = 4141) 2.97 (n = 4126) 3.53 (n = 4028) 12.3 (n = 3947) 𝛼 = .79
2.36 (n = 4187) 2.03 (n = 4150) 2.28 (n = 4122) 2.53 (n = 4022) 9.2 (n = 3964) 𝛼 = .82
2.49 (n = 4161) 2.36 (n = 4113) 2.35 (n = 4080) 1.94 (n = 4002) 9.1 (n = 3916) 𝛼 = .88
2.64 (n = 4207) 2.27 (n = 4169) 2.52 (n = 4131) 1.94 (n = 4054) 9.4 (n = 4015) 𝛼 = .91
2.81 (n = 4200) 2.35 (n = 4176) 2.64 (n = 4128) 2.31 (n = 4049) 10.1 (n = 4006)𝛼 = .89
2.88 (n = 4204) 2.42 (n = 4175) 2.59 (n = 4129) 2.78 (n = 4050) 10.7 (n = 3997) 𝛼 = .93
Reliance as a Predictor of Credibility of SNS
As past research has found, reliance on traditional and online sources is a strong predictor of perceptions
of credibility. Therefore the next hypothesis examines whether reliance on SNS predicts judgments of
credibility of SNS. Overall, reliance on SNS does predict credibility judgments.
SNS
Reliance on SNS (𝛽 = .42, p < .001) is a positive and significant predictor of the credibility of SNS, and is
the strongest predictor of online sources. The more politically interested users rely on SNS for political
information the more likely they are to deem these venues as credible. Individuals who rely on SNS tend
to be less educated (𝛽 = −.06, p < .001), but interested in politics (𝛽 = .05, p < .05), liberal (𝛽 = −.13,
p < .001), and they trust the government (𝛽 = .10, p < .001) (Table 3).
Based on past research that explored the relationship between reliance and credibility this study
hypothesized that reliance on online sources would predict credibility assessments of SNS. The hypothesis is supported for all online sources except online newspapers, for which reliance does not predict
credibility of SNS.
YouTube
Reliance on YouTube is the second strongest predictor of credibility of SNS. YouTube, like SNS, is a relatively new online source of political information that attracts younger (𝛽 = −.06, p < .01), less educated
(𝛽 = −.05, p < .01), politically interested (𝛽 = .05, p < .05), liberal (𝛽 = −.17, p < .001) users who trust
the government (𝛽 = .11, p < .05) (Table 3).
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19 (2014) 957–974 © 2014 International Communication Association
965
Table 2 Credibility of SNS Versus other Online Sources
Means and Paired Samples t-scores
SNS
Political Web Sites
t-score
SNS
Candidate Web Sites
t-score
SNS
Political Blogs
t-score
SNS
Candidate Blogs
t-score
SNS
YouTube
t-score
SNS
Online Broadcast TV News
t-score
SNS
Online Cable TV News
t-score
SNS
Online Newspapers
t-score
∗∗∗ p <
Credibility
7.4
11.7
−77.89∗∗∗
7.4
9.1
−36.21∗∗∗
7.4
12.3
−89.84∗∗∗
7.4
9.2
−39.54∗∗∗
7.4
9.1
−36.85∗∗∗
7.4
9.4
−34.65∗∗∗
7.4
10.1
−46.89∗∗∗
7.4
10.7
−56.08∗∗∗
.001, two-tailed
Political Websites and Political Blogs
Reliance on political websites and on political blogs weakly, but significantly (𝛽 = .05, p < .05; 𝛽 = .04,
p < .05, respectively) predicts the credibility of SNS. The more users rely on political websites and political blogs the more likely they are to judge SNS as credible. Individuals who rely on political websites and
blogs are less educated (𝛽 = −.06, p < .01; 𝛽 = −.06, p < .001, respectively), younger (𝛽 = −.08, p < .001,
both), females (𝛽 = .05, p < .01, both), who are interested in politics (𝛽 = .07, p > .01; 𝛽 = .08, p > .01),
are liberal (𝛽 = −.19, p < .001, both) and trust the government (𝛽 = .12, p < .001, both) The only difference between these two groups is that those who rely on political websites do not feel they are very
knowledgeable (𝛽 = −.04, p < .01) (Table 3).
Candidate Websites and Candidate Blogs
Reliance on candidate websites and reliance on candidate blogs are significant predictors of the credibility
of SNS (𝛽 = .13, p < .001, 𝛽 = .16, p < .001, respectively). Users who rely on these sources and deem SNS
as credible are young, less educated liberals who trust the government (Table 3).
966
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19 (2014) 957–974 © 2014 International Communication Association
Table 3 Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Predictors of SNS Credibility for Political Information
Predictor Variables
Gender
Age
Education
Income
R2
Political Knowledge
Political Interest
Campaign Knowledge
Election Interest
Strength of Party Ties
Political Ideology
Trust
Efficacy
R2
R2 Change
Rely SNS
Rely Political Sites
Rely Candidate Sites
Rely Political Blogs
Rely Candidate Blogs
Regression 1
SNS Cred.
Regression 2
SNS Cred.
Regression 3
SNS Cred.
Regression 4
SNS Cred.
Regression 5
SNS Cred.
.03
.01
−.06***
−.01
.028
−.03
.05*
.00
−.03
.02
−.13***
.10***
−.00
.097
.069
.42***
.05**
−.08***
−.06**
−.02
.028
−.04**
.07**
−.01
−.03
.02
−.19***
.12***
−.02
.096
.068
.02
−.07***
−.06**
−.01
.027
−.03
.06*
−.02
−.03
.01
−.18***
.10***
−.01
.095
.068
.05**
−.08***
−.06***
−.02
.028
−.03
.08**
−.01
−.03
.03
−.19***
.12***
−.02
.096
.068
.03
−.09***
−.05**
−.01
.028
−.03
.06*
−.02
−.03
.00
−.17***
.11***
−.01
.096
.069
.05*
.13***
.04*
.16***
*******************
R2
R2 Change
Adjusted R
Sig. of Change
Predictor Variables
Gender
Age
Education
Income
R2
Political Knowledge
Political Interest
Campaign Knowledge
Election Interest
Strength of Party Ties
Political Ideology
.257
.160
.254
.000
.097
.002
.094
.016
.110
.015
.106
.000
.097
.001
.093
.032
.118
.022
.115
.000
Regression 6
SNS Cred.
Regression 7
SNS Cred.
Regression 8
SNS Cred.
Regression 9
SNS Cred.
.03
−.06∗∗
−.05∗∗
−.02
.027
−.02
.05∗
−.02
−.04
.03
−.17∗∗∗
.04∗
−.07∗∗∗
−.06∗∗
−.01
.027
−.03
.08∗∗
−.00
−.03
.03
−.18∗∗∗
.04∗
−.07∗∗∗
−.06∗∗∗
−.01
.028
−.03
.08∗∗
−.00
−.03
.03
−.20∗∗∗
.04∗
−.07∗∗∗
−.07∗∗∗
−.01
.028
−.04
.08∗∗∗
−.01
−.02
.03
−.18∗∗∗
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19 (2014) 957–974 © 2014 International Communication Association
967
Table 3 Continued
Trust
Efficacy
R2
R2 Change
Rely YouTube
Rely Online Broadcast TV News
Rely Online Cable TV
Rely Online Newspapers
Regression 6
SNS Cred.
Regression 7
SNS Cred.
Regression 8
SNS Cred.
Regression 9
SNS Cred.
.11∗∗∗
−.03
.096
.068
.24∗∗∗
.10∗∗∗
−.00
.096
.069
.11∗∗∗
−.01
.096
.068
.11∗∗∗
−.01
.096
.068
.09∗∗∗
.06∗∗
.03
*******************
R2
R2 Change
Adjusted R
Sig. of Change
.152
.056
.149
.000
.103
.007
.100
.000
.099
.003
.096
.001
.097
.001
.093
.059
∗ p < .05, ∗∗ p < .01, ∗∗∗ p < .001
Broadcast Television Sites and Cable Television Sites
Reliance on broadcast and cable television sites are weak but significant predictors of the credibility of
SNS (𝛽 = .09, p < .001; 𝛽 = .06, p < .01). Respondents who rely on online television for political information and deem SNS as credible resemble those who rely on the other online sites: young, less educated
liberal females who are interested in politics and trust the government (Table 3).
Overall, politically interested respondents who deem SNS as credible tend to be younger, less educated, politically interested liberals who trust the government. They tend to rely on SNS, YouTube, political and candidate websites and blogs, and online broadcast and cable news sites for political information,
even though they do not deem these sources as very credible.
Discussion
SNS such as Facebook emerged as an important campaigning tool for candidates in the 2008 election
(Fraser & Dutta, 2008; Johnson & Perlmutter, 2010; Stelter, 2008), 2010 midterm election (Smith, 2011),
and the 2012 presidential campaign (Rucker, 2012). SNS’ prominence in the elections demonstrates their
increasing importance as a source of political information for individuals, particularly for younger voters
(Smith, 2011; Smith & Rainie, 2008). But at the heart of their use is whether SNS are viewed as credible
sources of political information. This study set out to discover the perceptions of credibility of SNS as
compared to other online sources and whether reliance, political attitudes, and personal characteristics
influence these perceptions.
This study found that politically interested Internet users in general judged SNS quite low in credibility, 7.4 on a 4–20 point index. Respondents rated SNS low on all measures, but particularly on
depth of content. Apparently SNS groups connect people who share similar views, but they do not provide in-depth information about issues. SNS ranked significantly lower than all other Internet sources
including YouTube, though the other sources were judged as only moderately credible. That SNS are
perceived as low in credibility for political information may not necessarily be because users judge
968
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19 (2014) 957–974 © 2014 International Communication Association
their political content as questionable but because they are used mainly for social interaction (Kaye,
2010), and such social venues tend to be judged less as credible than informational ones (Johnson &
Kaye, 2009).
Low credibility scores for SNS are possibly linked to their low levels of use for political information.
Only 4.5 percent of respondents to this study said they relied on, or heavily relied on, SNS for political news and information. While people are willing to pass judgments on media they have never used
(Johnson & Fahmy, 2009), typically users judge a source more credible than nonusers. Indeed, in a post
hoc analysis when nonusers were eliminated from the current study, credibility of social networks did
increase more than any other source. SNS credibility levels approached those of candidate websites and
blogs, although they still ranked lowest for credibility.
Nevertheless, this study’s low credibility findings are curious given the influence they had on the
2008 presidential election outcome. If indeed politically interested SNS users find these sites not very
credible it seems incongruous that they could be influenced to such a degree that they would be used to
rally with intensity behind a candidate or issue. It could be that users may not perceive SNS as a whole
as credible because they perceive them more as a communication medium than an informational one
and because much of the political information posted to status updates may either come from “friends”
the user hardly knows or from sources that are difficult to verify. Although casting a sharp eye on the
credibility of information pushed by unfamiliar “friends,” users also pulled political information from
SNS groups, whose purpose was to mobilize supporters and influence voters. Because users are likely to
select and join groups that conform to their worldview, they are likely to find the information convincing
and influential (Woolley, et al., 2010), and thus get caught up in the excitement of the race, which may
explain why despite low credibility, SNS are commonly thought to have affected the election outcome.
In the current study, reliance on SNS proved to be the strongest predictor of credibility of SNS. This
finding follows the pattern of reliance being a strong predictor of credibility of blogs, bulletin boards, and
chat rooms (Johnson, et al, 2007; Johnson & Kaye, 2004, 2009), and traditional sources such as printed
newspapers and network television news (Johnson & Kaye, 1998; Wanta & Hu, 1994). Frequent and loyal
users may find SNS more credible than less frequent users because they are more experienced and are
more adept at filtering trustworthy information and sources from those that are less believable as well
as know where to look on SNS for information they perceive as credible (Johnson & Kaye, 2004, 2009;
Johnson et al., 2007).
This study also found that reliance on other online sources is linked to perceptions of high credibility of SNS. YouTube, candidate websites, and candidate blogs, significantly, but weakly, predicted SNS
credibility. Those users who rely on, and are adept at using, YouTube and candidate hosted websites and
blogs are presumably more experienced at identifying trustworthy information in general and therefore
also on SNS. Because YouTube and SNS serve similar purposes and because SNS site users rely heavily
on YouTube to share politically oriented videos, it is not surprising that reliance on YouTube leads to perceptions of SNS credibility. Candidate websites and blogs unite politicians and constituents in personal
ways that are somewhat mimicked on SNS. Thus, it follows that reliance on candidate sites and blogs
predicts perceptions of high credibility of SNS.
This study found that political ideology, political interest, and trust were significantly related to perceptions of SNS credibility. Liberals judge SNS as more credible than conservatives. These findings are
consistent with the fact that Obama was much more successful than John McCain in drawing supporters to SNS (Stelter, 2008). SNS users who are highly interested in politics view these venues as credible
sources of political news. Presumably, political content on SNS satisfy these users political curiosity and
interest and thus they judge it as credible.
Respondents who are more trusting of the government are also more likely to view SNS as credible.
This finding represents a continuing turn around in the relationship between trust and credibility of
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19 (2014) 957–974 © 2014 International Communication Association
969
online sources. In the early days of the Internet, it was the distrustful, disenfranchised radicals who
flocked to political websites and chat rooms, thus low trust was a predictor of credibility (Johnson & Kaye,
1998). But by the 2000 presidential election high trust in government was linked to online credibility
(Johnson & Kaye, 2002). This trend continued for the 2004 election (Johnson & Kaye, 2004) and in this
study of the 2008 election as the Internet has become a commonly used medium that attracts mainstream
users who are more trusting of the government. The presumption, then, is that SNS users are average
citizens who trust the government and this trust leads to high ratings of credibility of SNS and other
online sources.
Regarding the relationship between credibility of SNS and personal characteristics, respondents to
this study who were younger and less educated were more likely to judge SNS as credible. Age and education, however were weak predictors of credibility of SNS, which may reflect a more recent demographic
shift in SNS users, who are becoming older and more educated (Nielsen, 2009).
Limitations and Suggestions for Future Studies
This study relied on an online survey of politically interested Web users to examine the degree to which
SNS were judged as credible. Posting a survey online has become an increasingly popular and effective
way of collecting data (Keeter, 2009), however, it cannot be said that such online polling results in a
random sample. Because this study relied on a self-selected convenience sample the results cannot be
generalized to Internet users as a whole, but that general population was not the intended target of this
study, but rather politically interested users. Additionally, this study followed procedures used in other
published studies (Johnson & Kaye, 2004, 2007, 2009; Kaye, 2005, 2007), and the respondents demographically resemble those who rely heavily on the Internet for campaign information: white males with
high income and high education (Smith, 2008).
In situations where random probability sampling is not possible, non-probability sampling is acceptable (Babbie, 1990). Although researchers must be mindful of the limitations of purposive sampling, such
samples can produce results that may be representative of a specific subset of Internet users such as politically interested ones. This study also limited its SNS site promotion to the two largest sites at the time,
Facebook and MySpace.
Future research should tap into users of a range of SNS, not just mainly Facebook and MySpace. A
study that focuses on specialty SNS, such as LinkedIn, may yield additional findings not revealed in this
study.
This study focused on the credibility of a medium, SNS, in the election process. Future studies could
survey Internet users about the credibility of candidates as well as conduct a content analysis of whether
the media stress the same issues the candidates do (Petrocik, Benoit, Hansen, 2003–2004).
Additionally, because this study found that YouTube was rated more credible than candidate websites
and blogs, future studies should examine YouTube credibility as well as more recent information sources
such as Twitter and tablet and smartphone applications. Finally, because only a small percentage of users
relied on SNS for political news information and because it was just emerging as a major campaign
strategy, studies should be conducted in the 2012 campaign to determine whether credibility of these
sites increased.
Notes
1 YouTube is different from most SNS in that it focuses on video sharing rather than relationship
building and maintenance. Also, unlike most SNS you don’t have to have an account to view and
share videos. However, users need to create an account to upload, rate and comment on videos and
970
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19 (2014) 957–974 © 2014 International Communication Association
2
3
4
5
people can choose to subscribe to YouTube accounts. Because YouTube requires an account to fully
take advantage of its features, researchers have treated it as an SNS (e.g. Kushin & Yamamoto, 2010).
We also recognize it as an SNS, but because of its differences with more traditional SNS like
Facebook, we also use it separately in statistical analysis.
To promote the survey, the authors created a Facebook Group, The Internet and the 2008 election.
Those who joined were asked to complete the survey. Notices of the survey were also posted on 37
MySpace and 86 Facebook groups representing various political ideologies candidates and issues.
Notices were also posted on 11 media and 55 political websites and 70 blogs as well as 12 political
and educational listservs/mailing lists and political newsgroups. To get a complete list, contact the
authors.
In addition to respondents’ snowballing the survey to friends, the authors sent surveys to colleagues
of different political beliefs.
Cooperation Rate: As defined by AAPOR “Standard Definitions.” “The proportion of all cases
interviewed of all eligible units ever contacted.”
In the survey we defined SNS as political SNS such as RedBlue America and Politweet, Facebook and
MySpace and Facebook and MySpace groups like one million strong for Barack or 1,000,000 strong
for McCain/Palin ’08.
References
Babbie, E. (1990). Survey research methods. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Berlo, D. K., Lemert, J. B., & Mertz, R. J. (1969). Dimensions for evaluating the acceptability of message
sources. Public Opinion Quarterly, 46, 563–76.
boyd, d. m. & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 210–230.
Brundidge, J. (2010). Encountering “difference” in the contemporary public sphere: The contribution of
the Internet to the heterogeneity of political discussion networks. Journal of Communication, 60,
680–700.
Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus
message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5),752–766.
Ellison N., Lampe, C., Steinfield, C. & Vitak, J. (2010). With a little help from my friends: Social network
sites and social capital. In Zizi Papacharissi (Ed.), The networked self:Identity, community and culture
on social network sites (pp. 124–145). Routledge, New York.
Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. J. (2000). Perceptions of Internet information credibility. Journalism &
Mass Communication Quarterly, 77, 515–540.
Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. J. (2007). The role of site features, user attributes, and information
verification behaviors on the perceived credibility of web-based information. New Media & Society,
9, 319–342.
Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. J. (2008). Digital media and youth: Unparalleled opportunity and
unprecedented responsibility. In M. J. Metzger & A. J. Flanagin (Eds.), Digital media, youth, and
credibility, (pp. 5–27). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. J. (2011). From Encyclopedia Britannica to Wikipedia: Generational
differences in the perceived credibility of online encyclopedia information. Information,
Communication & Society, 14, 355–374.
Fogg, B. J. (2003). Prominence-interpretation theory: Explaining how people assess credibility online.
CHI’03 Extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems, 722–723.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19 (2014) 957–974 © 2014 International Communication Association
971
Fraser, M., & Dutta, S. (2008). Barack Obama and the Facebook election. Retrieved from http://
www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/2008/11/19/barack-obama-and-the-facebook-election.html?
PageNr = 2
Gaziano, C., & McGrath, K. (1986). Measuring the concept of credibility. Journalism Quarterly, 63,
451–462.
Geiber, A. (2011). Digital divas: Women, politics and the social network. Cambridge, MA: Joan
Shorenstein Center on the Press.
Hanson, P. M., Cunningham, A. W., Sharma, R., & Ponder, J. D. (2010). The 2008 presidential
campaign: Political cynicism in the age of Facebook, MySpace and YouTube. Mass Communication
& Society, 13, 584–607.
Hargittai, E. (2007). Whose space? Differences among users and non-users of social network sites.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), article 14.
http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/hargittai.html
Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L, & Kelley, J. J. (1953). Communication and persuasion. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Hovland, C. I., Lumsdaine, A, & Sheffield, F. D. (1949). Experiments on mass communication: Studies in
social psychology in World War II. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Johnson, T. J., & Fahmy, S. (2009) See no evil, hear No evil, judge as evil? Examining the degree to
which users of Al-Jazeera English-language Website transfer credibility views to its satellite network
counterpart. In G. Golan, T. J. Johnson & W. Wanta (Eds.), International communication in a global
age, (pp. 241–260). New York: Routledge.
Johnson, T. J., & Kaye, B. K. (1998). Cruising is believing? Comparing media and traditional sources on
media credibility measures. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 75, 325–340.
Johnson, T. J. & Kaye, B. K. (2002). Webelievability: A path model examining how convenience and
reliance on the Web predict online credibility. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. 79,
619–642.
Johnson, T. J. & Kaye, B. K. (2004). Wag the blog: How reliance on traditional media and the Internet
influence credibility perceptions of weblogs among blog users. Journalism & Mass Communication
Quarterly, 81(3), 622–642.
Johnson, T. J., & Kaye. B. K. (2009). In blog we trust? Deciphering credibility of components of the
Internet among politically interested Internet users. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 175–182.
Johnson, T. J., Kaye, B. K., Bichard, S. L., & Wong, W. J. (2007). Every blog has its day: Politically
interested Internet users’ perceptions of blog credibility. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 13, article 6. http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/ johnson.html.
Johnson, T. J., & Perlmutter, D. (2010). The Facebook election. Mass Communication & Society, 13,
554–559.
Johnson, T. J. Zhang, W., Bichard, S. L. & Seltzer, T. (2010). United we stand? Online social network
sites and civic engagement. Zizi Papacharissi (ed.), Networked self: Identity, community, and culture
on social network sites, pp. 185–207. New York: Routledge.
Kaye, B. K. (2010). Between a Barack and a Net place: Users and uses of social network sites and blogs
for political information. In Z. Papacharissi (Ed.), The networked self: Identity, community, and
culture on social network sites, pp. 208–231. New York: Routledge.
Kaye, B. K. (2005). It’s a blog, blog, blog, blog world: Users and uses of weblogs. Atlantic Journal of
Communication, 13(2). 73–95.
Kaye, B. K. (2007). Web site story: An exploratory study of blog use motivations. In M. Tremayne (ed.).
Blogging, citizenship, and the future of media (pp. 127–148). New York: Routledge.
972
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19 (2014) 957–974 © 2014 International Communication Association
Kaye, B. K., & Johnson, T. J. (2006). The age of reasons: Motives for using different components of the
Internet for political information. In A P. Williams, & J. C. Tedesco (Eds.), The Internet election:
Perspectives on the role of the Web in campaign 2004 (pp. 147–167). Lanham, MD: Rowman &
Littlefield.
Kaye, B. K & Johnson, T. J. (2011). Net gain? Selective exposure and selective avoidance on online
political information. In F. Comunello (ed.), Networked sociability and individualism: Technology
for personal and professional relationships, (pp. 218–237). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Keeter, S. (2009, February). New tricks for old--and new--dogs. Keynote address to the 31st Annual
Research Symposium, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN.
Kim, D. (2012). Interacting is believing? Examining bottom-up credibility of blogs among politically
interested Internet users. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17, 422–435.
Kim, Y. (2011). The contribution of social network sites to exposure to political difference: The
relationships among SNSs, online political messaging, and exposure to cross-cutting perspectives.
Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 971–977.
Kiousis, S. (2001). Public trust or mistrust? Perceptions of media credibility in the information age.
Mass Communication & Society, 4(4), 381–403.
Kushin, M. J., & Yamamoto, M. (2010). Did social media really matter? College students’ use of online
media and political decision making in the 2008 election. Mass Communication & Society, 13,
608–630.
Lenhart, A. (2009). Adults and social networking. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/
∼/media//Files/Reports/2009/PIP_Adult_social_networking_data_memo_FINAL.pdf.
McIntyre, D. A. (2012). America’s 10 largest websites. Retrieved Sept. 10, 2012 from
http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/25/10760486-americas-10-largest-websites?lite
Metzgar, E., & Maruggi, A. (2010). Social media and the 2008 presidential election. Journal of New
Communication Research, 4, 141–165.
Metzger, M. J. (2007). Making sense of credibility on the Web: Models for evaluating online
information and recommendations for future research. Journal of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 2078–2091.
Metzger, M. J., Flanagin, A., Eyal, K., Lemus D. R., & McCann, R. M. (2003). Credibility for the 21st
Century: Integrating perspectives on source, message, and media credibility in the contemporize
environment. Communication Yearbook, 27, 293–335.
Metzger, M. J., Flanagin, A. J., & Medders, R. B. (2010). Social and heuristic approaches to credibility
evaluation online. Journal of Communication, 60, 413–439.
Nielsen. (2009). Global faces and networked places. Nielsen Online: The Nielsen Company.
Papacharissi, Z. (2009). Facebook, LinkedIn and ASmallWorld: The virtual geographies of social
networks: a comparative analysis of Facebook, LinkedIn and ASmallWorld. New Media & Society,
11(1&2), 199–220.
Petrocik J. R., Benoit W. L., & Hansen G. L. (2003–2004). Issue ownership and presidential
campaigning, 1952–2000. Political Science Quarterly, 118, 599–626.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123–205.
Rucker, P. (2012, July 13). Romney advisers, aiming to pop Obama’s digital balloon, pump up online
campaign. Retrieved Sept. 10, 2012 from http://www.washingtonpost.com/ politics/
romney-advisers-aiming-to-pop-obamas-digital-balloon-pump-up-online-campaign/2012/07/13/
gJQAsbc4hW_story.html
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19 (2014) 957–974 © 2014 International Communication Association
973
Smith, A. (2009). The Internet’s role in campaign 2008. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved
April 22, 2009 from
http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/6--The-Internets-Role-in-Campaign-2008.asp
Smith, A. (2011). The Internet and campaign 2010. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved
March 12, 2012 from
http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/The-Internet-and-Campaign-2010.aspx.
Smith, A., & Rainie, L. (2008). The Internet and the 2008 election. Pew Internet & American Life
Project. Retrieved June 17, 2008 from http://www.pewinternet.org/ pdfs/PIP_2008_election.pdf
Stelter, B. (2008, March 26). Politics via the Internet spreads with new force. The International Herald
Tribune, p. 5.
Utz, S. (2009). The (potential) benefits of campaigning via social network sites. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 14, 227–243.
Valenzuela, S., Park, N., & Kee, K. F. (2009). Is there social capital in a social network site?: Facebook
use and college students’ life satisfaction, trust and participation. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 14, 875–901.
Wanta, W., & Hu, Y. (1994). The effects of credibility, reliance, and exposure on media agenda-setting:
A path analysis model, Journalism Quarterly, 71, 90–98.
Woolley, J. K. Limperos, A. M. & Oliver, M. B. (2010). The 2008 presidential election, 2.0: A content
analysis of user-generated political Facebook groups. Mass Communication & Society, 13, 631–652.
About the Authors
Thomas J. Johnson (Ph.D., University of Texas at Austin) is the Amon G. Carter Jr. Centennial Professor
in the School of Journalism at University of Texas at Austin. His research interests include the uses and
effects of new media such as social network sites, in a political context. He had authored or co-edited
four books. His articles have appeared in such journals as Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, Harvard
International Journal of Press/Politics, and Mass Communication and Society.
Barbara K. Kaye (Ph.D., Florida State University) is Professor in the School of Journalism & Electronic
Media, University of Tennessee-Knoxville. Her research includes how the Internet, blogs and social
media influence political attitudes and media use behavior. She has also published research about
profanity in the media. Her articles have appeared in such journals as Journal of Computer Mediated
Communication, Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic
Media, Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, and Mass Communication and Society. She has
co-authored three textbooks and has taught in Italy and Austria.
974
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19 (2014) 957–974 © 2014 International Communication Association