This study examines how need for cognition, source credibility, and communication strength influence perceptions of a print-media communication. Participants read a strong or weak communication about an evolutionary theory, presented as an article from the Washington Post (high credibility) or the National Enquirer (low credibility). Results revealed a significant Need for Cognition × Source × Communication Strength interaction. Low-need-for-cognition participants who read the weak communication rated the article more positively when it was attributed to the high-credibility source than to the low-credibility source. Source credibility did not affect impressions of the article and theory among participants high in need for cognition or reading the strong communication. However, articles from the Washington Post were rated as more believable, factual, accurate, and true than those from the National Enquirer.