(NWWIWIHHWIWNIINHIHJHMH(”MINIMUM

1
5

3
3

(D\|

  

C;
J

 

Q‘ Lu

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

THE EFFECT OF RACE AND EXPERTISE
0N SOURCE CREDIBILITY RATINGS

presented by

Angela Celeste Farr

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

 

Ph.D. degree in communication

Date May 5 . 2003

MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

Mot/w

Major professor

0-12771

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

.: r) :7
.. I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 cJCIRC/DaieDue.p65~p. 15

 

THE EFFECT OF RACE AND EXPERTISE ON SOURCE CREDIBILITY RATINGS
By
Angela Celeste Farr

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Communication Arts and Sciences

2003

ABSTRACT
By

Angela Celeste Farr

Source credibility affects our daily interpersonal interactions in various ways yet
our understanding of credibility is still limited. Expertise is one of the most often listed
factors of credibility and until recently, the definition and measurement construct has
received little attention by persuasion scholars. Also, it has been suggested that race may
play a role in credibility ratings. This study assessed the relative influence of race and
expertise on credibility judgments. The sample consisted of 403 white undergraduate
students at a large Midwestern university. Technical and practical competencies were
found to be independent constructs, each with significant effects on credibility ratings.
When both competencies are high credibility ratings will be maximized. Race had no
effect on the judgments of competency or credibility. Limitations of the study and

implications for future research were discussed.

Copyright by
ANGELA CELESTE F AR
2003

DEDICATION

I gratefully dedicate this dissertation to Ametta Cage and Dr. Lawrence Redd, who
helped me begin this process, my family who loved and supported me before and

throughout this process, to my committee for their guidance, and my GOD who granted

me the fulfillment of a life-long dream.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my appreciation to my chair, Dr. Kim Witte for her faith,
devotion, and commitment to my success. You are responsible for a great deal of my
growth.

I would also like to thank Dr. Mary Bresnahan for her support, understanding, and
encouragement. You helped me become an outstanding teacher through following in
your footsteps.

Dr. Robbie Steward, you are amazing. You have guided me through one of the
most challenging experiences in my life, and you have done so with grace, patience, and
everlasting encouragement. You helped me maintain my sanity, and I will always be
grateful.

Last, but not least, I would like to thank Dr. Franklin Boster. You introduced me
to the tools that I would require for success. You had faith in my talents when others did
not. You were willing to defend the “underdog” when so many others were incorrect in
their assumptions. Thank you for your guidance, openness, and consistent honesty.

I will be forever grateful to each of you for your contributions to my academic

success.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................. vi
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 1
METHODS ......................................................................................... 12
RESULTS ........................................................................................... l 6
DISCUSSION ...................................................................................... 24
APPENDIX A ....................................................................................... 28
APPENDIX B ....................................................................................... 33
APPENCIX C ...................................................................................... 35
APPENDIX D ...................................................................................... 36
REFERENCES .................................................................................... 37

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Survey Instrument (APPENDIX A) ............................................................... 28
Confirrnatory Factor Analysis for Credibility, Practical and Technical Competencies

(APPENDIX B) ...................................................................................... 33
Correlation Matrices (APPENDIX C) .......................................................... 35

Pr0posed Path Model (APPENDIX D) 36

vii

INTRODUCTION
Womce Credibility

Source credibility affects our daily interpersonal interactions, decision-making,
the diffusion of innovations, and our judgment of the persuasiveness of speakers with
their various messages. We observe the importance of a credible source as we discuss the
effectiveness of politicians, product spokespersons, salespersons, and a multitude of other
‘persuasive’ individuals. Scholars believe that receivers’ schemas about different groups
of people like males/ females, blacks/whites, gays/straights, etc., all influence judgments
of source credibility, yet despite over 50 years of research on credibility, our
understanding of the construct and its effects on related constructs is limited.

One limitation of our understanding of source credibility is the belief that we fully
understand the construct. Some scholars believe that as a field, our “intense level of
inquiry has apparently fostered the belief that few questions regarding the persuasive
effects of source credibility remain unanswered. As a result, interest in this topic has
waned” (Stemthal, Phillips, & Dholakia, 1978). McCrosky and Young (1981)
contributed to the belief that scholars have definitively defined credibility; a belief made
apparent as they stated, ‘er believe it is time, once and for all, to call a halt to the
proliferation of factor analytic studies of source credibility; that is, those intended to
‘discover’ its dimensions” (p. 34). They concluded by suggesting “factor analysis must
be preceded by careful conceptualization and construct delineation, or the product of
even the most massive research effort. ..will lead to nothing, or worse, to inappropriate

knowledge claims” (McCrosky & Young, 1981). So despite the fact that the literature is

filled with contrasting claims, various factors of source credibility, and unclear effects,
some scholars believe that source credibility is a fully explicated construct.

A second limitation, which follows from the first, is the lack of consistent
definition of the construct. Hovland and his colleagues (1953) defined source credibility
as the combination of “the extent to which a communicator is perceived to be a source of
valid assertions” and “the degree of confidence in the communicator’s intent to
communicate the assertions he considers most valid” (p.21). Markham (1968), following
in the footsteps of Anderson and Clevenger (1961), suggested that source credibility is
simply Aristotle’s construct of ethos. Aristotle defined ethos as a “listener’s evaluation
of a speaker’s intelligence, character, and good will (p. 361)” (Delia, 1976). Berlo and
colleagues (1969-70) chose not to utilize the term ‘source credibility’ because they
believed that the variable would be viewed as a property of the source rather than the
receiver. To alleviate this problem, they created “dimensions for evaluating message
sources” and utilized Hovland and associates’ definition of credibility as the foundation
for their work. McCroskey and Young (1981) defined the construct as “the attitude
toward a source of communication held at a given time by the receiver” (p. 24). Many
scholars simply neglect to define the term in their research, assuming that readers have a
working definition of the construct or will consistently identify a ‘credible’ source.

The final limitation in our understanding of source credibility is found in the
factor structure of the construct itself. Generally, scholars are unsure how many factors
compose the variable “source credibility,” what names those factors should have, and
how those factors should be measured. For example, most scholars suggest that both

trustworthiness and expertise are aspects of credibility (Applbaum, & Anatol, 1973;

Chaiken, & Maheswaren, 1994; Hovland, Janis, & Kelly, 1953; Posner, & Kouzes, I988;
Sobczak, & Bowers, 1993; Stemthal, Phillips, & Dholakia, 1978; Tuppen, 1974; Wu, &
Shaffer, 1987). However, some scholars accept trustworthiness as a key factor
contributing to credibility judgments (Heyman, 1992; Hovland, & Weiss, 1951;
Markham, 1968; Powell, & Wanzenried, 1995) while others maintain that expertise is a
key factor (Giffin, 1967; King, 1976; Nosek, Fuhrer, & Hughes, 1991; Swenson, Nash, &
Roos, 1984). Other scholars select different naming schemes leading to remaining
factors that are often cited for influencing judgments of credibility, such as reliability
(Chaiken, & Maheswaren, 1994; Wu, & Shaffer, 1987), dynamism (Posner, & Kouzes,
1988), competence, character, sociability, composure, and extroversion (McCrosky, &

J enson, 1975; Powell, Wanzenried, 1995).

One consistently suggested component of credibility which until recently, has
received little attention within the persuasion literature, is expertise. While the
trustworthiness and expertise as dimensions of source credibility judgments are
fiequently noted, the conceptualization and definition of the construct, ‘expertise,’ have
just begun to be examined in depth. Recently, Farr (2003) argued that expertise can be
perceived in two distinct ways: technical competence and practical competence. This
dissertation will fitrther examine judgments of expertise (type of competence), and how
expertise, together with race, influence perceived source credibility. The following is a
brief review of the expertise literature leading to a discussion of the potential effects of

race.

1‘)

Role of Perceived Expertise

Cognitive psychologists have long sought to define expertise and determine how
it is acquired. Typically, they focus on expertise as an intrinsic characteristic, which
suggests that expertise is an inherent feature of the source. In pursuit of defining the
characteristics of expertise, three overlapping yet distinct perspectives of expertise have
emerged in the cognitive psychology literature.

The first perspective of expertise, developed by Ericsson and Smith (1991),
focuses on distinguishing outstanding versus non-outstanding individuals in a domain.
Outstanding individuals are determined by outstanding performance within a given
domain or sphere of expertise. Exemplars of outstanding performance are faster response
times for tasks in the domain, superior ability to plan ahead, superior memory
performance, highly developed perceptual/attentive abilities, a strong sense of what is
relevant, an ability to simplify complex problems, ability to efi‘ectively communicate
their expertise, ability to handle adversity, selectivity in choosing decision problems,
appearing outwardly confident, and having an extensive and up-to-date content
knowledge (Ericsson & Smith, 1991; Shanteau, 1988).

The second expertise perspective focuses on an individual’s accumulation of
knowledge, with special emphasis on the type of knowledge held. Rosenberg (1997)
states that “expertise results from amassing both great amounts of knowledge and the
ability to perform pattern-based retrieval during many years of experience in a specific

area” (p.37).

In the third perspective, expertise is determined by factors such as training, ability
(Bimbaum & Stegner, 1979; Cusella, 1982; Hovland et. al, 1953; McGuire, 1969)
nomination by peers, experience, and hands-on experience (Perez, Johnson, & Emery,
1995). In 1964, F itts proposed a model containing three stages of expertise development
through practice of tasks within a given domain. The first stage is the “cognitive stage”
and is “characterized by an effort to understand the task, its demands, and to learn what
information one must attend” (Ericsson & Smith, 1991). The second stage is the
“associative stage” which involves “making the cognitive process efficient to allow rapid
retrieval and perception of required information” (Ericsson & Smith, 1991). The final
stage is the “autonomous stage” in which “performance is automatic and conscious
cognition is minimal” (Ericsson & Smith, 1991).

In summary, these three cognitive psychology perspectives of expertise have
several common factors. Each perspective suggests that experts are knowledgeable, have
extensive experience, and are outstanding in their domain of expertise. In contrast to the
cognitive psychology perspective, when studying expertise from the persuasion literature,
the focus is on the perceived expertise of a message sender, rather than on the internal
characteristics related to expertise. In this literature, expertise is often manipulated
without being defined or without verification of the success of the manipulation on
receivers.

For example, some scholars will manipulate level of training, experience, role
status, attraction and the presence or absence of a diploma (Swenson, Nash, & Roos,
1984) as a representation of expertise level. In a study by Nosek, Fuhrer, and Hughes

(1991), expertise was manipulated by stating that one set of counselors had doctoral

degrees and professional practices in counseling, whereas the contrasting group of
counselors had jobs of an unspecified nature and volunteered their services as counselors
at an independent living center. Norman (1976) portrayed the expert source as a
professor of physiological psychology at a large Canadian university who had recently
co-authored a book. His low expert counterpart was portrayed as an undergraduate in a
general arts program at a large Canadian university (Norman, 1976). Another expertise
manipulation described an individual with 15 years of experience in a field, publications
of articles in the field, as well as maintaining a private practice as an expert while the low
expertise condition described an individual who has worked one year after recently
completing his/her degree and is beginning to establish his/her research career (Swenson,
et al., 1984). In each of these studies, the condition with the “expert” resulted in greater
perceived credibility as compared to the condition labeled “non-expert.” Yet, the
construct “expertise” was never formally defined, just manipulated.

In both the cognitive psychology literature and the persuasion literature, expertise
seems to have two major characteristics, the first being, practical competence and the
second, technical competence. For example, in the cognitive psychological literature,
experts were thought to have in-depth knowledge, training, and experience. Similarly, in
the persuasion literature, those labeled experts were those who either had symbols (e.g.,
academic degrees) or experience (e.g., experience in a field). It appears that all of these
expertise definitions or manipulations fall into two categories — practical competence and
technical competence. Each construct is briefly defined below.

Technical Competence Technical competence is skillfulness by virtue of

possessing special knowledge. It is achieved through training, reading, formal education,

and scholarly pursuits. A technically competent expert will often be perceived as being
on a different social, power, or authority level than those with whom they interact. When
manipulating the technical competence aspect of expertise, many scholars manipulate the
level of degree earned, social status, training, formal education, and title which usually
places the expert on a different social, power, or authority level than those by whom they
are rated. The focus on the manipulation of technical competence suggests that technical
competence leads to perceived expertise.

Practical Competence In contrast, practical competence, or experienced

 

expertise, is developed through direct observation or participation in an event. For the
purposes of this study, practical competence will be defined as skills that result from
direct participation in events or activities. This type of competence is developed through
practice, experience, or trial and error. The practically competent individual does not
necessarily understand the body of literature, mechanical workings, or expert language of
the field, but is an expert primarily through their experiences in the field. Their practical
experience makes others perceive them as an expert.

Research on Competence. Farr (2003) demonstrated that both technical and
practical competencies are relevant to the measurement of perceived expertise. When
practical competence was low, technical competence had little effect, but when practical
competence was high, the addition of technical competence greatly increased perceived
credibility. This study sought to replicate this finding by manipulating both technical
and practical competencies, to reaffirm their impact on credibility ratings, as well as
examine the influence of race on perceptions of expertise.

Role of Race

 

Affirmative Action has long been a topic for debate. Currently, the nation is
again considering the question of race as a factor in decision making for university
entrance and other hiring considerations. If race is in fact, a non-issue, as some claim,
then scholars should be able to observe the lack of a relationship between race and
credibility. Surprisingly, the variable race has received only cursory attention in the
source credibility literature. Therefore, one purpose of this dissertation is to examine the
effects of race on judgments of source credibility. In today’s increasingly diverse world,
it is important to understand the influence that race might have on perceived credibility.
If a relationship is observed between race and credibility, the explanation for why this
may be the case will be a question which remains outside of the scope of the current
work. For this purpose of this paper, however, the question is simply, does race make a
difference on ratings of source credibility? Following is a brief review of the effects of
race on various outcomes.

The Effects of Race. Despite affinnative action and other civil rights laws, the
destruction of J irn Crow and other segregationist practices, and the growing acceptance
of diversity, some believe that race still matters in people’s judgments of others’
credibility, qualifications, etc. (West, 1993). Despite the belief that race matters, scholars
have not addressed the general question of how race affects credibility ratings on a daily
basis in larger society. Some scholars, being aware that evaluations are important for
tenure and job retention, have addressed the specific question of race and instructor
credibility. Hendrix (1998) found that students believed that it would be more difficult
for a Black professor to establish credibility in the classroom, especially when they were

teaching courses unrelated to their race. The students also believed that Black professors

have to work harder to perform successfully within the academic system. Conversely,
Patton (1999) found that African American instructors were more credible than European
instructors.

While studying credibility of a salesperson from the perspective of a consumer,
scholars found that the race of the consumer will affect the credibility rating of the
salesperson, especially related to likeability (Jones, Moore, Stanaland, & Wyatt, 1998).
White consumers felt that the salespeople portrayed in the study were more likeable than
did Black consumers. From the perception of consumers, the Black salespersons were
considered more likable, most trustworthy, most attractive, and highest on expertise, with
perceptions of white females following, and white males rated lowest (Jones, et al.,
1998). Although this finding sounds promising on the face of it, the authors (Jones, et al.,
1998) contend that these results might not indicate a boost in the credibility of Black or
women, but rather represent a discounting or backlash against the White male salesperson
who may have primed negative stereotypes against the “typical“ salesperson (i.e. pushy,
aggressive, and forceful).

When attempting to diversify a sales force, credibility may not be the strongest
issue, but race can cause the hiring and retention process to become a challenge due to
discriminatory practices. Several scholars have found that in the 1980s and 19908, black
men in the United States were suffering a 12 to 15 percent loss in earnings due to labor
market discrimination (Darity, Guilkey, & Winfrey, 1996; Darity, & Mason, 1998;
Gottschalk, 1997; Rodgers, & Spriggs, 1996). Others have found that having a black
racial identity and a darker skin tone will reduce an individual’s chances of working by

52 percent after controlling for education, age, and criminal record (Johnson,

Beinenstock, & Stoloff, 1995; Darity, & Mason, 1998). It has also been reported that
sales managers tend to “screen out” African American and female applicants to select
instead equally qualified White male applicants (Jolson, 1983). In contrast, a slightly
more recent study was unable to observe discrimination in hiring (Marshall, Stamps, &
Moore, 1998).

When Afiican Americans are hired, they often still face challenges in excess to
those required by the job. African Americans reported experiencing exclusion by White
colleagues in networking activities such as golf outings at “restricted” country clubs
(Comer, Nicholls, and Vermillion, 1998; Thomas and Wetlaufer, 1997). Also, African
Americans have had problems working with their customer base that range fiom
“awkwardness in initial person-to person meetings (after telephone contacts), to loss of
the sale, to overt messages that ‘Black salespeople are not welcome’” (Comer, Nicholls,
and Vermillion, 1998; Lucas, 1996). Essentially, the role of race on perceptions of
credibility has yet to be determined. Some scholars suggested that race affects credibility
ratings whereas, others suggest that race does not matter. The goal of this paper is to
determine if race affects credibility ratings.

Summa_ry

This study seeks to extend the credibility literature by examining the effects of
individual race on perceived credibility and expertise ratings, although this study will be
limited to two races-- African Americans and Whites. If race does not affect people’s
perceptions, then we would expect to see no significant difference between the credibility

and/or expertise ratings due to race manipulations.

lO

As we consider the perceived credibility ratings of both African Americans and
Whites, one component of expertise that may vary between the groups is perceived
eXpertise. Whites have greater numbers of college educated individuals as well as more
individuals reaching higher levels of education, which suggest that Whites should have
an expertise advantage. The real question of interest is not if Whites have greater
expertise, but when expertise is controlled, will they receive higher ratings of perceived

expertise, and subsequently higher credibility ratings?

11

Method

Design

A 3 (Black, White, and no portrayal of race) x 2 (technical competence; high
versus low) x 2 (practical competence; high versus low) factorial design was employed,
with credibility ratings as the dependent variable. Participants were randomly assigned to

one of the 12 conditions in the 3 x 2 x 2 design specified above.

Participants
A total of 403 students in communication courses at Michigan State University

were recruited for the study and received extra credit for their participation, resulting in
an average of 34 participants per cell. This sample size is adequate to detect differences
between cells, if they in fact exist, according to conventional standards of power (beta =
.80, alpha = .05, one-tailed, based on a .30 expected effect size). Given the limited
number of minority participants and the irnprobability of equal participation across cells,
all participants were White and were 36% male (N = 145), and 64% female (N = 258).
Given the student’s status as undergraduates, the mean age (M = 21.1, SD = 2.3) is
younger than that of the general population, although it is fairly representative of the
traditional undergraduate population which usually has an age range between 18 - 22
years old.
Procedure

The participants in the study entered the meeting room and were welcomed to the
research project by the research assistant. At this time they completed the informed

consent form. Upon receipt of the completed informed consent form, the research

12

assistant gave each participant a folder. The folder contained the manipulation and
randomly assigned the participants to one of the twelve groups. On the outside of the
folder was a fabricated job posting for a communication consultant which lists the criteria
required, and skills necessary for the position. Within the folder was the race
manipulation (photograph or not), and a technically competent (high vs. low) or
practically competent (high vs. low) resume. Each participant was asked to complete a
survey relating to the attributes of each applicant and to make the decision to offer the
portrayed individual an interview (or not). Once the survey was completed, the

participants were thanked, debriefed and dismissed from the study.

Wm
Induction of Race. Students were randomly assigned to one of three groups. One

folder contained a picture of a Black female, while another folder contained a folder of a
White female, and the final folder contained no picture. All three photograph
combinations were matched with an expertise manipulation (a resume). The individuals
in the photographs wore white blouses, had similar makeup, jewelry, hair length, height,
weight, and build so that each could be presented as equally attractive. Both photographs
were head shots with the confederates smiling gently while looking directly into the
camera. They were photographed against a white background to eliminate identifying
features or cues of any kind. For ease of matching the general characteristics of the
individuals, women were selected. Although no differences are expected based upon
gender, future studies could replicate this study with men to ensure that gender does not

affect the manipulations.

Induction of Technical Competence. Technical competence is based upon the

accumulation of knowledge through scholarly pursuits, reading, or training, so in the high

13

technical competence condition, the participant received the resume of a recently
graduated Ph.D. in Communication. The work experience category of this resume held
only one year at McDonalds, a position which she held during high school and is not
relevant to the position she is currently seeking. She was presented as having received her
bachelors degree in Communication from Illinois State University, her MBA from
Northwestern University, and her doctorate degree from Illinois State University in
Communication, and was seeking her first professional work experience with the Success
Consulting Group in Chicago. In the low technical competence condition, the applicant
has earned a BA. in Communication from Illinois State University with the same lack of

work experience presented previously.

Induction of Practical Competence. Practical competence is based upon the idea
that experience is necessary for expertise, so to manipulate high practical expertise, the
participant received the resume of a high school graduate who documented ten years of
work experience with a (fictional) consulting agency in Chicago. The resume presented a
woman who began working with a consulting agency in her high school work-study
program. Upon graduation from high school, she accepted a job within that agency as a
part-time Consultant’s Assistant, then received a promotion to full-time Consultant’s
Assistant, with her most recent promotion making her the Consultant’s Assistant to one
of the highest ranking consultants in the agency. She listed several speaking
engagements. She too, was seeking her first full consultant position with the Success

Consulting Group in Chicago. In the low practical competence condition, the same high

14

school graduation listed 4 years of work experience rather than ten years, with all other

aspects of the resume remaining the same.

Pilot Tests. The manipulations were piloted and refined until the high and low
technically competent resumes received significantly different ratings on the technical
competence scale and the practically competent resumes received significantly different
ratings on the practical competence scale (high versus low). A confirmatory factor
analysis was run on the data to determine if there is in fact a three factor solution which
represents credibility, practical competence, and technical competence. Specifically,
confirmatory factor analysis procedures outlined by Hunter and Gerbing (1982) were
used to test first-order and second-order unidirnensionality of the scales and constructs.

The scales were internally consistent and achieved parallelism (APPENDIX B).

Manipulation Checks

P_racticaLCompetence. After being exposed to the induction, four items were used
to assess the participant’s perception of the practical competence of the source. The
participants were asked to rate on a 5 item semantic differential the following items:
practiced, realistic, experienced, and participant. The items were selected fiom items
previously used within the credibility literature and which through face validity measured
practical competence. These items were then averaged to create a mean score. The
standardized item alpha for this scale was .84.

An independent subjects t test was performed to insure that the variable had been

manipulated as expected. A significant main effect for practical competence was found

15

on the practical competence measure, 1(1, 15) = 2.17, p<.05. This finding suggests that
practical competence was manipulated such that those reading the high practical
competence message believed the speaker to be more practically competent (M = 3.94,
SD = .59) than those reading the low practical competence message (M = 2.97, SD =
1.12).

As a confound check, we tested the practical competence manipulation against the
technical competence scale and it was non-significant [t (1, 15) = .55, p>.05, n.s.],
suggesting a clean manipulation for practical competence.

Technicpl Competence After being exposed to the induction, three items were
used to assess the participant’s perception of the technical competence of the source. The
participants were asked to rate on a 5 item semantic differential the following items:
educated, competent, and intellectual. The items were selected from items previously
used within the credibility literature and which through face validity measured technical
competence. The items were then averaged to create a mean score. The standardized
item alpha for this scale was .83.

An independent subjects t test was performed to ensure that the variable had been
manipulated as expected. A significant main effect for technical competence was found
on the technical competence measure, 10, 15) = 2.19, p<.05. This finding suggests that
technical competence was manipulated such that those reading the high technically
competence message believed the speaker to be more technically competent CM = 4.22
SD = .62) than those reading the low technically competent message (M = 3. 36, SD =

.84).

16

As a confound check, we tested the technical competence manipulation against
the practical competence scale and it was non-sigrrificant[t (1, 15) = -.64, p>.05, n.s.],

suggesting a clean manipulation for the technical competence manipulation.

Outcome Measures (Dependent Variables)

 

Credibilig; To measure credibility, 10 items from Ohanian’s (1990) source
credibility semantic differential scale were used. The scale which Ohanian (1990)
developed was well constructed, well tested, and reported high reliability coefficients.
Consistent with the high reliability coefficients reported by Ohanian (1990), when
utilizing the scale to address the current data, the scale received an standardized item
alpha of .78.

The items used measure the attractiveness and trustworthiness factors of source
credibility. The items utilized to measure attractiveness were “attractive-unattractive,
classy- not classy, beautiful-ugly, elegant-plain, [and] sexy-not sexy” (Ohanian, 1990).
The items selected to measure trustworthiness were “dependable-undependable, honest-
dishonest, reliable-unreliable, sincere-insincere, [and] trustworthy-untrustworthy”
(Ohanian, 1990). All items were mixed into a series of five-point semantic differentials
from which a credibility score was developed. The obtained scores for all of the items
were averaged to create a credibility rating for each participant. This single score

credibility rating was then utilized as a data point for the AN OVA analysis.

17

Results

Credibility ratings were analyzed with a technical competence (high vs. low) x
practical competence (high vs. low) x race (white, black, no picture) between subjects

factorial analysis of variance. An alpha level of .05 was used for all statistical tests.

As noted in the discussion about manipulation checks, both practical and technical
competencies were manipulated cleanly in the pilot test. Another way to verify the
strength of the manipulation is to note the strong uncorrected correlation between the
manipulation of practical competence and high ratings on the practical competence scale
(r = .51). Likewise, there is a strong uncorrected correlation between the manipulation of
technical competence and high ratings on the technical competence scale (r = .71). Given
that both technical and practical competencies are measuring expertise, it is expected, and
noted that we observed a strong uncorrected correlation between the competencies (r =
.64). Also, the uncorrected correlation from the practical competence scale to the
credibility measure was strong (r = .76) as was the uncorrected correlation from the

technical competence scale to the credibility measure (r = .81) (APPENDIX C).

Correcting the correlations for error in measurement, the correlations increased in
strength such that the correlation between the manipulation of practical competence and
high ratings on the practical competence scale (r = .56) is stronger. Likewise, with the
correlation between the manipulation of technical competence and high ratings on the
technical competence scale (r = .78). The correlation from the practical competence scale
to the credibility measure was decreased (r = .4) as did the corrected correlation from the

technical competence scale to the credibility measure (r = .36) (APPENDIX C). Overall,

18

using the practical and technical competence measures, credibility scores can be

predicted with significant accuracy, F (1, 4) = 301.53, p < .01, R = .87 (APPENDIX C).

From this position, a path model has been proposed (APPENDIX D) which fits the
data well. As practical competency was increased, scores on the practical competency
scale also increased as noted through the path coefficient ([3 = .56). As technical
competency was increased, scores on the technical competency scale also increased as
noted through the path coefficient (B = .78). As predicted, both practical and technical
competencies affect credibility ratings, as evidenced by the path between the practical
competence scale and credibility ratings (B = .41) and the technical competence scale and
credibility ratings ([3 = .69). As credibility ratings increase, people are more likely to
recommend that the candidate receive an interview (r = .82). Given the predictive power

of all aspects of the model, we submit this model for further consideration and testing.

An independent subjects t test was performed to insure that the variables had been
manipulated as independently. A significant main effect for practical competence was
found on the practical competence measure, I: (1, 399) = 169.21, p<.01, n2 =.27. We
then tested the practical competence manipulation against the technical competence scale
which was also significant 13 (1, 399) = 67.00, p<.01, n2 =.l 1. A significant main effect
for technical competence was found on the technical competence measure, E (1, 399) =
455.82, p<.01, n2 =.52. We then tested the technical competence manipulation against
the practical competence scale which was also significant F (1, 399) = 29.29, p<.01, n2

=.03, suggesting that the manipulation of one variable impacts the manipulation of the

other.

19

Results also showed a significant main effects for technical competence on
credibility, E (1, 391) = 161.83, p<.01, n2 =.29 and significant main effects for practical
competence on credibility were found, E ( 1, 391) = 66.99, p<.01, 112 =.15. There was not
a main effect for race F (1,2) = .13, p>.05, n2 =.001, n.s., nor were any of these main
effects affected by interaction effects between race and practical competence, _F_‘ (2,391) =
.99, p>.05, n2 =.005, n.s., race and technical competence, F (2,391) = .329, p>.05, n2
=.002, n.s., practical and technical competence, E (1,391) = .17, p>.05, 112 =.005, n.s., or
the combination of race, practical and technical competence, _If‘_ (2,391) = 1.03, p>.05, n2
=.005, n.s. Overall, credibility is a good predictor of the recommendation to interview
the applicant (R = .73). The technical and practical competence scales also functioned

well as predictors of the recommendation to interview (R = .77), but having all three

measures increased predictive power to its maximum (R = .7 8).

Significant main effects for credibility were observed on recommendations to
interview the applicant, E (1, 17) = 12.87, p<.Ol, n2 =.39. Significant main effects were
also observed for manipulations of practical competence on recommendations to
interview the applicant, E (1, 349) = 20.72, p<.01, n2 =.06. Significant main effects
were observed for manipulations of technical competence on recommendations to
interview the applicant, E (l, 349) = 4.3, p<.05, n2 =0]. These main effects were not
affected by interaction effects between credibility and the technical competence
manipulation, F (1,12) = 1.52, p>.05, n.s., nor the credibility, manipulation of technical,
and practical competence combination, F (1,7) = 1.02, p<.05, n.s. There was an
interaction between credibility and the manipulation of practical competence on

recommendation to interview the applicant, E (1, 14) = 2.04, p<.05, n2 =.08, such that as

20

practical competence increased, the recommendation to interview the applicant also

increased.

When examining the cell means related to the significant main effects for practical
and technical competence, we observe that when both practical and technical competence
are presented as high, students rate the speaker more credible (M = 4.15, SD = .51) as
compared to the low technical and low practical competence speaker (M = 2.99, SD =
.55) d = 1.67. Alternatively, when practical competence was high and technical
competence was presented as low, students rated the speaker as slightly less credible (M
= 3.52, SD = .56) than the high technical and low practical competence speaker (M =
3.77, SD = .60) d = .36. In sum, the higher the perceived competence (both practical and
technical), the stronger the credibility ratings. However, when isolating each
competency, perceived technical competence produces stronger credibility ratings than

perceived practical competence.

Race, being manipulated through the presentation of a picture of a Black woman, a
White woman, or no picture, did not play a significant role on measurements of
credibility. The participants were asked to report ‘from memory’ the race of the
‘applicant’ after they completed their credibility ratings. As expected, in conditions
where a picture accompanied the resume, the participants were almost perfect in their
report of race, when participant were reporting the race of the pictured white applicant
three of the 132 participants reported incorrectly, and when reporting the race of the
pictured Black applicant, seven of the 132 participants reported incorrectly. All ten of the
participants who answered incorrectly failed to respond to the item, or wrote that they

could not remember the race of the applicant. In the control (no picture) condition, 95 of

21

the 132 participants answered the item incorrectly, while 37 answered correctly. All 95
of the participants who responded incorrectly reported that the applicant was White,

while the 37 who gave correct responses selected other, skipped the item, or wrote that
they did not know the answer. This suggests that the majority of the participants assumed
that the non—pictured applicant was a white candidate. Despite the assumption, the role of

race on measurements of credibility was nil.

To increase the internal consistency of the credibility measure, the participants were
asked to assess how strongly they believed that the applicant was an expert consultant,
and if the applicant had the necessary experience and the necessary education to be a
good consultant. Each of these items were strongly correlated with credibility such that
the stronger the belief of expertise (r = .71), experience (r= .67), and education (I = .70)
the higher credibility ratings the applicant received. Not only were these items strongly
correlated with credibility, they were also strongly correlated with each other. The
stronger the beliefs about experience (r = .76) and education (I =.65), the greater the
belief that the applicant was an expert consultant. Also, the more the applicant was
believed to have the education necessary to be a good consultant(r = .55), the greater the
belief that the applicant also had the necessary experience to be a good consultant. Using
these three items to predict credibility ratings would allow for good a prediction (R =
.80), but not as effective as the technical and practical competency scales (R = .87).
Also, as ratings of credibility increased, the applicants were more likely to recommend
that the applicant receive an interview (r = .73). In sum, the more experience and

education an applicant is perceived to have, the greater their expertise and credibility

22

ratings. This also suggests that as credibility ratings increase, the likelihood of being

recommended for an interview will also increase.

23

Discussion

The assertion that technical and practical competencies have independent effects
on credibility ratings was consistent with the data, although the hypothesis that when
practical competence was low, technical competence had little effect, but when practical
competence was high, the addition of technical competence greatly increased perceived
credibility was unsupported by the data. These finding are consistent with the
conceptualization of expertise as being domain specific. In certain domains, it is more
important to have technical competency to be perceived as an expert, whereas in other
domains the reverse is true.

The fact remains that those who are both high in technical and practical
competencies will be perceived as the most expert and credible. This is also consistent
with the literature’s portrayal of an expert as being someone who is an outstanding
individual within a domain as determined by outstanding performance within a given
domain or sphere of expertise(Ericsson & Smith, 1991), who has both great amounts of
knowledge and the ability to perform pattern-based retrieval during many years of
experience in a specific area (Rosenberg, 1997), who is well trained, has great ability
(Bimbaum & Stegner, 1979; Cusella, 1982; Hovland et. a1, 1953; McGuire, 1969) is
nominated or respected by peers, and experienced (Perez, Johnson, & Emery, 1995).

We can conclude that across domains, the higher one is in both competencies, the
more credible they will be perceived. This increase in credibility also leads to increased
desirability, as observed by the increasing recommendation to interview a candidate
based upon their perceived credibility. These findings suggest that academic
understanding alone is not sufficient to create expertise; one must also have practical
experiences to support and balance the education that is received, a finding which is
particularly important for those in training or educational roles. It is not enough to have a

student population which can regurgitate theories, or pass standardized tests. It is also

24

imperative that students have Opportunities to become experienced within their field
which will increase their ability to practically apply the material they have leamed to new
and different situations. Although it is unreasonable to assume that a novice student will
progress to the autonomous stage of processing (F itts, 1964) through a brief period of
practical application, it is plausible that the novice could progress from the cognitive
stage through their educational experiences into the associative stage through the
integration of their experiences with their understanding. Creating programs which
include both academic and practical components will lead to a more expert student
population, which in turn will increase the credibility of both the student and the
institution, and ultimately increase the employment rates of graduates which can also
increase the credibility of the institution from which these experts were developed.
Because expertise is domain specific, it is important that we determine within which
domains technical competence may be of greater import than practical competence. As
scholars create methods to determine within which domains technical competency is
more important and within which domains practical competency is of greater importance,
training programs and educational institutions will be able to use their research to focus
on the most appropriate competency for their domain, while understanding that both
competencies are imperative, and produce experts who are the strongest possible
representation of their field of study.

The understanding that both technical and practical competencies are necessarily
to perceptions of expertise should also be salient to budding scholars and new instructors.
As we present new material to our student population, it is not enough to break down
theories into digestible bites, then expect the students to present their understanding on
exams or through papers. We must also incorporate an experiential aspect to the leaming
environment, both through the presentation of our own experiences, and through projects
which will require the students to have experiences related to the theories they have

studied. As instructor, if you are able to explain the intricate workings of a theory, yet

25

are unable to give a personal example of the theory in action, given the findings of this
study, your credibility will be reduced with your students. Although a class cannot be
built upon personal antecedent alone, personal antecedents can highlight the fact that the
instructor is practically competent in the subject matter they are teaching, which should
lead to higher ratings of credibility. This increased credibility should ultimately increase
student evaluations, which is a goal for which we all strive.

Another aspect of this study, the effects of race on perceived credibility, produced
hopefiil results. The effect of race on expertise and credibility was not significant.
Although this resonates within some of the literature such as Patton’s (1999) finding that
African American instructors were more credible than European instructors, many would
find this result strange. This study was limited by the lack of racial diversity among
participants. As previously noted, the world is quite diverse and becoming increasingly
so by the day. This study did not account for the voices of the minority population due to
limited access at the large Midwestern University. So future research should seek
minority participants and compare their responses to those presented in this work. Also,
this study limited race to black and white ‘applicants’ only. The work could be extended
by adding other races and comparing those findings to the ones reported in this work.

Although this study has limitations, as all studies do, the limitations do not
explain the nature of the results observed. The undergraduates sampled in this study did
not alter their credibility and expertise ratings using race as a guide, so perhaps, as they
become the decision makers of tomorrow, they will continue to assess the qualification of
candidates without emphasis being placed upon their race. Despite the fact that this is a
hopeful result for the future, it is also a non-representative result given the current
population of decision makers. Undergraduates, generally seem to be more liberal in
their views as Opposed to the larger society. Undergraduates also tend to be idealistic in
their views, due to their lack of experience. For future research, it would be intriguing to

replicate this study on a non-undergraduate sample. We should hold on to the hope that

26

the current undergraduate population is equitable in their decision making practices, but a
test within the current decision making population would better assess the current state of
the use of race in hiring decisions.

Although race was not a factor determining the credibility or expertise of the
hypothetical job applicant, there was an interesting, yet unwarranted assumption that was
frequently reported. The assumption that an applicant without a photograph was white
was prevalent, yet unwarranted. Future research could seek to understand the cognitive
processes underlying the assumption, what caused peOple to assume that the applicant
was white? It is possible that the education and experiences presented, as well as the
name “Jennifer Johnson” were consistent with the participants’ experiences of White
applicants. Through the utilization of the growing body of literature relating to
expectancy violations, future research could consider the question of how racially related
expectancy violations may change (or not) credibility ratings.

Through this study, we can be more confident that technical and practical
competencies are independent constructs, but when both competencies are high
credibility ratings will be at their highest. This study is consistent with the previous
explication and measurement of practical and technical competence as components of
expertise with technical competence being skillfulness by virtue of possessing special
knowledge which is achieved through training, reading, formal education, and scholarly
pursuits and practical competence, or experienced expertise being skills that result fi'om
direct participation in events or activities which is developed through practice,
experience, or trial and error. The literature has long supported the notion that expertise
is a component of credibility (Applbaum, & Anatol, 1973; Chaiken, & Maheswaren,
1994; Hovland, Janis, & Kelly, 1953; Posner, & Kouzes, 1988; Sobczak, & Bowers,
1993; Stemthal, Phillips, & Dholakia, 1978; Tuppen, 1974; Wu, & Shaffer, 1987). We
can conclude that expertise, when well measured, is a strong predictor and necessary

factor of credibility and that credibility can influence the desirability an applicant.

27

APPENDIX A
Survey Instrument

Thank you for your feedback toward our applicant. All feedback that we receive is
important, and we value your input.

Before you begin the survey, please list everything that you remember about the
applicant, and your impressions of how his/her skills will meet the needs of our
organization.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

28

Our applicant would like to have your advice concerning the best way to create a
resume. What information would you include, change, or delete from the resume
that you were presented? What should the applicant do to enhance his/her resume?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

29

Please circle the response_which best matches your feelings about the Applicant.

Classy
Trained
Biased
Educated
Elegant
Realistic
Qualified
Skilled
Informed
Able
Sexy
Intelligent
Objective
Reliable
Beautiful
Honest
Expert
Believable
Competent
Sincere
Credible
Intellectual
Empathic
Practiced
Dependable
Participant
Attractive
Trustworthy
Experienced
Authoritative
Understanding
Knowledgeable

mmmmmmmmmmmmummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmu.

J:Ahhhhhhb-Ahhhbhhh-hhhhAAA-bhhbhhA4:-

wwwwwwwwwwwuwwuwwwwwwwuwuwwwwwbjw

30

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

l

HHD—‘p—t

c—Ip—A

'. F“ # p—a y—fl p—O 5—. 0—. F. D—5 0—. —5 I-I‘ i—i 0—. I=I y—e H H H

Not Classy
Untrained
Unbiased
Uneducated
Plain
Ideahsfic
Unqualified
Unskilled
Uninforrned
Inept
Not Sexy
Unintelligent
Subjective
Unreliable
Ugly,
Dishonest
Inexpert
Unbelievable
Incompetent
Insincere
Not Credible
Narrow
Not Empathic
Beginning
Undependable
Observer
Unatlractive
Untrustworthy
Inexperienced
Not Authoritative
Judgmental
Not Knowledgeable

Please answer each of these questions about the applicant based upon
their resume which was provided and our job description.

1. I would recommend that this applicant receive an interview by members of your
organization.

Strongly agree Moderately agree Barely agree Disagree Disagree strongly
2. I believe that this applicant is an expert consultant.

Strongly agree Moderately agree Barely agree Disagree Disagree strongly
3. I believe that this applicant has the experience necessary to be a good consultant.
Strongly agree Moderately agree Barely agree Disagree Disagree strongly
4. I believe that this applicant has the education necessary to be a good consultant.
Strongly agree Moderately agree Barely agree Disagree Disagree strongly
5. I believe that this applicant has the skills necessary to be a good consultant.
Strongly agree Moderately agree Barely agree Disagree Disagree strongly
6. I believe this applicant has presented presentations as a consultant.

Strongly agree Moderately agree Barely agree Disagree Disagree strongly
7. I believe this applicant has had consulting experiences.

Strongly agree Moderately agree Barely agree Disagree Disagree strongly

8. I would be more likely to recommend someone who is highly educated instead of
someone who is highly experienced.

Strongly agree Moderately agree Barely agree Disagree Disagree strongly
9. I believe that natural talent is more important than educational experience.
Strongly agree Moderately agree Barely agree Disagree Disagree strongly
10. I believe that experience and education are equally important.

Strongly agree Moderately agree Barely agree Disagree Disagree strongly
11. I believe that I would like this applicant.

Strongly agree Moderately agree Barely agree Disagree Disagree strongly
12. I believe that I am similar to this applicant.

Strongly agree Moderately agree Barely agree Disagree Disagree strongly

31

Without referrin to the a lication materials lease answer the
following questions.

What was the ethnicity of today’s applicant (please circle one)?

Caucasian Afiican-American Hispanic

 

Asian Multi-ethnic Other

 

What was the approximate age of the applicant?

 

What was the sex (male/female) of the applicant?

 

What was the name of the applicant?

 

How much education did the applicant have?

 

How much work experience did the applicant have?

Were there any mistakes in the resume document? Yes No

 

If yes, how many mistakes did you find?

Please tell us a little about ourself. Remember all of our res onses will remain

confidential.

 

1. What is your sex? Male Female

 

2. What is your age?

3. What is your ethnicity (please circle one)?

Caucasian African-American Hispanic

 

Asian Multi-ethnic Other

32

 

 

APPENDIX B

Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Credibility, Practical and Technical Competencies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.60 .000 .000 0 L0 90 .000 :0 00.9 3.0 —00.0 2.9 00.0 .80 .0.
.00 F0 .000 .0 2.9.20. «.0. 0.0. «0.0. .000. 000. 0.0. .000. .2
.000 .0v0i—000 00.0 000 00 00.? ~00 .000 00.0. 000 00.0. .0.
F000 00.0 .000 30 8.9 6.0 00.0 .30 3.0 00.0. 0 .0
W00 00 000 60 00.0- 3.0. .000 5.9 000. 00.0 .0
.000 000 000 00.0 00.0 a B0 000. 0 .0
.000 000 00 00.9 .000 8.9 :0. 00.0. .0
.30 00 0.00 .000. 000 .00 0.0 .0
.50 00.0 3.0 .000 .0 00.0 .0
W00 .000 0.0 . 0.0.0. 00. .0
E —00 00.0 . 2.0. .N
.20 .000 .000 . .0
g .000 .80 N. Z 0. .0 0 n 0 0 0 .0 0 p P
5.322 .otm
%

.00 .000 .50 $0 .000 0.0 00.0 0.0 000 0.0 ~00 00.0 «.0 .00.0 .0.
E .000 .00.0 .000 000 8.0 00.0 000 00.0 00.0 00.0 .00 .00.0 .5
00.0 .000 .00.0 0.0 v0 00 000 00.0 8.0 «0.0 00.0 T00 .0.
«00 000 .000 «0.0 R0 00.0 00 00.0 000 0.0 .00 .0
.Mm 8.0 8H0 0.0 3.0 00.0 000 9.0 00.0 3.0 —0

. 00.0 «A0 00.0 000 00.0 .000 0.0 .00 .0.
.WM WM M000 30 000 .000 3.0 .010 "m
E 000 :0 .000 .00 3.0 3.0

. .000 «0.0 «00 7
E .000 00 . 00.0 000 .0
.E .00 .000 _ 0.0 .m
“w "~00 .R0 . .P
000 «00 .00 u

_ P 2 S 0 0 a 0 0 v .m u 0 . 8.2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

r 05.0 mmd 5d 5d @5d de mmd and «dd 30.0 5.0 mod m5d 55d ndm
m5d F Nod mwd m5d mvd mwd 5©d mmd mmd Pmd mNd mmd wd N5d Now
wmd mad 9 5.0 Nwd mod M5d mod N5d 5.0 5nd 50.0 5.0 m5d 55d an
5.0 mod 5d mmd v0.0 mmd 5vd mvd mvd mvd 5nd mNd m5d Nod Nod up
5.0 m5d Nwd v0.0 mvd mmd 5md vmd mmd mmd $20 mmd 5.0 mod Gd :
05d mvd mod med mmd 5md Nvd wmd de mvd Nd Nvd 55d mmd 0d Op
de mmd m5d 5vd 5md Nvd M5d mmd m5d vmd mmd Ed 3.0 50.0 0.0 m
and 5®d mmd mvd vmd 5d and mvd omd md mmd NNd vvd mmd mvd d
mmd mmd N5.d mvd wmd Nod m5d mmd m5d Fwd wmd NNd wvd 00.0 0.0 5
No.0 mod 5d mvd mmd mvd vmd md Fwd Nvd Nvd mud and wmd vmd o
5.0 .00 00 000 S0 00 00.0 00.0 00.0 000 00.0 .00 .000 0.00 00.0 0
5.0 mNd 3d mNd find Nrd de NNd NNd mwd .bd 5rd Nd NNd vwd v
dwd mod 5d m5d 5.0 55.0 Ed 3d mvd mvd de Nd mvd Nod v0.0 m
$5.0 md $5.0 Nod mod and 50d mmd mod mmd 5nd NNd Nod «0.0 55.0 N
E0 ~50 2.0 00.0 00 0.0 0.0 000 0.0 00.0 000 00.0 «00 K0 0.0 w
000 «00 50 a. 3 0. 0 0 0. 0 0. 0 0 w _
530:. 02.0.0003 0200. .000 ES.
000 00.0 00. 0.. 00 088080.
50.0 0.0.0 05 8. mm anBoEn.
«0.0 050 00 00 00. £36.06
“000.020 ”00:90 0.0002005 00.60.an 3.56000
0.5.3 00252000 00.00...
00.0.0000
000.03.
0.. Z 0. u aeoocoww
0 5 u 088.0%
0 m m u 32.9006
“030:0. 00 0.200. 0. 0009000 0000 0>0c 0E0:

34

APPENDIX C

Correlation Matrices

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. 0..“ ....... .0 E...
8 . 0 . . «a 0 9.3.08".
. an o 3 o. and Ned. A2000» 0:30:08
.0 0 30 S0. 80 .283 058880
a 0 No.0. 28:05:20.5 9:00:03
H p €0=£a§cu§ 05000080
3333023. $.33 .233 «co—00.30.58. Esau-assoc. .
_ 30.28:. g 3.5.09.0 9:02.02 150802: 9:00:08 080800....
0.
5.3: 5:22.60 08850
F 20 00.0 2.0 .00 9.0 06.33...
w «0.0 05.0 0.0 Nnd 350—320
F 3.0 2.0 2.0 A2300 0:80:08
. .00 50 58». 05888..
.. wed. Eczsascafi. 0:80:03
P €323.22... 053.00....
$.33 . .2000. E23395...» E0:n.:&:a.5
3230.:— a=3=080 0:50:02 050208.. 9:00:02 0500000.... _

5382 2626—2500 —fl:—Oto

 

35

 

APPENDIX D

 

[ Practical Competence

Manlgflatlon ‘

\

/

7

Technical Competence
Manipulation

 

Proposed Path Model

 

 

 

 

Practical
Competence

Scale

 

 

l
| B=.62

 

 

l
Technical
Competence

Scale

 

 

36

.41

.69

r=.82

 

Interview

References

Anderson, K., & Clevenger, Jr., T. (1963). A summary of eXperimental research in ethos.
Speech Monographs, 30, 59-78.

Applbaum, R. L., & Anatol, K. W. E. (1973). Dimensions of source credibility: A test
for reproducibility. Speech Monographs. 40. 231-237.

Berlo, D. K., Lemert, J. B., & Mertz, R. J. (Winter, 1969-1970). Dimensions for

evaluating the acceptability of message sources. Public Qpinion Quarterly, 33
(4), 363-376.

Bimbaum, M. H., & Stegner, S. E. (1979). Source credibility in social judgment: Bias,
expertise, and the judge’s point of view. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 37, (1), 48-74.

Chaiken, S., & Maheswaran, D., (1994). Heuristic procession can bias systematic
processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task
importance on attitude judgment. J ournflf Personality and Social Psychology.
gg, (3), 460-473.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.).
Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Comer, L. B. Nicholls, J. A. F. &Vermillion, L. J. (1998). Diversity inthe sales force:

Problems and challenges. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 18,
(4),1-20.

Cusella, L. P (1982). The effects of source expertise and feedback valence on intrinsic
motivation. Human Qommunication Research, 9, (1), 17-32.

Darity, W. Jr., Guilkey, D., & Winfrey, W. (1996). Explaining differences in economic
performance among racial and ethnic groups in the USA: The data examined.

American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 55, (4), 411-26.

37

Darity, W. Jr., & Mason, P. L. (1998). Evidence on discrimination in employments:

Codes of color, codes of gender. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 12, (2),
63-90.

Delia, J. G. (1976). A constructivist analysis of the concept of credibility. Quarterly
Jouanl of Speech. 62. 361-375.

Ericsson, K. A., & Smith, J. (1991). Prospects and limits of the empirical study of
expertise: An introduction. In Ericsson, K. A., & Smith, J. (Eds), Toward a

general theog of expertise: Prospects and limits (pp. 1-38). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Farr, A. C., & Witte, K. (2003). Defining expertise to create a more effective
conceptualization of source credibility. Manuscript under review.

Fitts, P. M. (1964). Perceptual-motor skill learning. In A. W. Melton (Ed.), Categories
of human learning (pp. 243-285). New York: Academic Press.

Giffin, K. (1967). The contribution of studies of source credibility to a theory of
interpersonal trust in the communication process. Psychological Bulletin, 68, (2 ),
104-1 19.

Gottschalk, P. (1997). Inequality, income growth and mobility: The basic facts. Journal
of Economic Perspectives, 11 (2), 21-40.

Hendrix, K. G. (1998). Student perceptions of the influence of race on professor
credibility. Journal of Black Studies, 28, (6), 738-763.

Heyman, S. (1992). A study of Australian and Singaporean perceptions of source
credibility. Communication Research Reports, 9, (2), 137-150.

Hovland, C. I, & Weiss, W. (1951-1952). The influence of source credibility on
communication effectiveness. Public Qpinion Qparterly, 15,I (4), 635-650.

Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. H. (1953). Communication and persuasion:
Psychological studies of opinion change. New Haven: Yale University Press.

38

Johnson, Jr., J. H., Beinenstock, E. J ., & Stoloff, J. A. (1995). An empirical test of the

cultural capital hypothesis. The Review of Black Political Economy, 23, (4), 7-
27.

Jolson, M. A. (1983). Employment barriers in selling: Are Blacks and Females

welcome? In Proceedings of the American Marketing Association, Patrick E.
Murphy eta1., Eds. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 267-270.

Jones, E., Moore, J. N., Stanaland, A. J. S., & Wyatt, R. A. J. (1998). Salesperson race
and gender and the access and legitimacy paradigm: Does difference make a
difference? Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 18, (4), 71-78.

King, S. W. (1976). Reconstruction the concept of source perceptions: Toward a
paradigm of source apprOpriateness. Western Speech Communication, 216-225.

Lucas, A. (1996). Race matters. Sales and Marketing Management, 148, 50-62.

Markham, D. (1968). The dimensions of source credibility of television newscasters. Ih_e
Journal of Communication 18 57-64.

 

Marshall, G. W., Stamps, M. B., & Moore, J. N. (1998). Preinterview biases: The
impact of race, physical attractiveness, and sales job type on preinterview
impressions of sales job applicants. J ournjl of Personal Selling and Sales

Management, 18, (4), 21-38.

McCroskey, J. C., & Young, T. J. (1981). Ethos and Credibility: The construct and its
measurement after three decades. Central States Speech Journal, 32, 24-34.

McCroskey, J. C., & J enson, T. A. (1975). Image of mass media news sources. Journal of
Broadcasting, 19, (2), 169-180.

McGuire, W. J. (1969). The nature of attitudes and attitude change: In G. Linzey &

Aronson (Eds), The handbook of spcial psychology (v.3; pp 352-379). Reading:
Addison-Wesley.

39

Norman, W. T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes:
replicated factor structure in peer nomination personality ratings. Journal of

abnormal and social psychology, 66, (June), 574-583.

Nosek, M. A., Fuhrer, M. J ., & Hughes, S. O. (1991). Perceived counselor credibility by
persons with physical disability: Influence of counselor disability status,

professional status, and the counseling content. Rehabilitation Psychology, 36,
(3), 153-161.

Ohanian, R. (1990). Construction and validations of a scale to measure celebrity
endorsers’ perceived expertise, trustworthiness, and attractiveness. Journal of

Advertising, 19, (3), 39-52.

Patton, T. O. (1999). Ethnicity and gender: An examination of its impact on instructor

credibility in the university classroom. The Howard Journal of Communications
_1_0, 123-144.

 

Rodgers III, W., Spriggs, W. B., and Waaler, E. (1996). What does AF QT really
measure: Race, wages, schooling and the AF QT score. The Review of Black

Political Economy, 24, (4), 13-46.

Perez, R. S., Johnson, J. F., & Emery, C. D. (1995). Instructional design expertise: A
cognitive model of design. Instructional Science 23 321-349.

 

Posner, B. Z., & Kouzes, J. M. (1988). Relating leadership and credibility. Psychological
Rgports, 63, 527-530.

Powell, F. C., & Wanzenried, J. W. (1991). Perceptual changes in source credibility:
Repeated test using two candidates during a political campaign. W
Motor Skills 73, 1107-1114.

 

Rosenberg, J. I. (1997). Expertise research and clinical practice: A suicide assessment

and intervention training model. Educational Psychology Review, 9, (3), 279-
296.

40

Shanteau, J. (1988). Psychological Characteristics and strategies of expert decision
makers. Acta Psychologica, 68, 203-215.

Sobczak, P. M., & Bowers, M. R. (1993). An experimental design for measuring the
effects of source credibility and goal behavior estimate in health promotion
television commercials. Psychology, A Journal of Human Behavior. 30. (2), 30-
43.

Stemthal, B., Phillips, L. W., & Dholakia, R. (1978). The persuasive effect of source
credibility: A situational analysis. Public Qpinion Qparterly, 42, (3), 285-314.

Swenson, R. A., Nash, D. L., & Roos, D. C. (1984). Source credibility and perceived
expertness of testimony in a simulated child-custody case. Professional
PsychologLResearch and Practice 15 (6) 891-898.

 

Thomas, D. A., & Wetlaufer, S. (1997). A question of color: A debate on race in the
U. S. workplace. Harvard Business Review 75 118-132.

 

Tuppen, C. J. S. (1974). Dimensions of communicator credibility: An oblique solution.
Speech Monoggphs, 41, (August), 253-260.

West, C. (1993). Race Matters. Boston: Beacon Press.

Wu, C., & Shaffer, D. R. (1987). Susceptibility to persuasive appeals as a function of
source credibility and prior experience with the attitude object. Journal of

Personalig and Social Psychology, 52, (4), 677-688.

41

| l l ill lll‘ ll “lll‘llll l

1293 02563 610