Conceptualizing Sources in Online News

By B. Sundar, Clifford Nass. 2001

521 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Communication, Literature and Literary Theory, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5301f35b22904efc3e5276794975302b23470320

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Communication

In Literature and Literary Theory

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Posting, commenting, and tagging: Effects of sharing news stories on Facebook (2015, background): “When individuals select news content to share with others they become secondary sources of that information and experience the benefits of acting as gatekeepers for others (Sundar & Nass, 2001).”
Understanding perception of algorithmic decisions: Fairness, trust, and emotion in response to algorithmic management (2018, background): “These responses are consistent with Sundar and Nass (2001)’s ﬁnding about people perceiving computers as more objective than human news editors.”
When do consumers buy online product reviews? Effects of review quality, product type, and reviewer's photo (2014, background): “…speaker based on the speaker’s message quality (Slater & Rouner, 1996), and (b) a website featuring reviews can also be considered as another source of messages (Sundar & Nass, 2001), we also investigated if review quality affects the evaluations of the reviewers and the e-commerce website itself.”
The Importance of Source and Credibility Perception in Times of Crisis: Crisis Communication in a Socially Mediated Era (2015, methodology): “To deepen the understanding of how online information is processed and credibility evaluations are made, we build on information-processing literature (e.g., Metzger, Flanagin, & Medders, 2010; Sundar, 2008; Sundar & Nass, 2001; Walther, 1992).”
Online Journalism as Market-Driven Journalism (2002, background): “…and micro-levels examines how journalists and readers approach online news and understand differences between the structure of news programs on television and in print, and their representative texts on the WWW (e.g., Li, 1998; Schultz, 2000; Sundar, 1999; Sundar & Nass, 2001; Vargo et al., 2000).”
behaviors on the perceived credibility of web-based information The role of site features, user attributes, and information verification (2007, background): “It is crucial in assessing credibility in the web environment to recognize that the very concept of a source is complex, because the source of an online message may be attributed to the author of the material on a particular website, aspects of the message, the sponsor of the site, or even the mediu”
Effects of Online Health Sources on Credibility and Behavioral Intentions (2010, methodology): “This study applies Sundar and Nass’ (2001) typology to the domain of online health information and examines specific selecting sources instead of broad classes of sources.”
A Tale of Two Sources in Native Advertising (2016, methodology): “Content evaluation was measured with 15 items adopted from Sundar and Nass (2001).”
Credibility in the blogosphere: A study of measurement and influence of wine blogs as an information source (2015, background): “Other researchers (e.g., Sundar and Nass, 2001) have relied upon traditional media measures such as accuracy, objectivity, bias, believability, fairness, or sensationalism when evaluating Web credibility.”
Credibility in Context: How Uncivil Online Commentary Affects News Credibility (2010, background): “…by the increasing likelihood that news content will be selected for presentation not by editors but through the complex algorithms of Internet search portals (such as Google news), or will be provided on-demand based on an individual’s personal customization choices (Sundar & Nass, 2001).”
The Covert Advertising Recognition and Effects (CARE) model: Processes of persuasion in native advertising and other masked formats (2020, background): “The same exact message can be perceived much differently based on who is perceived to be delivering it (Sundar and Nass 2001).”
Selective Exposure in the Age of Social Media (2014, background): “…heuristic predicts a tendency for individuals to (a) assume that the support of others is likely to predict personal relevance and utility (Sundar & Nass, 2001), to (b) believe that the attitudes of others are useful in forming an opinion (Axsom, Yates, & Chaiken, 1987), and to (c)…”
Measuring Message Credibility (2016, background): “In the current media environment, where we receive a plethora of messages, often without clear source signals or medium-specific cues (Sundar & Nass, 2001), a scale that exclusively measures message credibility would be useful in multiple situations.”
“Fake News” Is Not Simply False Information: A Concept Explication and Taxonomy of Online Content (2019, background): “Studies show that they may even be preferred over traditional professional sources (Sundar & Nass, 2001).”
Uses and Grats 2.0: New Gratifications for New Media (2013, background): “In fact, they rate content chosen or favored by other users as being more worthy than that offered by professional journalists (Sundar & Nass, 2001).”
Artificial intelligence versus Maya Angelou: Experimental evidence that people cannot differentiate AI-generated from human-written poetry (2020, background): “Experiments have compared people ’ s evaluations of such algorithm-generated news pieces with those written by journalists (Clerwall, 2014; Graefe, Haim, Haar-mann, & Brosius, 2018; Sundar & Nass, 2001).”
A social network as information: The effect of system generated reports of connectedness on credibility on Twitter (2012, background): “Therefore, we trust machines as a source of information more than we trust editors, producers, and similar human sources (Sundar & Nass, 2001).”