The influence of knowledge and deference toward scientific authority: A media effects model for public attitudes toward nanotechnology

Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly

Volumn 83, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 819-834

  Lee, Chul Joo ^a   Scheufele, Dietram A ^b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^c ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COGNITION; KNOWLEDGE; MEDIA ROLE; NANOTECHNOLOGY; PUBLIC ATTITUDE;

EID: 34047276160     PISSN: 10776990     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/107769900608300406     Document Type: Article

References (82)

1. George Gaskell, Toby A. Ten Eyck, Jonathan Jackson, and Giuseppe Veltri, "Public Attitudes to Nanotechnology in Europe and the United States," Nature Materials 3 (August 2004): 496;
2. Dietram A. Scheufele and Bruce V. Lewenstein, "The Public and Nanotechnology: How Citizens Make Sense of Emerging Technologies," Journal of Nanoparticle Research 7 (December 2004): 659-67.
3. Jon D. Miller, "The Measurement of Civic Scientific Literacy," Public Understanding of Science 7 (July 1998): 203-23;
4. Jon D. Miller, "Public Understanding of, and Attitudes Toward, Scientific Research: What We Know and What We Need to Know," Public Understanding of Science 13 (July 2004): 273-94.
5. Chul-joo Lee, Dietram A. Scheufele, and Bruce V. Lewenstein, "Public Attitudes Toward Emerging Technologies: Examining the Interactive Effects of Cognitions and Affect on Public Attitudes Toward Nanotechnology," Science Communication 27 (December 2005): 240-67.
6. Matthew C. Nisbet, Dietram A. Scheufele, James Shanahan, Patricia Moy, Dominique Brossard, and Bruce V. Lewenstein, "Knowledge, Reservation, or Promise? A Media Effects Model for Public Perceptions of Science and Technology," Communication Research 29 (October 2002): 584-608;
7. Scheufele and Lewenstein, "The Public and Nanotechnology: How Citizens Make Sense of Emerging Technologies."
8. Scheufele and Lewenstein, "The Public and Nanotechnology: How Citizens Make Sense of Emerging Technologies."
9. Scheufele and Lewenstein, "The Public and Nanotechnology: How Citizens Make Sense of Emerging Technologies."
10. Miller, "Public Understanding of, and Attitudes Toward, Scientific Research";
11. Nisbet et al., "Knowledge, Reservation, or Promise?";
12. Aaron Wildavsky and Karl Dake, "Theories of Risk Perception: Who Fears What and Why?" Daedalus 119 (1990): 41-50.
13. Dominique Brossard, Bruce V. Lewenstein, and Rick Bonney, "Scientific Knowledge and Attitude Change: The Impact of a Citizen Science Project," International Journal of Science Education 27 Ouly 2005): 1099-1121;
14. Dominique Brossard and Matthew C. Nisbet, "Deference to Scientific Authority among a Low Information Public: Understanding American Views About Agricultural Biotechnology," International Journal of Public Opinion Research (forthcoming);
15. Patrick Sturgis, Helen Cooper, and Chris Fife-Schaw, "Attitudes to Biotechnology: Estimating the Opinions of a Better-informed Public," New Genetics and Society 24 (April 2005): 31-56.
16. Brossard, Lewenstein, and Bonney, "Scientific Knowledge and Attitude Change: The Impact of a Citizen Science Project."
17. Jon D. Miller and Linda G. Kimmel, Biomedical Communications: Purposes, Audiences, and Strategies (New York: John Wiley, 2001);
18. Jon D. Miller, Rafael Pardo, and Fujio Niwa, Public Perceptions of Science and Technology: A Comparative Study of the European Union, the United States, Japan, and Canada (Madrid: BBV Foundation, 1997).
19. See, e.g., Alice H. Eagly and Shelly Chaiken, The Psychology of Attitudes (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1993).
20. Susanna Hornig Priest, Heinz Bonfadelli, and Maria Rusanen, "The 'Trust Gap' Hypothesis: Predicting Support for Biotechnology Across National Cultures as Functions of Trust in Actors," Risk Analysis 23 (August 2003): 751-66;
21. Dietram A. Scheufele, "Messages and Heuristics: How Audiences Form Attitudes about Emerging Technologies" in Engaging Science: Thoughts, Deeds, Analysis and Action, ed. Jon Turney (London: The Wellcome Trust, 2006), 20-25;
22. Michael Siegrist, "A Causal Model Explaining the Perception and Acceptance of Gene Technology," Journal of Applied Social Psychology 29 (October 1999): 2093-2106;
23. Michael Siegriest, "The Influence of Trust and Perception of Risk and Benefits on the Acceptance of Gene Technology," Risk Analysis 20 (April 2000): 195-203.
24. George Gaskell and Martin W. Bauer, eds., Biotechnology 1996-2000: The Years of Controversy (London: Science Museum, 2001);
25. Priest, Bonfadelli, and Rusanen, "The 'Trust Gap' Hypothesis."
26. Sharon M. Friedman, Sharon Dunwoody, and Carol L. Rogers, eds., Communicating Uncertainty: Media Coverage of New and Controversial Science (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1999).
27. Alan Irwin and Brian Wynne, eds., Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996).
28. Brossard and Nisbet, "Deference to Scientific Authority among a Low Information Public."
29. Brossard and Nisbet, "Deference to Scientific Authority among a Low Information Public."
30. Susanna Hornig Priest, "Misplaced Faith: Communication Variables as Predictors of Encouragement for Biotechnology Development," Science Communication 23 (December 2001): 97-110.
31. Susanna Hornig Priest, "Information Equity, Public Understanding of Science and the Biotechnology Debate," Journal of Communication 45 (March 1995): 39-54.
32. Siegriest, "The Influence of Trust and Perception of Risk and Benefits on the Acceptance of Gene Technology."
33. Gaskell et al., "Public Attitudes to Nanotechnology in Europe and the United States";
34. Lee, Scheufele, and Lewenstein, "Public Attitudes toward Emerging Technologies: Examining the Interactive Effects of Cognitions and Affect on Public Attitudes Toward Nanotechnology."
35. Scheufele and Lewenstein, "The Public and Nanotechnology: How Citizens Make Sense of Emerging Technologies."
36. Michael Siegrist and George T. Cvetkovich, "Perception of Hazards: The Role of Social Trust and Knowledge," Risk Analysis 20 (October 2000): 713-19.
37. Brossard and Nisbet, "Deference to Scientific Authority among a Low Information Public: Understanding American Views About Agricultural Biotechnology."
38. Miller, "Public Understanding of, and Attitudes Toward, Scientific Research."
39. Dorothy Nelkin, Selling Science (New York: Freeman, 1995);
40. Nisbet et al., "Knowledge, Reservation, or Promise?"
41. George Gerbner, Larry Gross, Michael Morgan, and Nancy Signorielli, "Scientists on the TV Screen," Culture and Society 42 (May/ June 1981): 51-54;
42. James Shanahan, "Television Viewing and Adolescent Authoritarianism," Journal of Adolescence 18 (June 1995): 271-88;
43. James Shanahan, Michael Morgan, and Mads Stenbjerre, "Green or Brown? Television and the Cultivation of Environmental Concern," Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 41 (summer 1997): 305-23.
44. Shanahan, Morgan, and Stenbjerre, "Green or Brown? Television and the Cultivation of Environmental Concern."
45. Jack M. McLeod, Carroll J. Glynn, and Daniel G. McDonald, "Issues and Images: The Influence of Media Reliance in Voting Decisions," Communication Research 10 (January 1983): 37-58;
46. Jack M. McLeod, Dietram A. Scheufele, and Patricia Moy, "Community, Communication, and Participation: The Role of Mass Media and Interpersonal Discussion in Local Political Participation," Political Communication 13 (July-September 1999): 315-36.
47. Brossard and Nisbet, "Deference to Scientific Authority among a Low Information Public: Understanding American Views About Agricultural Biotechnology";
48. Nisbet et al., "Knowledge, Reservation, or Promise?"
49. Marcel C. LaFollette, Making Science Our Own: Public Images of Science, 1910-1955 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990).
50. Nelkin, Selling Science.
51. National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2004 (Washington, DC: National Science Foundation, 2004).
52. John Durant, Geoffrey Evans, and Geoffrey Thomas, "Public Understanding of Science in Britain: The Role of Medicine in the Popular Representation of Science," Public Understanding of Science 1 (April 1992): 161-82;
53. Gerbner et al., "Scientists on the TV Screen";
54. Dorothy Nelkin and Susan M. Lindee, The DNA Mystique: The Gene as a Cultural Icon (New York: Freeman, 1995).
55. Dominique Brossard and James Shanahan, "Do Citizens Want to Have their Say? Media, Agricultural Biotechnology, and Authoritarian Views of Democratic Processes in Science," Mass Communication & Society 6 (summer 2003): 291-312;
56. Brossard and Nisbet, "Deference to Scientific Authority among a Low Information Public: Understanding American Views About Agricultural Biotechnology."
57. Gerbner et al., "Scientists on the TV Screen."
58. Brossard and Shanahan, "Do Citizens Want to Have their Say? Media, Agricultural Biotechnology, and Authoritarian Views of Democratic Processes in Science."
59. Brossard and Nisbet, "Deference to Scientific Authority among a Low Information Public: Understanding American Views About Agricultural Biotechnology."
60. Gaskell et al., "Public Attitudes to Nanotechnology in Europe and the United States."
61. Jason B. Gorss and Bruce V. Lewenstein, "The Salience of Small: Nanotechnology Coverage in the American Press, 1986-2004" (paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, New York, May 2005).
62. Sharon M. Friedman and Brenda P. Egolf, "Nanotechnology: Risks and the Media," IEEE Technology & Society Magazine 24 (winter 2005): 5-11, 10.
63. Judgment about risks of nanotechnology compared to its benefits was measured by subtracting benefit perceptions of nanotechnology from risk perceptions of nanotechnology. See, e.g., Lee, Scheufele, and Lewenstein, "Public Attitudes toward Emerging Technologies: Examining the Interactive Effects of Cognitions and Affect on Public Attitudes Toward Nanotechnology."
64. Herbert B. Asher, Causal Modeling (Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, Series No. 07-003) (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1983).
65. Jacob Cohen and Patricia Cohen, Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2d ed. (Hilldale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1983).
66. Catherine Marsh, The Survey Method: The Contribution of Surveys to Sociological Explanation (Boston: Allen & Unwin, 1982), 80.
67. William P. Eveland and Sharon Dunwoody, "An Investigation of Elaboration and Selective Scanning as Mediators of Learning from the Web versus Print," Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 46 (March 2002): 34-53;
68. Michael D. Slater and Kenneth A. Rasinski, "Media Exposure and Attention as Mediating Variables Influencing Social Risk Judgments," Journal of Communication 55 (December 2005): 810-27.
69. Brossard and Nisbet, "Deference to Scientific Authority among a Low Information Public: Understanding American Views About Agricultural Biotechnology";
70. Matthew C. Nisbet, "The Competition for Worldviews: Values, Information, and Public Support for Stem Cell Research," International Journal of Public Opinion Research 17 (spring 2005): 90-112.
71. Chul-joo Lee and Robert C. Hornik, "The Reliability and Stability of General Media Exposure Measures" (paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, San Francisco, May 2007).
72. Brossard and Nisbet, "Deference To Scientific Authority among a Low Information Public: Understanding American Views About Agricultural Biotechnology";
73. Nisbet et al., "Knowledge, Reservation, or Promise?";
74. Scheufele, "Messages and Heuristics: How Audiences Form Attitudes about Emerging Technologies";
75. Shanahan, Morgan, and Stenbjerre, "Green or Brown? Television and the Cultivation of Environmental Concern"
76. Gaskell et al., "Public Attitudes to Nanotechnology in Europe and the United States";
77. Scheufele and Lewenstein, "The Public and Nanotechnology: How Citizens Make Sense of Emerging Technologies."
78. Event-driven coverage and emphasis on human drama are the examples for these practices; see, e.g., Friedman, Dunwoody, and Rogers, Communicating Uncertainty: Media Coverage of New and Controversial Science;
79. Nelkin, Selling Science.
80. Shanto Iyengar, Is Anyone Responsible? How Television Frames Political Issues (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991).
81. William P. Eveland and Dietram A. Scheufele, "Connecting News Media Use with Gaps in Knowledge and Participation," Political Communication 17 (July 2000): 215-37.
82. Doris A. Graber, "Why Voters Fail Information Tests: Can the Hurdles be Overcome?" Political Communication 11 (October 1994): 331-46.