Routes to attention or shortcuts to apathy? Exploring domain-specific communication pathways and their implications for public perceptions of controversial science

Science Communication

Volumn 32, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 383-411

  Binder, Andrew R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

Author keywords

controversial science; interpersonal discussion; issue salience; media effects models; news media use

Indexed keywords

EID: 78650764587     PISSN: 10755470     EISSN: 15528545     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1075547009345471     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Besley, J.C., Kramer, V.L., Yao, Q.J., & Toumey, C. (2008). Interpersonal discussion following citizen engagement about nanotechnology: What, if anything, do they say? Science Communication, 30, 209-235.
2. Besley, J.C., & Shanahan, J. (2005). Media attention and exposure in relation to support for agricultural biotechnology. Science Communication, 26, 347-367.
3. Binder, A.R., Dalrymple, K.E., Brossard, D., & Scheufele, D.A. (2009). The soul of a polarized democracy: Testing theoretical linkages between talk and attitude extremity during the 2004 presidential election. Communication Research, 36, 315-340.
4. Bollen, K.A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John Wiley.
5. Boykoff, M.T., & Boykoff, J.M. (2004). Balance as bias: Global warming and the U.S. prestige press. Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions, 14, 125-136.
6. Brossard, D., & Nisbet, M.C. (2007). Deference to scientific authority among a low-information public: Understanding U.S. opinion on agricultural biotechnology. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 19(1), 24-52.
7. Brossard, D., Shanahan, J., & McComas, K. (2004). Are issue-cycles culturally constructed? A comparison of French and American coverage of global climate change. Mass Communication & Society, 7, 359-377.
8. Cho, J., Shah, D.V., McLeod, J.M., McLeod, D.M., Scholl, R.M., & Gotlieb, M.R. (2009). Campaigns, reflection, and deliberation: Advancing an O-S-R-O-R model of communication effects. Communication Theory, 19(1), 66-88.
9. Cook, T.E. (2005). Governing with the news: The news media as a political institution (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
10. Demeritt, D. (2006). Science studies, climate change and the prospects for constructivist critique. Economy and Society, 35, 453-479.
11. Dunwoody, S., & Neuwirth, K. (1991). Coming to terms with the impact of communication on scientific and technological risk judgments. In L. Wilkins & P. Patterson (Eds.), Risky business: Communicating issues of science, risk, and public policy (pp. 11-30). Westport, CT: Greenwood.
12. Eveland, W.P. (2004). The effects of political discussion in producing informed citizens: The roles of information, motivation, and elaboration. Political Communication, 21(2), 177-193.
13. Eveland, W.P., & Scheufele, D.A. (2000). Connecting news media use with gaps in knowledge and participation. Political Communication, 17(3), 215-237.
14. Feldman, L., & Price, V. (2008). Confusion or enlightenment? How exposure to disagreement moderates the effects of political discussion and media use on candidate knowledge. Communication Research, 35(1), 61-87.
15. Fishkin, J.S. (1996). Bringing deliberation to democracy. Public Perspective, 7(1), 1-14.
16. Friedman, S.M., Dunwoody, S., & Rogers, C.L. (1999). Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial Science. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
17. Fursich, E., & Lester, E.P. (1996). Science journalism under scrutiny: A textual analysis of science times. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 13(1), 24-43.
18. Gieryn, T.F. (1999). Cultural boundaries of science: Credibility on the line. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
19. Goidel, K., & Nisbet, M.C. (2006). Exploring the roots of public participation in the controversy over embryonic stem cell research and cloning. Political Behavior, 28(2), 175-192.
20. Greene, J.O., & Burleson, B.R. (2003). Handbook of communication and social interaction skills. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
21. Hardy, B.W., & Scheufele, D.A. (2009). Presidential campaign dynamics and the ebb and flow of talk as a moderator: Media exposure, knowledge, and political discussion. Communication Theory, 19(1), 89-101.
22. Hillback, E.D., Dudo, A.D., Wijaya, R., Dunwoody, S., & Brossard, D. (2008, November). News leads and news frames in stories about stem cell research. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (Mass Communication & Society Division), Chicago.
23. Ho, S.S., Brossard, D., & Scheufele, D.A. (2008). Effects of value predispositions, mass media use, and knowledge on public attitudes toward embryonic stem cell research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 20, 171-192.
24. Holbert, R.L., & Stephenson, M.T. (2003). The importance of indirect effects in media effects research: Testing for mediation in structural equation modeling. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 47, 556-572.
25. Hwang, Y., & Southwell, B.G. (2007). Can a personality trait predict talk about science? Sensation seeking as a science communication targeting variable. Science Communication, 29, 198-216.
26. Jöreskog, K.G. (1993). Testing structural equation models. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 294-316). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
27. Kaplan, D. (2009). Structural equation modeling: Foundations and extensions (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
28. Katz, E., & Lazarsfeld, P.F. (1955). Personal influence. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
29. Kiernan, V. (2006). Embargoed science. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
30. Kim, J., Wyatt, R.O., & Katz, E. (1999). News, talk, opinion, participation: The part played by conversation in deliberative democracy. Political Communication, 16, 361-385.
31. Lazarsfeld, P.F., Berelson, B.R., & Gaudet, H. (1968). The people's choice: How the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign (3rd ed.). New York: Columbia University Press.
32. Lowe, T., Brown, K., Dessai, S., Doria, M.D., Haynes, K., & Vincent, K. (2006). Does tomorrow ever come? Disaster narrative and public perceptions of climate change. Public Understanding of Science, 15, 435-457.
33. Marks, L.A., Kalaitzandonakes, N., Wilkins, L., & Zakharova, L. (2007). Mass media framing of biotechnology news. Public Understanding of Science, 16(2), 183-203.
34. Markus, H., & Zajonc, R.B. (1985). The cognitive perspective in social psychology. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 137-229). New York: Random House.
35. McCombs, M.E., & Shaw, D.L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of the mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 176-187.
36. McCright, A.M., & Dunlap, R.E. (2003). Defeating Kyoto: The conservative movement's impact on U.S. climate change policy. Social Problems, 50(3), 348-373.
37. McGraw, K.M., & Pinney, N. (1990). The effects of general and domain-specific expertise on political memory and judgment. Social Cognition, 8(1), 9-30.
38. McLeod, D.M., Kosicki, G.M., & McLeod, J.M. (2002). Resurveying the boundaries of political communication effects. In J. Bryant & D. Zillman (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 215-267). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
39. McLeod, J.M., Becker, L.B., & Byrnes, J.E. (1974). Another look at the agenda-setting function of the press. Communication Research, 1, 131-166.
40. McLeod, J.M., Kosicki, G.M., & Pan, Z. (1991). On understanding and misunderstanding media effects. In J. Curran & M. Gurevitch (Eds.), Mass media and society (pp. 235-266). London: Edward Arnold.
41. McLeod, J.M., Scheufele, D.A., & Moy, P. (1999). Community, communication, and participation: The role of mass media and interpersonal discussion in local political participation. Political Communication, 16, 315-336.
42. McQuail, D. (2005). Mass communication theory (5th ed.). London: Sage.
43. Mooney, C., & Nisbet, M.C. (2005). Undoing Darwin: When the coverage of evolution shifts to the political and opinion pages, the scientific context falls away. Columbia Journalism Review, 44(3), 30-39.
44. Morgan, S.E. (2009). The intersection of conversation, cognitions, and campaigns: The social representation of organ donation. Communication Theory, 19(1), 29-48.
45. Mutz, D.C. (2002). Cross-cutting social networks: Testing democratic theory in practice. American Political Science Review, 96, 111-126.
46. Nisbet, M.C., & Goidel, K. (2007). Understanding citizen perceptions of science controversy: Bridging the ethnographic-survey research divide. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 421-440.
47. Nisbet, M.C., & Kotcher, J.E. (2009). A two-step flow of influence? Opinion-leader campaigns on climate change. Science Communication, 30, 328-354.
48. Nisbet, M.C., & Myers, T. (2007). The polls-trends: Twenty years of public opinion about global warming. Public Opinion Quarterly, 71, 444-470.
49. Pan, Z.D., Shen, L.J., Paek, H.J., & Sun, Y. (2006). Mobilizing political talk in a presidential campaign: An examination of campaign effects in a deliberative framework. Communication Research, 33(5), 315-345.
50. Price, V., Cappella, J.N., & Nir, L. (2002). Does disagreement contribute to more deliberative opinion? Political Communication, 19(1), 95-112.
51. Price, V., Tewksbury, D., & Powers, E. (1997). Switching trains of thought: The impact of news frames on readers' cognitive responses. Communication Research, 24, 481-506.
52. Priest, S.H., Bonfadelli, H., & Rusanen, M. (2003). The trust gap hypothesis: Predicting support for biotechnology across national cultures as a function of trust in actors. Risk Analysis, 23, 751-766.
53. Putnam, R.D., & Yonish, S. (1999, May). How important are random samples? Some surprising new evidence. Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, St. Pete Beach, FL.
54. Raftery, A.E. (1995). Bayesian model selection in social research. Sociological Methodology, 25, 111-163.
55. Rubin, A. (2002). The uses-and-gratifications perspective of media effects. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 525-548). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
56. Sarewitz, D. (2004). How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environmental Science & Policy, 7, 385-403.
57. Scheufele, D.A. (2000). Talk or conversation? Dimensions of interpersonal discussion and their implications for participatory democracy. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 77, 727-743.
58. Scheufele, D.A. (2002). Examining differential gains from mass media and their implications for participatory behavior. Communication Research, 29(1), 46-65.
59. Schudson, M. (1997). Why conversation is not the soul of democracy. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 14, 297-309.
60. Shoemaker, P.J., & Reese, S.D. (1996). Mediating the message: Theories of influences on mass media content (2nd ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.
61. Southwell, B.G., & Torres, A. (2006). Connecting interpersonal and mass communication: Science news exposure, perceived ability to understand science, and conversation. Communication Monographs, 73(3), 334-350.
62. Southwell, B.G., & Yzer, M.C. (2007). The roles of interpersonal communication in mass media campaigns. Communication Yearbook, 31, 420-462.
63. Southwell, B.G., & Yzer, M.C. (2009). When (and why) interpersonal talk matters for campaigns. Communication Theory, 19(1), 1-8.
64. Trumbo, C. (1996). Constructing climate change: Claims and frames in U.S. news coverage of an environmental issue. Public Understanding of Science, 5, 269-283.
65. Wilson, K.M. (2002). Forecasting the future: How television weathercasters' attitudes and beliefs about climate change affect their cognitive knowledge on the science. Science Communication, 24, 246-268.