Abstract:Recent studies suggest that individual perceptions of information credibility are important determinants of knowledge utilization in government decisionmaking. This theory—credibility logic—has been mostly normative. One positive theory, cognitive response, is used along with credibility-logic arguments to predict evaluations of alternatives with varying degrees of net benefits and information credibility. Experimental results for 75 MPA students using a 3x3 repeated measures with Latin square design found mixed support for cognitive-response theory. Credibility was most important when it contradicted net benefit levels and for the evaluation of proposals reporting medium net benefits. One perplexing problem in public administration is how to get decisionmakers to use quality policy analysis. Explanations for this malaise based on the scientific status of policy analysis have proven inadequate (Dunn 1981; Schneider et al. 1982; Useem and Dimaggio 1978; Kahneman et al. 1982; Dror 1984). Alternative explanations include bounded rationality (e.g., limited time and cognitive abilities in evaluating information; cf. Wright 1974), poor knowledge-transfer strategies (Bowman 1978; Glaser et al. 1983; Leviton and Hughes 1981), and differences in values, goals, and work styles between decisionmakers and policy analysts (Aronson and Sherwood 1967; Dunn 1980; Weiss 1977; Landsbergen 1991; Cahill 1991). Others assert that scientific information may be just as valid as managerial experience, which is more useful in decisionmaking (Emmert 1985; Lindblom and Cohen 1979; Fischer 1980; Krimsky 1984; Nelkin 1979). These diverging explanations leave knowledge-utilization research in public administration with little theoretical core (Bozeman 1986). One recent theory—credibility logic—offers J-PAKT, 2(1992):3:315-331 some hope for a common ground. Credibility logic asserts that 315/ Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory An Experimental Test of Cognitive-Response Theory individuals subjectively evaluate the believability of information on the basis of a variety of criteria often viewed as external to the decision, such as the organizational location (e.g., external or internal) of the information provider (Bozeman 1986; Landsbergen 1988; Coursey and Bretschneider 1991). For example, the scientific quality of the research, or its source, does not directly affect knowledge use. Instead, the decisionmaker's perception of the research design's quality and its purveyor are key determinants. Most credibility logic works concentrate on normative considerations rather than on developing and testing positive theories linking credibility to the use and persuasiveness of information. Other disciplines, such as communication and marketing, use more elaborate models based on a variety of positive theories such as cognitive response, but their definition of credibility is not germane to public administration knowledge utilization research. This paper bridges these research tracks by postulating and testing a series of hypotheses based on cognitive-response theory while maintaining the public administration definition of credibility. LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES Credibility-logic research has been mostly normative, that is, explaining how its premises are useful in evaluating the quality of policy analysis and how it merges traditional scientific models of policy analysis with alternative perspectives (Bozeman and Landsbergen 1989; Landsbergen and Coursey 1991). There is little positive theory associated with credibility logic, especially in predicting how credibility influences the choice among alternatives supported with varying information credibility. Recent experimental research (Landsbergen 1988; Landsbergen and Bozeman 1987; Bozeman et al. 1991) and simulation research (Mandell 1989) have tested the theory. In the experimental studies, however, subjects evaluated the credibility of information after making their decision, which violates the temporal precedence given in the model. Moreover, the theory provides little detail about exactly how credibility influences the use of information. Alternatives described with highly credible information are expected to be more persuasive than those with low credibility. This explanation is probably too simplistic. Other works in policy analysis and educational psychology demonstrate that a variety of decisionmaker and information characteristics may interact in determining the credibility of information (e.g., Braskamp et al. 1978; Brown et al. 1978; Glaser et al. 1983; Newman et al. 1979; Thompson et al. 1981). These studies, however, rarely either focus directly on credibility or test the relationship between credibility and final decisions.

The effectiveness of refutation with logic vs. indignation in restoring the credibility of and trust in a government organization: A heuristic‐systematic model of crisis communication processing

The Effects of Corrective Communication and Employee Backup on the Effectiveness of Fighting Crisis Misinformation

Is Positive Always Positive? the Effects of Precrisis Media Coverage on Rumor Refutation Effectiveness in Social Media.

Will comments change your opinion? The persuasion effects of online comments and heuristic cues in crisis communication

Heart or mind? The impact of congruence on the persuasiveness of cognitive versus affective appeals in debunking messages on social media during public health crises

The Role of CSR in Crises: Integration of Situational Crisis Communication Theory and the Persuasion Knowledge Model

Information Credibility and Choosing Policy Alternatives: An Experimental Test of Cognitive-Response Theory

Can an apology change after-crisis user attitude? The role of social media in online crisis management

Convergence of crisis response strategy and source credibility: Who can you trust?

Effects of Narratives, Openness to Dialogic Communication, and Credibility on Engagement in Crisis Communication Through Organizational Blogs

Credibility talk in public diplomacy

The Process of Online Keyword Activism in Political Figure’s Crisis: Moderating Roles of Like-Minded Public Opinion and Government Controllability of Crisis Outcomes

Do instructing and adjusting information make a difference in crisis responsibility attribution? Merging fear appeal studies with the defensive attribution hypothesis

Harnessing Anger to Persuade: The Moderating Roles of Retributive Efficacy and Prior Attitudes

An Examination of the Effects of Employee Words in Organizational Crisis: Public Forgiveness and Behavioral Intentions

When Things Go Wrong: Account Strategy Following a Corporate Crisis Event

Media Frames and Crisis Events: Understanding the Impact on Corporate Reputations, Responsibility Attributions, and Negative Affect

Effect of violation of social missions on public attitude towards a social enterprise crisis: Mediation of causal attribution and moderation of medium and framing of online articles

The Impact of Corporate Strategies for Image Restoration on Consumer Trust in Crisis Events: the Moderating Role of Prosocial Motivation

Does Being Socially Responsible Buffer Reputation Loss in a Product Crisis? the Moderating Role of Lay Theory of Corporate Social Responsibility

Is Being Funny a Useful Policy? How Local Governments’ Humorous Crisis Response Strategies and Crisis Responsibilities Influence Trust, Emotions, and Behavioral Intentions