Domestic Violence Awareness

The Perception of Credibility

And what it means for victims of marginalization and abuse.

Listen with SoundCloud.

Establishing credibility has become increasingly difficult in an era saturated with information and parasocial relationships. The widespread use of social media and the allure of online fame has created a world where large amounts of followers and engagement create an illusion of credibility.

The inequalities within social and economic classes further complicate establishing and maintaining credibility under equitable circumstances. Additionally, abuse victims cannot attain the same level of credibility as those not disclosing abuse. This article aims to define characteristics of credibility, explore the role played by popularity and socioeconomics, and discuss the challenges abuse victims face when disclosing abuse.

Credibility Defined

Synonymous with Trust and Reliability

Credibility becomes a catalyst for positive change when wielded by mindful leaders. Institutional credibility, exemplified through precision and professional standards in publications or businesses, hinges on establishing collaborative relationships with leaders, organizations, and individuals to fortify its standing.

However, institutional standards only sometimes suit individual dynamics. How, beyond formal institutions, do individuals in social, personal, and professional spheres assign or strip credibility? What attributes define credibility, and who gets the authority to judge who is deemed credible? Unraveling these questions demands an understanding of the characteristics of credibility and any impact on those deviating from the conventional notion of a reliable person.

Derived from multiple studies and days of research*, the traits of credibility are as follows:

1. Effective Communication:

• Active listening is a demonstration of the ability to engage and understand others.
• Empathy as a genuine showcase of understanding and compassion.
• Avoiding anxiety-provoking behaviors and maintaining a composed demeanor.
• Active participation in conversations for heightened engagement.

2. Assertiveness:

• Displaying confidence and knowledge through evidence of expertise or experience.

3. Honesty:

• Communication with positive intentions.
• Truthfulness, accuracy, and transparency.
• Unbiased communication, presenting information impartially.

4. Likability:

• Fostering positive receptivity through connection-building.

5. Perceived Similarity:

• Acknowledging shared experiences and backgrounds.

6. High Social or Economic Status

People in power use race, gender, and other parts of identity to define credibility, leading to a lack of diversity and misunderstandings of the lived experiences of people from other backgrounds.

A 2008 study by Kyung Hyan Yoo and Ulrike Gretzel concluded that most researchers agree that credibility has two dimensions: trustworthiness and expertise. Expertise is highly dependent on experience, and what is an expert to one group of people may never be considered an expert to another group of people. A source’s credibility extends much further than individual interactions; it shapes the reception of advice on institutional and social scales and determines the influence of behaviors and attitudes.

Credibility, like many societal constructs, is a product of social dynamics. While consistent behaviors aligned with credible characteristics sustain the perception of believability, deeply ingrained discriminatory beliefs from others can act as stumbling blocks. In order to foster an inclusive understanding of credibility, biases, and assumptions must be challenged. According to the study,

“O’Keefe (2002) argued that credibility is not an intrinsic characteristic of a source; rather, the communicator’s credibility depends on how the message recipient perceives the source. Thus, source credibility can be defined as judgments made by a message receiver concerning the believability of a communicator (Fogg, Lee, & Marshall, 2002).”

The role of popularity in establishing credibility is essential, as popular sources are more likely to be believed. When a publication attempts to establish a good rapport with a particular demographic or age group, it needs to consider popularity (perhaps the potential to go viral) and the successful delivery of a message. On the other hand, depending on popularity to boost credibility undermines those who do not fit the mold of a famous or popular person or do not have the skills to go viral but are credible to be a source.

The authority to assign credibility often resides in those with status or privilege. Journalist Deborah Tuerkhiemer emphasizes that judgments shaping credibility perceptions are intertwined with disparities in social power. This power dynamic becomes a pivotal factor in determining who is credible and who is not.

Who is Really Credible?

Marginalized individuals, especially those who disclose abuse, often experience difficulties maintaining credibility post-disclosure. Systemic biases and discriminatory beliefs deeply rooted in societal structures cast shadows of doubt onto narratives and attempt to protect injustice. These disadvantages create higher and more unattainable standards to meet in order to be deemed credible. Victim-blaming culture further exacerbates the issue, subjecting people to skepticism, invasive questioning, and testing.

Abuse victims have difficulty gaining credibility, especially without rallying media support (which would be a form of popularity). Social judgments significantly influence one’s credibility in human-to-human interactions. In discussing abusive experiences, historically, biases and judgments based on socioeconomic disadvantages or marginalized experiences create barriers to credibility. The research concludes that rape culture bias impacts the believability of sexual assault cases and determines who qualifies as a credible victim.

Challenges

Popularity, particularly in cases of abuse, presents a distressing challenge since it is not typically popular or pretty to speak out against abuse. Despite actions showcasing a lack of credibility in perpetrators, victims often experience significant levels of disbelief, perpetuating their victimization.

Using social media as a primary news source makes navigating credibility even more difficult. The reliance on social media for information is on the rise, and the presence of influential figures with massive followings blurs the line between credible information and deceptive content.

Additionally, societal stereotypes and social inequalities complicate these issues. These biases perpetuate systemic obstacles in evaluating individuals’ credibility. As a result of preconceived notions, it is difficult for individuals to establish or sustain credibility based on rigid definitions of who is reliable.

Solutions

Media Literacy Programs:

Implementing media literacy programs enhances the capabilities of media users and creators in evaluating the credibility of information.

Training for Domestic Violence Awareness:

Training for journalists and citizens in domestic violence awareness efforts to encourage critical thinking and ethical reporting. Emphasis on social support and involvement is crucial in supporting victims.

Collaboration and Accountability:

Encouraging collaboration between communities and organizations. Encouraging others to uphold standards of prioritizing victims while simultaneously promoting accountability measures for those who exploit their assigned credibility for personal gain.

Upholding equal-opportunity credibility demands a collective effort to bridge the gap between perception and genuine worthiness of belief. This report discussed credibility, defined its characteristics, and explored the confluence of popularity and believability. It exposes the challenges faced by abuse victims and the evolving dynamics of credibility in the age of social media. Through media literacy, awareness efforts, and collaborative measures, credibility can become more accessible and sustainable for victims and marginalized individuals.