| Source (credibility) effect 07:15 - Jun 29 with 9713 views | stainrods_elbow |
Am writing an article on this topic right now, with specific reference to social media platforms, and specifically football message boards.
The phenomenon refers to how people’s reactions, judgments, or acceptance of information vary depending on who delivers the message rather than just what is said. Factors include the speaker’s perceived authority, trustworthiness, likability, social status, or group membership.
Sometimes it’s also discussed in terms of:
(i) Message source bias
(ii) In-group/out-group effects (including online scapegoating)
(iii) Halo effect (where a person’s overall impression influences judgment of specific statements).
It's something I've noticed time and again on LfW, though i get the feeling that the perpetrators are totally unaware of it. I'm also interested in how it works the other way to, i.e. those individuals who consider themselves more qualified/professionalised/having higher 'status' etc. operate accordingly.
Would appreciate any thoughts, on or off board, from those who have an interest in the topic and/or expertise etc. [Post edited 29 Jun 7:19]
|  |
| |  |
| Source (credibility) effect on 21:44 - Jul 1 with 1832 views | stainrods_elbow |
| Source (credibility) effect on 20:57 - Jun 30 by LongsufferingR |
Don't worry about it. It's just a thread started by the OP to prove how far above everyone else he/she thinks he/she is. As usual. |
A sour and resentful reply I think says a great deal lot more about you than me. I talk about things that interest me with people that are interested in them. How do you live your life? | |
| |
| Source (credibility) effect on 21:46 - Jul 1 with 1832 views | stainrods_elbow |
| Source (credibility) effect on 22:55 - Jun 30 by Northernr |
To save me starting a new thread, I shall also be submitting a thesis on why bald 40-year-olds from Grimsby make the best lovers, and would welcome input either on here or DMs are open. Thanks lads. |
Yep, that'll help stir the pot interestingly. | |
| |
| Source (credibility) effect on 22:22 - Jul 1 with 1793 views | Dorse |
| Source (credibility) effect on 21:44 - Jul 1 by stainrods_elbow |
A sour and resentful reply I think says a great deal lot more about you than me. I talk about things that interest me with people that are interested in them. How do you live your life? |
I tend to clatter about breaking things, occasionally stopping to eat. Then I have a bit of a kip. |  |
| 'What do we want? We don't know! When do we want it? Now!' |
| |
| Source (credibility) effect on 22:41 - Jul 1 with 1756 views | Gus_iom |
| Source (credibility) effect on 22:22 - Jul 1 by Dorse |
I tend to clatter about breaking things, occasionally stopping to eat. Then I have a bit of a kip. |
You work for British Rail? |  |
| |
| Source (credibility) effect on 05:24 - Jul 2 with 1663 views | FDC |
| Source (credibility) effect on 20:49 - Jun 30 by stainrods_elbow |
You're completely missing the point of the thread, and what prompted it. Have you never heard of systems theory or twigged the systemic factors that position/protect people? It's absoutely clear that a person's popularity, position and perceived credibility mediates how what they say is received. People are held in the position they are, for better or worse, by a conspiracy of factors and forces - think about Jimmy Savile for a recent example. We don't just live in a world of individuals. If that were the case, the concept of, say, institutional racism would have no purchase - it would just be put down to 'bad apples'. To take another topic, toxic/coercive control, as I was discussing at a cultural event this weekend, would merely be a matter of individual behaviour, rather than held in place by a relational network, i.e sponsored by passivity, need, masochism etc.
These patterns, in my experience, are replicated in families, companies, cults and message boards. Some people are more equal than others, and always will be, as Orwell foresaw. Try reading Animal Farm! [Post edited 30 Jun 20:51]
|
Where's Simon Hedges when you need him |  | | |
| Source (credibility) effect on 09:50 - Jul 2 with 1573 views | R_from_afar |
"It's absoutely clear that a person's popularity, position and perceived credibility mediates how what they say is received".
I also believe this is true, trust plays a big part, but I think there is also a self-confidence issue in that not everyone feels comfortable arguing against a popular and/or highly credible figure, or one in a position of authority. I would have thought the self-confidence thing is less of a challenge in social media scenarios as opposed to face to face, though, because one is often anonymous and not in direct contact with those involved in the debate.
You could perhaps set up an off-topic poll on here, to get some quantitative data. Just a thought. Good luck with the article. |  |
| "Things had started becoming increasingly desperate at Loftus Road but QPR have been handed a massive lifeline and the place has absolutely erupted. it's carnage. It's bedlam. It's 1-1." |
| |
| Source (credibility) effect on 10:11 - Jul 2 with 1524 views | JimmyR |
Looking forward to reading the finished article…. It will no doubt be attracting worldwide interest | | | |
| Source (credibility) effect on 10:29 - Jul 2 with 1493 views | stainrods_elbow |
| Source (credibility) effect on 09:50 - Jul 2 by R_from_afar |
"It's absoutely clear that a person's popularity, position and perceived credibility mediates how what they say is received".
I also believe this is true, trust plays a big part, but I think there is also a self-confidence issue in that not everyone feels comfortable arguing against a popular and/or highly credible figure, or one in a position of authority. I would have thought the self-confidence thing is less of a challenge in social media scenarios as opposed to face to face, though, because one is often anonymous and not in direct contact with those involved in the debate.
You could perhaps set up an off-topic poll on here, to get some quantitative data. Just a thought. Good luck with the article. |
Thanks, man. It's actually a collaborative piece and might get worked up into a fuller study later when it's been through a peer review process. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Source (credibility) effect on 12:15 - Jul 2 with 1420 views | nick_hammersmith |
| Source (credibility) effect on 16:49 - Jun 30 by stainrods_elbow |
But that's the whole point - they're not, or not only. |
Joey Barton has to be the biggest exponent of this in relation to QPR/Football.
In his mind he had the skill of Messi, and I'm sure that belief was his and his only ;p |  | | |
| Source (credibility) effect on 12:26 - Jul 2 with 1381 views | stainrods_elbow |
| Source (credibility) effect on 12:15 - Jul 2 by nick_hammersmith |
Joey Barton has to be the biggest exponent of this in relation to QPR/Football.
In his mind he had the skill of Messi, and I'm sure that belief was his and his only ;p |
He's actually a good example, if anything, of a guy who's generated a ton of controversry - lots of (justified) bad publicity, for sure, but who is complex and whose complexity is contestable. Good journalism, and good writing, celebrates that. | |
| |
| Source (credibility) effect on 12:25 - Jul 3 with 1154 views | E15Hoop |
| Source (credibility) effect on 12:26 - Jul 2 by stainrods_elbow |
He's actually a good example, if anything, of a guy who's generated a ton of controversry - lots of (justified) bad publicity, for sure, but who is complex and whose complexity is contestable. Good journalism, and good writing, celebrates that. |
"Complex"??!! 
That word gives his behaviour a level of justification and credibility that it in no way deserves, as in "I'm so sorry, Your Honour, I tied so hard not to kick my wife in the head, but my foot developed a mind of its own which I just found it impossible to reason with. I'll definitely go to all the anger management courses that the British taxpayers have kindly paid for out of the goodness of their hearts, and I'm sure, in time I'll become a better man and tell everyone about the process I've gone through on as many social media platforms as I still have access to, and this will ensure that the next time I kick my wife in the head it definitely won't be quite so hard".
Complex, eh? I can think of a shorter word that begins with the letter c which would be somewhat more accurate, I would suggest. | | | |
| Source (credibility) effect on 12:55 - Jul 3 with 1111 views | W4Hoop |
| Source (credibility) effect on 12:26 - Jul 2 by stainrods_elbow |
He's actually a good example, if anything, of a guy who's generated a ton of controversry - lots of (justified) bad publicity, for sure, but who is complex and whose complexity is contestable. Good journalism, and good writing, celebrates that. |
He's a nob. But he's complex. Or is he? | | | |
| Source (credibility) effect on 13:06 - Jul 3 with 1077 views | JPC |
He’s a good example of how you monetize misogyny and racism. Straight out of the Tommy Robinson playbook. If you can find me an example of this so-called complexity that isn’t pseudo-intellectual bullshit, I’m all ears | | | |
| Source (credibility) effect on 13:15 - Jul 3 with 1061 views | kensalriser |
There's nothing complex about Barton. |  |
| |
| Source (credibility) effect on 14:48 - Jul 3 with 981 views | nick_hammersmith |
| Source (credibility) effect on 12:26 - Jul 2 by stainrods_elbow |
He's actually a good example, if anything, of a guy who's generated a ton of controversry - lots of (justified) bad publicity, for sure, but who is complex and whose complexity is contestable. Good journalism, and good writing, celebrates that. |
What a terrible take you have on this.
Joey Barton wants you to think he is complex, but he couldn't be more simple than an amoeba | | | |
| Source (credibility) effect on 16:28 - Jul 3 with 882 views | stainrods_elbow |
| Source (credibility) effect on 14:48 - Jul 3 by nick_hammersmith |
What a terrible take you have on this.
Joey Barton wants you to think he is complex, but he couldn't be more simple than an amoeba |
Sorry, I'll correct that. It isn't just Barton who's complex. We're ALL complex.
For me, it's those people who try to simplify and reduce people to black and white caricatures who are usually the most dangerous. Especially because they're often the ones who tell us they're the good guys/adults in the room. Barton is massively flawed, for sure, but to call him brainless is itself brainless.
I'm with the Plymouth Brethren, who refuse to sit on juries because they don't consider themselves (or indeed anyone) qualified to sit in judgment on other men as though they occupied some kind of god-given high ground.
If that's a 'terrible' take, I'm glad to be terrible. [Post edited 3 Jul 16:31]
| |
| |
| Source (credibility) effect on 16:30 - Jul 3 with 877 views | Northernr |
As an alternative point of view to add breadth and depth to the debate, it could also be said the people who kick their wife in the head are the most dangerous. |  | | |
| Source (credibility) effect on 16:42 - Jul 3 with 857 views | stainrods_elbow |
It depends on all the kinds of 'dangerous' in the world - see my remarks on the dangers of monolithic thinking (i.e that there's only one kind). Barton could be a bit dangerous in one way, and people who want to string him up dangerous in another.
Power, and its apparent abuses, are also always part of a dynamic; power isn't something any one person 'has'. Foucault is one writer who's analysed this for people who are interested in philosophy. Interestingly, Barton's wife (who initally retracted her allegations) is staying with/standing by him. In court, the magistrate 'said a mitigating factor was that the couple remained in a "happy relationship" with a young child, adding: "That is not something I want to interfere with."'
I don't know what happened, and how, just like everyone else, so I'll reserve judgment (which also tends to make room for more interesting conversation, I find).
PS I presume Barton isn't on your interview list anytime soon, Northern, but I'd be fascinated to see how you'd approach him as an investigative journalist. [Post edited 3 Jul 16:46]
| |
| |
| Source (credibility) effect on 16:49 - Jul 3 with 843 views | charmr |
I miss those complex threads about Les, Marti and every time a poor result, and that’s coming from a simpleton. [Post edited 3 Jul 16:51]
| | | |
| Source (credibility) effect on 16:59 - Jul 3 with 821 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
I think I drove a Peugeot Foucault once. |  | | |
| Source (credibility) effect on 16:59 - Jul 3 with 820 views | KensalT |
| Source (credibility) effect on 16:28 - Jul 3 by stainrods_elbow |
Sorry, I'll correct that. It isn't just Barton who's complex. We're ALL complex.
For me, it's those people who try to simplify and reduce people to black and white caricatures who are usually the most dangerous. Especially because they're often the ones who tell us they're the good guys/adults in the room. Barton is massively flawed, for sure, but to call him brainless is itself brainless.
I'm with the Plymouth Brethren, who refuse to sit on juries because they don't consider themselves (or indeed anyone) qualified to sit in judgment on other men as though they occupied some kind of god-given high ground.
If that's a 'terrible' take, I'm glad to be terrible. [Post edited 3 Jul 16:31]
|
Juries decide questions of fact.
Questions of law and all matters relating to mitigation, good character etc are considered by the judge. Not the jury.
And then there's the court of public opinion. And I think the public generally takes a dim view of repeat offenders, particularly ones who direct their violence at women, kids, or the odd pedestrian
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/34072706/joey-barton-vile-thug/ | | | |
| Source (credibility) effect on 17:02 - Jul 3 with 815 views | Northernr |
| Source (credibility) effect on 16:42 - Jul 3 by stainrods_elbow |
It depends on all the kinds of 'dangerous' in the world - see my remarks on the dangers of monolithic thinking (i.e that there's only one kind). Barton could be a bit dangerous in one way, and people who want to string him up dangerous in another.
Power, and its apparent abuses, are also always part of a dynamic; power isn't something any one person 'has'. Foucault is one writer who's analysed this for people who are interested in philosophy. Interestingly, Barton's wife (who initally retracted her allegations) is staying with/standing by him. In court, the magistrate 'said a mitigating factor was that the couple remained in a "happy relationship" with a young child, adding: "That is not something I want to interfere with."'
I don't know what happened, and how, just like everyone else, so I'll reserve judgment (which also tends to make room for more interesting conversation, I find).
PS I presume Barton isn't on your interview list anytime soon, Northern, but I'd be fascinated to see how you'd approach him as an investigative journalist. [Post edited 3 Jul 16:46]
|
I would rather suck a fart out of John Prescott's corpse. | | | |
| Source (credibility) effect on 17:03 - Jul 3 with 807 views | FDC |
I'm confident Foucault would think Barton is a massive, uncomplicated cúnt [Post edited 3 Jul 17:04]
| | | |
| Source (credibility) effect on 17:04 - Jul 3 with 822 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
| Source (credibility) effect on 17:03 - Jul 3 by FDC |
I'm confident Foucault would think Barton is a massive, uncomplicated cúnt [Post edited 3 Jul 17:04]
|
Yeah, this was my first thought. | | | |
| Source (credibility) effect on 17:29 - Jul 3 with 791 views | BklynRanger |
| Source (credibility) effect on 17:03 - Jul 3 by FDC |
I'm confident Foucault would think Barton is a massive, uncomplicated cúnt [Post edited 3 Jul 17:04]
|
LOL! |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
