Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Public Understanding of Science
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
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
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Peters, H. P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

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

Hans Peter Peters

Research Centre Jülich, Postfach 1913, D-5170 Jülich, Federal Republic of Germany, University of Münster

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 credibility factors `expertise' and `trustworthiness', were important predictors of credibility. But beliefs and expectations recipients posess about individual sources also appear to influence credibility.

Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 1, No. 3, 325-343 (1992)
DOI: 10.1088/0963-6625/1/3/006
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    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.