Public Understanding of Science

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Peters, H P
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 1, No. 3, 325-343 (1992)
DOI: 10.1088/0963-6625/1/3/006
© 1992 SAGE Publications

The credibility of information sources in West Germany after the Chernobyl disaster

H P Peters

Program Group Humans, Environment, Society of the Research Centre Julich, Germany

In West Germany the 'information disaster' after Chernobyl offered an opportunity to study the credibility of different information sources. A representative survey conducted in May 1987 of the West German population showed that on average the Federal Government - although heavily criticized because of its information policy and risk management - was rated most credible while the nuclear industry was judged least credible. On the whole, mean credibility ratings differed surprisingly little between sources; ratings of competence and public interest orientation varied more. These variables, interpreted as the classical credibilty factors 'expertise' and 'trustworthiness', were important predictors of credibility. But beliefs and expectations recipients possess about individual sources also appear to influence credibility.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Science CommunicationHome page
M. F. WEIGOLD
Communicating Science: A Review of the Literature
Science Communication, December 1, 2001; 23(2): 164 - 193.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Science CommunicationHome page
J. MARQUART, G. J. O'KEEFE, and A. C. GUNTHER
Believing in Biotech: Farmers' Perceptions of the Credibility of BGH Information Sources
Science Communication, June 1, 1995; 16(4): 388 - 402.
[Abstract]


Home page
Media Culture SocietyHome page
H. P. Peters
The interaction of journalists and scientific experts: co-operation and conflict between two professional cultures
Media Culture Society, January 1, 1995; 17(1): 31 - 48.