Content Versus Source Cue Information as a Basis for Credibility Judgments

Basic assumptions of dual-process theories are used to explain the process of credibility attribution. Three experiments test the assumption that high task involvement leads to intensive processing of content information, whereas low task involvement leads to the use of noncontent information like source cues when people make credibility judgments. In Experiment 1, as predicted, when task involvement is low, only source attractiveness influences credibility attributions; when task involvement is high, content information also influences credibility attributions. Experiments 2 and 3 replicate these results with different source cue and message content manipulations. These findings demonstrate the fruitfulness of applying basic assumptions of dual-process theories to the field of deceptive communication research. Practical implications for forensic credibility assessment are outlined.