This study examines how users rate credibility criteria on social Q&A platforms, revealing key predictors of trustworthiness and expertise.
Purpose This study aims to investigate how users assess the credibility of information on social question-and-answer (Q&A) platforms. This study builds on a social Q&A-specific Web credibility framework (Choi et al., 2023), integrating a two-dimensional model of credibility – trustworthiness and expertise (Hovland et al., 1953) – and three types of Web credibility cues and heuristics – author or community, content and design (Fogg, 2003). Design/methodology/approach Using online survey data from 598 users, the authors used exploratory factor analysis to identify ten credibility criteria across three categories: author or community, content and design. One-sample t-tests assessed the perceived importance of these criteria, and multiple regression analyses examined their associations with two core credibility dimensions – trustworthiness and expertise – while controlling for user characteristics. Findings Although the identified criteria were rated highly overall in conceptual importance (M = 3.92), only six – community reputation, appropriate design, moderation, engaging design, reference reliability and decency – were significantly associated with perceived trustworthiness, expertise or both. In contrast, traditionally valued criteria related to answer quality or author characteristics had limited predictive power. These findings support a refined, empirically grounded eight-criterion framework for credibility in social Q&A environments. Originality/value This study offers a data-driven update to a 21-criterion credibility model, identifying the most influential criteria in terms of conceptual importance and applicability in evaluating the trustworthiness and expertise of information on peer-based, collaborative platforms. Also, it suggests potential to extend the framework to emerging environments, such as generative artificial intelligence, where criteria like reference reliability remain relevant.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Choi et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: