The effects of human versus computer authorship on consumers' perceptions of psychological reports

Andrews, Lester; Gutkin, Terry B.

doi:10.1016/0747-5632(91)90018-v

Cited by 11 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They found that highly experienced users may be overly skeptical and that inexperienced users tend to over‐rely on suggestions from computers, as compared to a control condition with mimeographed lists of the same suggestions. This finding is consistent with an early belief among researchers that users are likely to be “in awe” of computers, viewing them as credible in a wide range of domains (Pancer, George, & Gebotys, 1992); however, subsequent experimental research has shown little evidence for this belief (e.g., Andrews & Gutkin, 1991; Wærn & Ramberg, 1996).…”

Section: Multidimensional Approaches To Credibilitysupporting

confidence: 84%

Credibility: A multidisciplinary framework

Rieh

Danielson

2007

Annual Review Info Sci & Tec

283

218

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionThis chapter reviews the theoretical and empirical literature on the concept of credibility and its areas of application relevant to information science and technology, encompassing several disciplinary approaches. An information seeker's environment-the Internet, television, newspapers, schools, libraries, bookstores, and social networks-abounds with information resources that need to be evaluated for both their usefulness and their likely level of accuracy. As people gain access to a wider variety of information resources, they face greater uncertainty regarding who and what can be believed and, indeed, who or what is responsible for the information they encounter. Moreover, they have to develop new skills and strategies for determining how to assess the credibility of an information source. Historically, the credibility of information has been maintained largely by professional knowledge workers such as editors, reviewers, publishers, news reporters, and librarians. Today, quality control mechanisms are evolving in such a way that a vast amount of information accessed through a wide variety of systems and resources is out of date, incomplete, poorly organized, or simply inaccurate (Janes & Rosenfeld, 1996).Credibility has been examined across a number of fields ranging from communication, information science, psychology, marketing, and the management sciences to interdisciplinary efforts in human-computer interaction (HCI). Each field has examined the construct and its practical significance using fundamentally different approaches, goals, and presuppositions, all of which results in conflicting views of credibility and its effects. The notion of credibility has been discussed at least since Aristotle's examination of ethos and his observations of speakers' relative abilities to persuade listeners. Disciplinary approaches to investigating credibility systematically developed only in the last century, beginning within the field of communication.

show abstract

Section: Multidimensional Approaches To Credibilitysupporting

confidence: 84%

Credibility: A multidisciplinary framework

Rieh

Danielson

2007

Annual Review Info Sci & Tec

283

218

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Andrews and Gutkin () examined educators’ perceptions of computer‐generated versus psychologist‐written psychological reports and found no difference in quality or credibility by authorship. They also failed to find a difference in diagnostic impressions and confidence in findings by authorship.…”

Section: Included Studies’ Results Discussion and Research Recommenmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The use of technical jargon in psychological reports has been discussed and investigated for some time and this review found teachers’ to mostly favor and better understand reports with less technical jargon. While most research found reports written with less jargon to be rated as more useful and comprehensible (Wiese et al, ), some research found no effect or reports with heavy jargon to be rated as more useful, professional, and understandable (Andrews & Gutkin, ; Fletcher et al, ; Raforth & Richmond, ). One study found teachers were dissatisfied with the high degree of technical jargon used in psychological reports (Rahill, ).…”

Section: Included Studies’ Results Discussion and Research Recommenmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The majority of teachers were recruited from school districts (n = 12) and some (n = 7) were recruited from university courses, university-sponsored training/workshops, and school-university partnerships. Andrews and Gutkin (1991) examined educatorsʼ perceptions of computer-generated versus psychologist-written psychological reports and found no difference in quality or credibility by authorship. They also failed to find a difference in diagnostic impressions and confidence in findings by authorship.…”

Section: Participants and Settingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Teachers’ preferences and perceptions of the psychological report: A systematic review

Umaña

Khosraviyani²,

Castro‐Villarreal

2020

Psychology in the Schools

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This review summarizes primary studies on teachers’ preferences and perceptions of the psychological report. A systematic search identified 19 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. These studies were evaluated in terms of (a) psychological report section focus, (b) methodology, (c) research results, (d) discussion, and (e) recommendations. Across the 19 studies, 1,309 general and special education teachers indicated and rated their preferences and perceptions of the psychological report. In terms of the entire psychological report and especially the report recommendations, teachers preferred longer, descriptive, and more detailed reports. Teachers preferred reports that provided enough detail to aid in individualized education planning and recommendation and intervention implementation. Teachers also preferred reports written in integrated theme‐based formats as opposed to test‐by‐test formats. Teachers rated the level of detail and degree of psychological jargon used in reports as currently unsatisfactory. This review summarizes teacher preferences and identifies report features that aid in report comprehension and also provides a research basis from which to inform training and practice in psychological report writing.

show abstract

“…They found that highly experienced users may be overly skeptical and that inexperienced users tend to over-rely on suggestions from computers, as compared to a control condition with mimeographed lists of the same suggestions. This finding fits with an early belief among researchers that users are likely to be "in awe" of computers, viewing them as credible in a wide range of domains (Pancer, 1992), but later experiments show little evidence for this belief (Andrews and Gutkin, 1991;Waern and Ramberg, 1996 (Singletary, 1976) and (Vandenbergh, Soley, and Reid, 1981) asked participants in their studies to imagine a specific high-credibility source (in Singletary's case, a news person; in VandenBergh et al's, an advertiser) and to list as many terms as possible that, in the participant's view, gave credibility to that source. Other researchers either sampled the existing literature to create a list of candidate terms based upon their review or relied upon intuition.…”

Section: Contexts Affect Credibility Constructssupporting

confidence: 74%

Attributes of Identity Document Credibility: A Synthesis of Expert Knowledge

Henry¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effects of human versus computer authorship on consumers' perceptions of psychological reports

Cited by 11 publications

References 26 publications

Credibility: A multidisciplinary framework

Credibility: A multidisciplinary framework

Teachers’ preferences and perceptions of the psychological report: A systematic review

Attributes of Identity Document Credibility: A Synthesis of Expert Knowledge

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About