141
9
Support: Credibility
CHAPTER
KEY TERMS
ethos , p. 142
credibility, p. 142
competence, p. 142
trustworthy, p. 143
good will, p. 143
dynamism, p. 143
homophily, p. 142
direct credibility, p. 144
secondary credibility, p. 145
indirect credibility, p. 146
reputation, p. 146
The Great Recession that hit the world in the early part of the twenty-first
century created a crisis of confidence that made recovery extremely difficult.
Financial institutions, banks, housing lenders, and others were accused of
having misled investors by saying investments were sound when they knew that was
not true. They sold securities to customers even as they were betting that the securi-
ties would soon prove to be almost worthless. Some big institutions made enormous
profits as millions of people lost money and some venerable firms went out of busi-
ness or were bought out by competitors. Rating agencies such as Moody’s or Standard
James M. Kouzes and Barry Z. Posner, researchers into business leadership, argue,
“Managers, we believe, get other people to do, but leaders get other people to want to do.
Leaders do this first of all by being credible. That is the foundation of all leadership. They
establish this credibility by their actions” (276). So, in at least one major sphere of argu-
mentation, business, credibility is a major factor. But credibility , as Kouzes and Pozner
M09_RIEK0596_08_SE_C09.indd Page 141 1/5/12 10:18 PM user-f501M09_RIEK0596_08_SE_C09.indd Page 141 1/5/12 10:18 PM user-f501 F-401F-401
142 PART 2 Tools
argue, is not “some gift from the gods (as charisma is defined) but a set of identifiable
(and hence learnable) practices, strategies, and behaviors” (275).
Whereas credibility may serve as a claim in argumentation, its most important role
is as a means to support a claim, just as evidence ( Chapter 7 ) and values ( Chapter 8 )
do. You will see as you read this chapter that credibility is closely related to evidence
and values.
It is also worth noting that ethos is used to refer to the spirit of a whole culture as
well as to individual character. The characteristics that Aristotle defined for the speaker
are characteristics that will make the speaker compatible with the group, and these char-
acteristics, “wisdom, virtue, and good will,” are values that are approved of by decision
makers, at least in Aristotle’s day and probably today as well.
CHARACTERISTICS OF CREDIBILITY
Modern social scientists have worked to find an empirical definition for credibility.
Although there are differences among their studies, their judgments are not much differ-
ent from Aristotle’s. It is reasonable, therefore, to use Aristotle as a basis and, adapting to
modern research on the subject, define credibility as the support for a claim that is devel-
oped by the decision makers’ perception that the arguer reveals competence, trustworthi-
ness, good will, and dynamism .
whom you perceive to be similar to you in one or more ways, you may find them more
credible. This is called homophily . There are some characteristics, then, about decision
makers’ perceptions that serve as a broad basis for the credibility judgments they make.
So, we will examine the most often-perceived characteristics of credibility: competence,
trustworthiness, and to a lesser extent, good will and dynamism. And, we will report
on recent social science research that finds homophily (similarity) to be a driver of cred-
ibility judgments.
Competence and Trustworthiness
A primary dimension that decision makers seek out is competence. A variety of value
words have been used since ancient times as synonyms for competence : wisdom, sagac-
M09_RIEK0596_08_SE_C09.indd Page 142 1/5/12 10:18 PM user-f501M09_RIEK0596_08_SE_C09.indd Page 142 1/5/12 10:18 PM user-f501 F-401F-401
CHAPTER 9 Support: Credibility 143
Persons who are perceived as trustworthy also have high credibility. In the litera-
ture on credibility since classical times, other value words have been used to define the
meaning of trustworthy : virtue, probity, character, evaluative, honest, sincere , and safe .
Common sense is that ideas are more readily accepted from persons you trust.
Good Will and Dynamism
The first two dimensions of credibility—competence and trustworthiness—are discussed
by all writers. Two other factors—each of which is accepted by some and not by other
writers—are good will and dynamism . Value terms such as open-minded, objective, im-
partial, kind, friendly , and caring have been used to characterize the good will dimension.
Dynamism , the only one of the four terms to be strictly modern, is characterized by words
such as showmanship, enthusiasm, inspiration , and forcefulness .
It is easy to see how the research might have shown either good will or dynamism to
be weak or nonexistent as separate dimensions. Good will could easily be classified as a
subcategory of trustworthiness. People find trustworthy those persons whom they per-
ceive to have good will toward them. Likewise, dynamism, when it functions in a positive
However, dynamism has a feature not possessed by competence, trustworthiness, or
even good will. Dynamism may be perceived negatively. The overly enthusiastic salesper-
son who calls at dinnertime promising a way for you to save money on your car insurance
and persists even when you aren’t interested is dynamic (“You mean you don’t want to
save money?”) but not credible to many people.
Although individuals’ definitions of credibility vary, there is enough agreement to
identify decision makers’ judgments of trustworthiness, competence, and good will as
support for a claim. With some reservation about overdoing it, dynamism also serves as a
credibility factor in support of a claim.
Homophily (Similarity)
Homophily, or the degree of similarity you perceive between yourself and the per-
son making the argument, has been considered a factor in persuasion for many years
(McCroskey et al.). It is claimed that the more you find the arguer to be similar to
you, the more you are likely to accept the argument. Research in health communication
has examined the way people use the Internet in seeking health information. This has
raised a potential conflict among dimensions of credibility. Traditionally, people have
looked to health professionals for medical advice because they were considered to be
most competent. But, on second thought, people have always talked among themselves
M09_RIEK0596_08_SE_C09.indd Page 143 1/5/12 10:18 PM user-f501M09_RIEK0596_08_SE_C09.indd Page 143 1/5/12 10:18 PM user-f501 F-401F-401
144 PART 2 Tools
about health concerns and often followed that advice because they thought it came from
people who were trustworthy and had their goodwill in mind. Moreover, doctors have
been perceived as notoriously distant, hypertechnical, and uncommunicative—thereby
damaging their credibility (Harris).
Online sources for health information range from, “Web sites run by organizations,
home pages owned by individual doctors, online support groups where people actively ex-
change health information, and blogs authored by health advocates, caregivers, or those
FORMS OF CREDIBILITY
What decision makers know about an arguer’s reputation will influence their percep-
tions of the claim. For instance, at the first meeting of your argumentation class, most
of the members of the class probably know little about you. Your reputation is probably
minimal. As time goes on in the class, they know more and more about you. You develop
a reputation. An arguer’s reputation is important to credibility but cannot be changed
instantly. Therefore, what you do to develop credibility in your argument is most impor-
Direct Credibility
The most obvious form of credibility is what we call direct credibility . This is the kind of
credibility that you develop by making direct statements about yourself.
Every arguer brings a reputation to the decision making process. The president of the
United States, the Speaker of the House, a company executive, an embezzler, a musical
performer, and a prominent athlete each has a reputation: the opinion that decision mak-
ers have about a person’s credibility before that person begins to argue. Advertisements
for products frequently feature celebrities because of the images they have before they
make the argument: their reputations.
Hawai’i is a state separated from the rest of the world both by miles of Pacific Ocean and
a distinct culture. Andrew Gomes, writing in the Honolulu Advertiser , says, “Being perceived
as ‘local’ is a sensitive and valuable quality for companies doing business in Hawai’i. It’s the
Good Housekeeping Seal of kama’aina” (a true resident, in contrast to outsiders). This is so,
Gomes reports, because the Native Hawaiian host culture is joined by an ethnically diverse
population, all of whom have grown up together. If the person or company advancing an
argument can provide direct evidence of local roots, credibility is likely to follow.
When Clint Arnoldus, the chief executive of Central Pacific Bank, criticized rival First
Hawaiian Bank as being less than local, First Hawaiian Bank’s chief executive Walter
Dods responded giving direct evidence of his local credentials. He said he was born and
raised in Hawai’i, was a graduate of a prominent local high school (Saint Louis), and
M09_RIEK0596_08_SE_C09.indd Page 144 1/5/12 10:18 PM user-f501M09_RIEK0596_08_SE_C09.indd Page 144 1/5/12 10:18 PM user-f501 F-401F-401
CHAPTER 9 Support: Credibility 145
that, unlike Arnoldus, he had not just gotten off the boat from California. His final proof
was a challenge to Mr. Arnoldus to a debate in pidgin, a language that combines bits and
pieces of many languages and is not likely to be spoken by anyone who is not kama’aina.
Arnoldus did not accept the challenge.
Accounting firms were among the most damaged entities in business and financial
scandals early in this century. Some accountants, who were supposed to be the guardians
of honesty, accuracy, and fairness, were exposed as co-conspirators in dishonest dealings.
PriceWaterhouseCoopers, wanting to distance themselves from the discredited accounting
firms, engaged in direct credibility through an advertising supplement in Business Week .
Under a heading of “truth as a business opportunity,” they list a series of shareholder
rights such as meaningful information, explanations of numbers in plain language, and
Secondary Credibility
We call another form of credibility secondary credibility . The arguer uses another per-
son’s credibility as the grounds for the argument, thus the term secondary . By associating
the credibility of someone else with yourself, you strengthen your own credibility.
Online health information seeking reflects a complex process of assigning credibility.
A 2005 Pew survey revealed that more than a third of respondents believe that informa-
tion on the Internet cannot be trusted (Wang et al.). So, how do people select health in-
formation they feel they can trust? They use primary credibility by judging the credentials
A problem inexperienced arguers frequently miss is that credibility is not enhanced
for decision makers simply because the argument is supported by a number of well-known
people and agencies. Prominent people are not necessarily credible. The National Fluid
Milk Processor Promotion Board sponsors ads that argue that people should drink milk.
Each ad features a celebrity with a milk mustache and the slogan, “Got milk?” Athlete
David Beckham, actress Elizabeth Hurley, Superman, and other celebrities were featured
in the ad campaign. The celebrities drew our attention to the ads, but the real question
was whether they did anything to increase milk consumption. A study published by Milk
ProCon.org entitled, “Milk Consumption Compared to Milk Advertising, 1978–2005,”
revealed that milk consumption fell steadily during the ad campaign and did not vary as
more or less money was spent on advertising.
Think of the reputation the quoted person has with decision makers. You may want
to review the discussion in Chapter 7 about testimony evidence. At this point, you should
M09_RIEK0596_08_SE_C09.indd Page 145 1/5/12 10:18 PM user-f501M09_RIEK0596_08_SE_C09.indd Page 145 1/5/12 10:18 PM user-f501 F-401F-401
146 PART 2 Tools
be able to see the close connection between evidence and credibility as forms of support
for a claim. Secondary credibility is established from the testimony of sources the decision
makers respect, not necessarily from the testimony of well-known sources.
Indirect Credibility
Unlike direct and secondary credibility, you develop indirect credibility without using
the testimony of authorities or direct personal statements about your experiences that
illustrate your trustworthiness, competence, or good will. Indirect credibility is developed
by the way you develop, support, and argue your claims. The evidence and values you
use influence decision makers’ perceptions about you. The more effectively you argue, the
GENERAL PRINCIPLES FOR THE USE OF CREDIBILITY
The credibility you generate to support your claims—direct, secondary, or indirect—can
play an important part in the response you get. However, there are no easy rules for
how you should use it because this changes as decision makers and spheres change. Like
beauty, it is in the eye of the beholder. Still, there are some general principles of credibility
that apply to most situations.
Develop Credibility from Reputation
Reputation is the credibility you have with decision makers before you argue. It may be
influenced by the success you are perceived to have (Andersen and Clevenger 73) and by
the perception that you are from the same group as the decision makers (Andersen 220;
Myers and Goldberg 174–179).
O. J. Simpson, who was acquitted of the murder of his wife and her male friend many
years ago, decided to publish a book under the title If I Did It . It was not to be a confes-
sion but a hypothetical account of how he might have committed the crimes. When the
public learned of this plan, many were outraged at his seeking to profit from tragedy, and
they criticized the publisher, who decided to cancel the book. His editor at the publishing
house of HarperCollins, Judith Regan, said, “I made the decision to publish this book,
and to sit face to face with the killer, because I wanted him, and the men who broke my
heart and yours, to tell the truth . . . and to amend their lives. Amen” (Carr). Simpson’s
M09_RIEK0596_08_SE_C09.indd Page 146 1/5/12 10:18 PM user-f501M09_RIEK0596_08_SE_C09.indd Page 146 1/5/12 10:18 PM user-f501 F-401F-401
CHAPTER 9 Support: Credibility 147
A person who comes to an argumentative situation with a favorable reputation in the area
of the argument has an advantage over one who does not. Yet, the person with a good
reputation can make mistakes to damage his or her credibility. So, it is important to
Men’s Health is a magazine that caters to young men who perceive themselves (or
want to be perceived) as masculine, adventurous, sexy, and daring. In a section called,
“Men’s Health Challenge—We Dare You to Try This,” Bill Stump, under the title “Scull
Session,” wants to challenge readers to, “Leave the silly canoe at home this weekend. It’s
time to row a real boat.” To develop his own reputation as willing to take a challenge,
he begins his article by reporting his own experience: “The jockstrap full of cold river
water actually relaxed me. I was learning to scull—a 50-cent word for rowing a $5,000
boat—and had been preoccupied with the thought of falling in” (103). He goes on to
detail his own learning experience, which did not turn out so bad, and ends with a set of
instructions for his readers to follow, his credibility strengthened by the implied, “If I can
do it, so can you.”
Be Sincere
Sincerity is probably the most commonly mentioned characteristic of credibility. It would
seem a simple rule that to build credibility one should be sincere, but there is clear evi-
dence that sincerity cannot be determined by decision makers (Andersen and Clevenger;
Eisinger and Mills). But people believe they can judge sincerity or insincerity.
In preparation for the 2012 presidential election, a group of Republicans was com-
peting for the opportunity to oppose President Barack Obama. At one point, the front
runner was former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney who worked diligently to
convince people of his sincerity. However, he was constantly confronted with an ap-
parent shift in position regarding health care as he attacked the Obama administration
health law and sought to distance himself from a similar plan in Massachusetts enacted
when he was governor. Inconsistency, he found, is associated with insincerity in the
minds of many people.
M09_RIEK0596_08_SE_C09.indd Page 147 1/5/12 10:18 PM user-f501M09_RIEK0596_08_SE_C09.indd Page 147 1/5/12 10:18 PM user-f501 F-401F-401
148 PART 2 Tools
Take care to avoid obvious signs that you mean to manipulate the decision makers.
When you have a bias, and it is known, a clear and honest identification of it may actu-
ally advance your credibility. Decision makers usually put greater trust in the person who
openly admits a bias. It is the decision makers’ discovery of covert bias that is most dam-
aging to sincerity (Mills and Aronson).
Identify with Decision Makers’ Values
Perhaps the strongest means of indirect credibility is the arguer’s identification with the
values of the decision makers. A more complete discussion of social values and their role
in argumentation is in Chapter 8 .
When you address issues, you will be taking some positions with which some deci-
sion makers disagree. That result is to be expected, and you will lose credibility if you try
to agree with the audience on every point. Such a strategy will be transparent, and your
sincerity will be questioned. A chameleon-like approach is in sharp contrast to what we
mean by identification with decision makers’ values.
Remember that audiences are collections of individuals. You can define a group of
decision makers as an entity (“This is a Republican audience,” “This is an audience of
concerned parents,” “This audience is pro-choice”), but this is your definition. The mem-
bers are still individuals, and though they have some things in common, they are not iden-
tical. Furthermore, many audiences are segmented. Because it is “a Republican audience”
does not mean they all agree on taxes, education, welfare, or foreign policy.
You must, of course, search for common ground with the majority of decision mak-
ers. Find as many points as you can on which to agree. Most important, show that your
proposal is in keeping with their values (Reinard 44). Or construct a system of values
showing clearly that, although your proposal is contrary to some of their values, it is still
A new medical clinic should be established in Porterville because it would bring new
medical specialties into the town that are not now there (health—medical people). It will
provide services for people who find it difficult to drive to other cities (safety, health—eld-
None of these values is likely to be questioned by any segment of the audience,
yet each has a particular appeal to a particular segment. Identifying with decision
M09_RIEK0596_08_SE_C09.indd Page 148 1/5/12 10:18 PM user-f501M09_RIEK0596_08_SE_C09.indd Page 148 1/5/12 10:18 PM user-f501 F-401F-401
CHAPTER 9 Support: Credibility 149
makers’ values can be complex at times but usually can be done without damage to
your credibility.
The use of strong value-intensive arguments, in which heavy and repeated use of
directly stated values dominates the argument, may have a negative effect on credibility.
The research on fear appeals (e.g., appeals to fear of murder, rape, or mutilation) illu-
Use Evidence to Build Credibility
Evidence appears to strengthen credibility, especially of a low-credibility arguer, and par-
ticularly if the evidence is not known to the decision makers (McCroskey 175). This idea
is easy to understand. A highly credible arguer is much more likely than an arguer with
lower credibility to be effective using assertion without evidence.
An interesting example of this is a speech by Alan Greenspan, former chair of the U.S.
Federal Reserve Board, to an economic conference in Washington, DC. He used no direct or
secondary credibility. His only mention of himself was at the opening of the speech when he
People are less likely to wonder, “Where did you get that idea?” or “How do you know
that is true if you have high credibility?” Consequently, evidence becomes more important to
a person with less credibility. One study shows that with apathetic decision makers, it takes
twice as much evidence for an arguer with modest credibility to produce a movement toward
adherence as it does for an arguer with high credibility (Lashbrook et al. 262). Furthermore,
evidence in the form of examples that are close to decision makers’ experiences are more
believable and, therefore, are more likely to enhance perceived credibility.
An authoritative source connected to an argument will make that argument more
believable. Studies show that an authoritative group has higher credibility than an
authoritative individual (Andersen and Clevenger 71; Myers and Goldberg; Ostermeier;
Warren). An interesting phenomenon known as a sleeper effect seems to operate in the
use of authoritative sources as secondary credibility. A source with high credibility tends
Use Organization to Build Credibility
Well-organized cases may not increase credibility, but disorganized ones clearly weaken
it, especially for low-credibility arguers. Furthermore, showing disorganization by using
M09_RIEK0596_08_SE_C09.indd Page 149 1/5/12 10:18 PM user-f501M09_RIEK0596_08_SE_C09.indd Page 149 1/5/12 10:18 PM user-f501 F-401F-401
150 PART 2 Tools
phrases such as “I should have mentioned this earlier” creates the impression that speak-
ers are disorganized and, therefore, less credible (Baker; McCroskey and Mehrley; Sharp
and McClung).
Second, a small group of well-developed arguments is preferable to a large number
of unsupported arguments. Unsupported arguments invite decision makers to concentrate
on their weaknesses. Well-developed arguments imply greater competence on your part.
They also should be the arguments that are closest to decision makers’ experience and
knowledge. Thus, you are seen as having developed the most important issues.
Recent research puts a more nuanced interpretation on the instruction to use a two-
sided argument. Martin Eisend reports that when decision makers are under a cognitive
load (are engaged in other cognitive tasks or otherwise distracted by such things as time
pressure), “a two sided message clearly enhances brand attitudes compared to a one-sided
message” (4). This is not so true for decision makers who are not under a cognitive load.
Argue Issues, Not People
It is easy, when argumentation leads to sharp differences of opinion, to believe that your
opponent is not fair, is biased, or has ulterior motives. Resist this tendency. Center your
argument on your claims; let your credibility show. Attempts to attack the credibility
of an opponent have been shown to weaken, not strengthen, credibility. In one study,
persons who initiated such attacks were seen by decision makers as less credible with less
acceptable arguments, whereas the credibility of the person attacked was rated higher
(Infante et al. 1993, 188–189).
M09_RIEK0596_08_SE_C09.indd Page 150 1/5/12 10:18 PM user-f501M09_RIEK0596_08_SE_C09.indd Page 150 1/5/12 10:18 PM user-f501 F-401F-401
CHAPTER 9 Support: Credibility 151
qualify attacks on opponents’ credibility, emphasizing their records and positions on the
issues. Direct attacks on a candidate’s credibility are usually made by others, not the
candidates themselves.
Understand Credibility as Dynamic
You must realize that the process of argumentation is dynamic. Decision makers reject or
accept your arguments based on the interaction of credibility, values, evidence, and argu-
ments that are both internal and external to the argumentation.
After studying two decades of credibility research, Jesse Delia concludes that the lack of
consistent results can be explained in part by the failure to measure what takes place during
the argumentative exchange itself. He says, “It is necessary to recognize that the communica-
tor’s image will, at least in part, consist of constructions made during the interaction itself”
A friend had just about convinced you to see a movie that she thought was great
when another friend whom you consider an expert joins the conversation to point out the
many flaws in the picture. Credibility granted on the basis of the first friend’s opinion dis-
solves in the presence of an expert (Delia 375).
Decision makers are not given neat choices between highly competent and trustwor-
thy arguers who show good will and are dynamic, versus their opposites. Thus, cred-
ibility is a composite of responses to the dimensions, and it may change even as the mes-
sage is being received. Readers may know nothing of an author, but as they read a book
The whole process of decision making, from the highest level down through the single
minor argument, constantly changes in the interaction among the elements that make it
up. What we see when we talk about particular functions of credibility are arbitrarily
frozen bits of information. Decision makers see a generalization or a movement in argu-
mentation in which all the factors are seen together and simultaneously. They are always
related to a particular argument, the arguers, the circumstance, and the decision makers.
In politics, this is called image .
Your reputation is a benchmark of your credibility. No matter how limited it may be
with the decision makers, it is the basis on which credibility is built. To make your argu-
SPHERE DEPENDENCE OF CREDIBILITY
Credibility is a dynamic process that must be seen in relation to particular circumstances,
so different spheres of argumentation develop various standards for credibility. General
M09_RIEK0596_08_SE_C09.indd Page 151 1/5/12 10:18 PM user-f501M09_RIEK0596_08_SE_C09.indd Page 151 1/5/12 10:18 PM user-f501 F-401F-401
152 PART 2 Tools
principles such as those we have discussed will hold for most situations. They are modi-
fied, however, by the particular sphere in which the argumentation occurs.
Gary Cronkhite and Jo Liska have observed that credibility involves not only the
You will recall that we defined a sphere of argumentation as a group of persons
whose patterns of communicative behaviors are used in the production and evaluation
of argumentation. Credibility is subject to those criteria on which people operating in a
particular context or purpose agree.
Spheres are oriented around common needs, purposes, or what Stephen Toulmin calls
the ultimate purpose, “doing what there is there to be done” (1972, 485). We have defined
ultimate purpose as what you are ultimately trying to accomplish. In a television hospital
drama, a young woman is told that she must have a mastectomy or die. It is unfair. “Why
me?” is her reasonable response. But this is a question that medicine cannot answer. It has
In another part of the same drama, the hospital attorney questions a surgeon’s
decision to do a controversial brain operation. The physician tells the attorney he is
not a doctor and is not qualified to make such a judgment. The attorney argues that he
must defend the hospital from malpractice suits. Here, in one hour, three spheres are
introduced: medicine, religion, and law, all with different ways of arguing and different
standards of credibility. Cronkhite and Liska claim that arguers who show promise of
helping spheres do “what there is there to be done” or to achieve what they are trying to
accomplish will be granted high credibility. As you may have guessed, if you didn’t see
the drama, in this television show, the highest credibility goes to those who know and act
in the medical sphere.
The Reputation of the Arguer
Some spheres, such as science, have firm definitions of who is competent. A beginning
sign is the possession of advanced degrees (usually the doctorate) in the specific science
being argued. Increased competence is assumed when a scientist’s research is published in
prestigious refereed journals, rewarded with research grants, and cited by other research-
ers. In the sphere of law, an individual or group’s status alone increases credibility. For
example, a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court is more credible, and has more persuasive
value, than a decision by a lower court.
M09_RIEK0596_08_SE_C09.indd Page 152 1/5/12 10:18 PM user-f501M09_RIEK0596_08_SE_C09.indd Page 152 1/5/12 10:18 PM user-f501 F-401F-401
CHAPTER 9 Support: Credibility 153
Consider the debate between scientists and religionists over the Genesis story of crea-
tion. Scientists with all the necessary credentials argue that the biblical story of the earth’s
They have degrees in science, and they make arguments based on the analysis of
scientific data. For some people, they have the reputation of scientists because of their
professions and the fields in which they have their degrees. But for the established scien-
tific community, their reputations are suspect because of the nature of their research and
Secondary Credibility in Spheres
Much of what we have noted about reputation holds as well for secondary credibility.
When an arguer uses the credibility of others to support claims, those others need to be
seen as credible by the standards of the sphere of the decision makers. Scientists acting as
scientists need to be told about other scientists who support their views.
Lawyers frequently support their arguments with the testimony of people who are
experts: psychiatrists, physicians, forensic experts, psychologists who study eye-witnesses,
and professors of communication whose research area is freedom of speech. There are
areas, however, where credibility takes a serious shift and one of them is in the court of law.
Reluctant witnesses, in most situations, are not considered trustworthy. If you pres-
sure a reluctant friend to tell you something against his or her will, the potential for a
distorted story is great. Such a person has a bias, so to speak; but reluctant testimony is
believable in a law court. The person giving it is forced by the potential of legal penalty to
In business, the Wall Street Journal and Forbes magazine have great credibility, al-
though the fact that the Wall Street Journal is owned by Rupert Murdoch’s media con-
glomerate has weakened its credibility. In 2011, Murdoch’s London-based paper, News
of the World , was exposed for hacking into personal cell phones of crime victims, impor-
tant people, and even the royal family. Murdoch had to shut the paper down because its
credibility was fatally damaged, and this raised questions about all of his empire.
In the sphere of humanistic scholarship, other institutional publications such as the
American Historical Review or the Publication of the Modern Language Association
(PMLA) are more powerful sources of secondary credibility.
M09_RIEK0596_08_SE_C09.indd Page 153 1/5/12 10:18 PM user-f501M09_RIEK0596_08_SE_C09.indd Page 153 1/5/12 10:18 PM user-f501 F-401F-401
154 PART 2 Tools
Indirect Credibility in Spheres
Arguers gain credibility from all they do in making the argument. All that we have said
about the influence of spheres of argument on evidence and values applies here. For
instance, we noted that hearsay evidence is usually not admissible in a court of law
and its use will decrease the credibility of a lawyer who tries to enter it. If the lawyer
attempts this too often, the competency of the lawyer will be questioned by the judge.
But in interpersonal argument, where such rules are not established, arguers frequently
increase their credibility because they have heard the report from a prestigious second-
ary source.
CONCLUSION
People give adherence to arguments because they perceive them as reasonable, as employ-
ing values with which they agree, and as coming from a credible individual or group.
Credibility has an important role in argumentation. It may serve as a claim in its own
right, but most often it serves as support. It is generally considered to be developed by
the decision makers’ perception that the arguer is competent and trustworthy and reveals
good will and dynamism.
There are three forms of credibility in arguments: direct credibility, used when argu-
ers make direct statements about themselves designed to increase credibility; secondary
credibility, from associating another’s credibility with the argument; and indirect cred-
ibility, when the argument is developed in a way that makes the arguer more believable.
Reputation adds to the likelihood of winning adherence, but only the first three forms of
credibility can be directly controlled by the arguer at the time of any specific argumenta-
tion. Homophily or perceived similarity between arguer and decision maker can generate
Credibility will be defined differently by decision makers in different spheres.
Reputations are established by criteria that are different, in medicine, religion, and
law, for instance. Credibility is given to the person believed capable of “doing what
there is there to be done” in a particular sphere. Reputation will be built by differ-
ent credentials in different spheres. Secondary and indirect credibility will differ from
sphere to sphere.
CHAPTER 9 Support: Credibility 155
EXERCISES/PROJECTS
1. Spend an evening watching television, reading magazines, or surfing websites with a note pad
in hand. Write down all the ways you can find that advertising agencies work to build cred-
ibility for their products. Engage in a discussion with others in class who have done the same.
How well did what you see correspond to what is discussed in this chapter? Did you find ad-
ditional principles about credibility not mentioned in this chapter?
2. Do a series of searches on the Internet. Record the first items that come up in each search.
3. Do another Internet search this time in preparation of an argument you will make in a class
project. Evaluate the credibility of all the items you want to include in your argument. How did
you decide on these credibility decisions? How will you help the audience grant high credibility
to these sources when you use them in your argument?