Shooting the Messenger: How Expert Statements on Stigmatized Populations Negatively Impact Perceived Credibility

Figures & data

Table 1. Survey Weighted descriptive statistics (N = 990).

Construct/Indicator	M	SD	Cronbach’s α	Missing
Credibility Subdimensions
Competence			0.95
Unintelligent - Intelligent	5.03	1.57		8
Inexpert - Expert	4.75	1.59		7
Uninformed - Informed	4.94	1.62		9
Incompetent – Competent	4.91	1.61		7
Stupid - Smart	4.91	1.64		8
Goodwill			0.89
Doesn’t – Has My Interest at Heart	4.73	1.62		6
Self-centered – Not Self-centered	4.54	1.66		3
Unconcerned – Concerned with Me	4.46	1.65		5
Insensitive - Sensitive	4.87	1.57		8
Not Understanding - Understanding	4.85	1.66		2
Trustworthiness			0.95
Dishonest - Honest	4.98	1.49		5
Untrustworthy - Trustworthy	4.74	1.59		7
Dishonorable - Honorable	4.94	1.65		9
Unethical - Ethical	4.93	1.56		7
Phony - Genuine	4.83	1.62		7
Generalized Belief Scales
Rehabilitation over Punishment			0.96
Disagree - Agree	4.83	1.82		4
False - True	4.78	1.73		2
Incorrect - Correct	4.81	1.77		6
Wrong - Right	4.76	1.77		10
Resources for Mental Health Treatment			0.96
Disagree - Agree	5.16	1.77		6
False - True	5.13	1.71		6
Incorrect - Correct	5.18	1.69		4
Wrong - Right	5.21	1.69		8

Note. All items on scale ranging from 1 to 7.

Figure 1. Proposed structural equation model. Note: Dashed line represents that the vignette topic (sex offender/drunk driver) should only be indirectly associated with belief in the mental health claim, as that vignette does not explicitly concern a specific offender group. Squares represent the experimental manipulations, and the ovals are latent constructs.

Table 2. Survey Weighted structural equation model results (N = 990).

	Main Effects Model			Interaction Model
Outcome/Predictor	Est.	95% CI		Est.	95% CI
Credibility (${\eta }_1$)
Sex Offender^a (${\beta }_{11}$)	−0.307	−0.463	−0.152	−0.308	−0.503	−0.114
Professor^b (${\beta }_{12}$)	−0.253	−0.402	−0.104	−0.254	−0.476	−0.032
Sex Offender × Professor (${\beta }_{13}$)				0.002	−0.309	0.313
Belief in Rehabilitation Claim (${\eta }_2$)
Credibility (${\gamma }_{21}$)	0.826	0.779	0.873	0.826	0.779	0.873
Sex Offender^a (${\beta }_{21}$)	−0.103	−0.206	−0.001	−0.119	−0.244	0.007
Professor^b (${\beta }_{22}$)	0.088	−0.003	0.178	0.073	−0.064	0.210
Sex Offender × Professor (${\beta }_{23}$)				0.030	−0.153	0.214
Belief in Mental Health Claim (${\eta }_3$)
Credibility (${\gamma }_{31}$)	0.254	0.053	0.454	0.254	0.054	0.454
Belief in Rehabilitation Claim (${\gamma }_{32}$)	0.546	0.359	0.733	0.546	0.359	0.733
Sex Offender^a (${\beta }_{31}$)	0.147	0.037	0.256	0.114	−0.032	0.260
Professor^b (${\beta }_{32}$)	−0.029	−0.140	0.083	−0.061	−0.227	0.106
Sex Offender × Professor (${\beta }_{33}$)				0.065	−0.152	0.283

Note. Main Effects Model Fit: CFI = .984, TLI = .982, RMSEA = .039, SRMR = .022, BIC = 61,866.

Interaction Model Fit: CFI = .983, TLI = 0.981, RMSEA = .039, SRMR = .022, BIC = 61,877.

Parameter estimates are standardized on variances of latent variables.

^a Reference category is drunk driver.

^b Reference category is police chief.

Table 3. Structural equation model indirect and total effects (N = 990).

			95% Confidence Interval
Pathway	Estimate (SE)	p Value	Lower	Upper
Indirect Effects
Sex Offender → Credibility → Belief in Rehabilitation Claim	−0.254 (.067)	< .001	−0.384	−0.124
Sex Offender → Credibility → Belief in Mental Health Claim	−0.078 (.031)	.011	−0.138	−0.018
Sex Offender → Credibility → Belief in Rehabilitation Claim → Belief in Mental Health Claim	−0.139 (.051)	.006	−0.238	−0.039
Professor → Credibility → Belief in Rehabilitation Claim	−0.209 (.063)	.001	−0.332	−0.086
Professor → Credibility → Belief in Mental Health Claim	−0.064 (.037)	.081	−0.137	0.008
Professor → Credibility → Belief in Rehabilitation Claim → Belief in Mental Health Claim	−0.114 (.035)	.001	−0.183	−0.045
Total Effects
Sex Offender → Belief in Rehabilitation Claim	−0.357 (.072)	< .001	−0.498	−0.217
Sex Offender → Belief in Mental Health Claim	0.069 (.062)	.272	−0.054	0.191
Professor → Belief in Rehabilitation Claim	−0.166 (.089)	.060	−0.340	0.007
Professor → Belief in Mental Health Claim	−0.107 (.062)	.085	−0.228	0.015

Note. Indirect and total effects directly calculated from survey weighted main effects estimates summarized in Table 2. Parameter estimates standardized on variances of latent variables.

Table A1. Vignette conditions.

Expert Condition 1 - Professor
	Lucas Harvey Title: Professor of Criminology, University of Missouri Education: Ph.D. in Criminology and Criminal Justice Member: American Society of Criminology Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences
Expert Condition 2 – Police Chief
	Lucas Harvey Title: Chief of Police, Kansas City, Missouri Experience: 21 years in Policing Member: International Association of Chiefs of Police Fraternal Order of Police