Source Credibility
Also known as: source reliability, trustworthiness of a source.
How far a source deserves to be believed on a given subject: its expertise, access to the facts, track record and incentives. It informs, but never replaces, checking the claim.
Synthetic dataExamples on this page use synthetic data created for illustration.
Definition
Source credibility is how far a source deserves to be believed on a given subject, judged by its expertise, its access to the facts, its track record and its incentives. Credibility belongs to a source-and-topic pair, and it informs, but never replaces, checking the claim itself.
In plain terms
Research on persuasion since the 1950s separates two ingredients: expertise (can they know?) and trustworthiness (will they say it straight?). Practical questions follow: Who is this? How do they know, first-hand or second-hand? What is their record on corrections? What do they gain from the claim being believed? Do they show their method?
Two cautions. Credibility is topic-specific: an excellent source on one subject may be poor on another. And the source and the claim are rated separately: a reliable outlet can pass on a rumour it labels as unconfirmed, and an unreliable one can report something true. Intelligence services formalise this with two scales, one for the source and one for the information.
Example
The claim: “Company Z’s revenue rose 12% last year.”
| Source | How it knows | Incentive | Can it be checked? | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Annual report filed with the regulator | First-hand, legally accountable | To look good, but liable for falsehood | Yes, audited statements | High |
| Company press release | First-hand | To look good, no audit | Partly | Medium |
| Anonymous forum post | Unknown | Unknown | No | Low |
| A reliable newspaper quoting “people familiar with the matter” | Second-hand | Neutral | Not yet | Medium for the report, low for the claim |
The last row shows the two ratings coming apart: a reliable source reporting an unconfirmed claim.
Common misunderstandings
- “A credible source is always right.” Credible sources make mistakes; credibility shifts the odds, it does not settle the claim.
- “Credibility belongs to an outlet or a person, whatever the topic.” It depends on the subject and on how they know.
- “An official source is a neutral source.” Official sources can have strong incentives; check what they stand to gain.
References
- Carl I. Hovland, Walter Weiss. The Influence of Source Credibility on Communication Effectiveness . Public Opinion Quarterly, 1951. DOI: 10.1086/266350
- Chanthika Pornpitakpan. The Persuasiveness of Source Credibility: A Critical Review of Five Decades' Evidence . Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2004. DOI: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02547.x
- Craig Silverman (ed.). Verification Handbook . European Journalism Centre, 2014.