How and why Anonymous Attribution is Used by Time and Newsweek

The Anonymity Effect: The Influence of Anonymity on Perceptions of Sources and Information on Health Websites

“…Evidence consistent with the anonymity effect can be found in the body of research examining the use of anonymous and veiled sources in the news (Adams, 1962;Esposito, 1999;Fedler & Counts, 1981;Riffe, 1980;Wulfemeyer, 1985;Wulfmeyer & McFadden, 1986). Cloaked or veiled sources referring to an institution (e.g., ''the government'') or individual (e.g., ''a political leader'') have consistently been rated as credible by newspaper readers when cited in the context of a news story (Adams, 1962;Riffe, 1980).…”

“…Further, there is a great deal of consistency in the reasons given for communicating anonymously. Research into whistle-blowing (Near & Miceli, 1995) and performance feedback (Westerman & Rosse, 1997) in organizations, decision-making groups (Pinsonneault & Heppel, 1997), interpersonal relationships (McKenna & Bargh, 2000), politics (Erickson & Fleuriet, 1991), journalism (Wulfemeyer, 1985;Wulfemeyer & McFadden, 1986), and health information on the Web (Cline & Haynes, 2001) all suggests that anonymity offers a measure of protection. Anonymity allows message senders to communicate an idea or information without the consequences*ranging from a face threat to personal retribution or legal action*of having the information attributed to them.…”

“…Fedler and Counts (1981) found that a story with a veiled source was perceived to be as significant as the same story with an identified source, and more significant than when no source was used or when two opposing sources were quoted. Wulfemeyer (1985) offered an explanation for the preceding findings, arguing that message receivers ''recognize the 'cloaking' of sources and accept the practice'' (p. 82). The research into veiled sources in news suggests that anonymous sources are likely to be viewed as being as credible as those sources who are identified and that the general public is aware of the reasons why one may communicate anonymously or have one's identity concealed.…”

To Identify or Not to Identify: A Theoretical Model of Receiver Responses to Anonymous Communication

“…Third, the two contexts differ in the degree to which anonymity may be considered normative. In mass communication contexts, receivers are somewhat regularly exposed to anonymous communication (see Wulfemeyer, 1985; Wulfemeyer & McFadden, 1986). Anonymous editorials and sources are a long‐standing tradition—and a source of debate (see Froomkin, 1999; Hopkins, 1889, 1890)—in journalism.…”

“…Although anonymity has been studied for over a century (Hopkins 1889(Hopkins , 1890LeBon, 1896), research on the topic is largely fragmented. Anonymity is typically examined in a specific context such as group decision making (e.g., Pinsonneault & Heppel, 1997), journalism (e.g., Wulfemeyer, 1985), presidential rhetoric (e.g., Erickson & Fleuriet, 1991), or whistle-blowing (e.g., Near & Miceli, 1995). With the exception of two noteworthy theoretical pieces (Anonymous, 1998;Marx, 1999), few extensive attempts have been made to identify the central features of anonymous communication.…”