Science on television in the 21st century: Recent trends in portrayals and their contributions to public attitudes toward science

Communication Research

Volumn 38, Issue 6, 2011, Pages 754-777

  Dudo, Anthony ^a   Brossard, Dominique ^a   Shanahan, James ^b   Scheufele, Dietram A ^a   Morgan, Michael ^c   Signorielli, Nancy ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^b BOSTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE   (United States)

Author keywords

cultivation; public understanding of science; science attitudes; science communication; television

Indexed keywords

EID: 81055155632     PISSN: 00936502     EISSN: 15523810     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0093650210384988     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Allum, N., Sturgis, P., Tabourazi, D., & Brunton-Smith, I. (2008). Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: A meta-analysis. Public Understanding of Science, 17, 35-54.
2. Besley, J. C., & Shanahan, J. (2005). Media attention and exposure in relation to support for agricultural biotechnology. Science Communication, 26, 347-367.
3. 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, 24-52.
4. Chaffee, S., & Frank, S. (1996). How Americans get political information: Print versus broadcast news. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 546, 48-58.
5. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
6. Cortina, J. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 98-104.
7. Dahlstrom, M. F., & Scheufele, D. A. (2010). Diversity of television exposure and its association with the cultivation of concern for environmental risks. Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture, 4, 54-65.
8. Dudo, A. (2006, November). Prime time science: How values and depictions of scientific omniscience in television entertainment programming influence attitudes toward science. Paper presented at the meeting of Annual Midwest Association for Public Opinion Research Conference, Chicago, IL.
9. Eveland, W. (1997). Interactions and nonlinearity in mass communication: Connecting theory and methodology. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 74, 400-416.
10. Eveland, W. P., & Scheufele, D. (2000). Connecting news media use with gaps in knowledge and participation. Political Communication, 17, 215-237.
11. General Social Survey (2010). About GSS. Retrieved November 27, 2010, from http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/GSS+Website/About+GSS/
12. Gerbner, G. (1987, Spring). Science on television: How it affects public conceptions. Issues in Science and Technology, 3, 109-115.
13. Gerbner, G., & Gross, L. (1976). Living with television: The violence profile. Journal of Communication, 26, 172-199.
14. Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1981). Scientists on the TV screen. Society, 18, 41-44.
15. Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1985). Science and television. A Research Report by the Annenberg School of Communications.
16. Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., Signorielli, N., & Shanahan, J. (2002). Growing up with television: Cultivation processes. In J. Bryant & D. Zillman (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 43-67). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
17. Global Information Industry Center. (2009). How much information? 2009 report on American consumers. Retrieved from http://hmi.ucsd.edu/pdf/HMI_2009_ConsumerReport_Dec9_2009.pdf
18. Good, J. E. (2009). The cultivation, mainstreaming, and cognitive processing of environmentalists watching television. Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture, 3, 279-297.
19. Gross, L. (1984). The cultivation of intolerance: Television, Blacks, and gays. In G. Melischek, K. E. Rosengren, & J. Stappers (Eds.), Cultural indicators: An international symposium (pp. 345-363). Vienna, Austria: Verlag der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
20. Hocking, J. E., Stacks, D. W., & McDermott, S. T. (2003). Communication Research (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
21. Hwang, Y., & Southwell, B. (2009). Science TV news exposure predicts science beliefs: Real world effects among a national sample. Communication Research, 36, 724-742.
22. Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York, NY: New York University Press.
23. Johnson, S. (2005). Everything bad is good for you. New York, NY: Penguin. Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
24. Logan, R. A. (2001). Science mass communication: Its conceptual history. Science Communication, 23, 135-163.
25. Miller, J. (2004). Public understanding of, and attitudes toward, scientific research: What we know and what we need to know. Public Understanding of Science, 13, 273-294.
26. Miller, S. (2001). Public understanding of science at the crossroads. Public Understanding of Science, 10, 115-120.
27. Mooney, C., & Kirshenbaum, S. (2009). Unscientific America: How scientific illiteracy threatens our future. New York, NY: Basic Books.
28. Morgan, M., & Gross, L. (1980). Television viewing, IQ, and academic achievement. Journal of Broadcasting, 24, 117-133.
29. Morgan, M., Shanahan, J., & Signorielli, N. (2009). Growing up with television: Cultivation processes. In J. Bryant & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 34-49). New York, NY: Routledge.
30. Nabi, R. L., & Riddle, K. (2008). Personality traits, television viewing, and the cultivation effect. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 52, 327-348.
31. National Science Board. (1993). Science and engineering indicators 1993. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
32. National Science Board. (1996). Science and engineering indicators 1996. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
33. National Science Board. (2002). Science and engineering indicators 2002. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
34. National Science Board. (2004). Science and engineering indicators 2004. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
35. National Science Board. (2006). Science and engineering indicators 2006. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
36. National Science Board. (2008). Science and engineering indicators 2008. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
37. National Science Board. (2010). Science and engineering indicators 2010. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
38. National Science Foundation. (2004). NSF Poll # 2001-SCIENCE: Trend dataset-Surveys of public understanding of science and technology. Arlington, VA.
39. Nielsen, A. C. (2009). How DVRs are changing the television landscape. Retrieved from http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/media_entertainment/how-dvrs-are-changing-the-television-landscape/
40. Nisbet, M. C., & Goidel, R. K. (2007). Understanding citizen perceptions of science controversy: Bridging the ethnographic-survey research divide. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 421-440.
41. Nisbet, M. C., & Scheufele, D. A. (2009). What's next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany, 96, 1767-1778.
42. Nisbet, M. C., Scheufele, D. A., Shanahan, J., Moy, P., Brossard, D., & Lewenstein, B. (2002). Knowledge, reservations, or promise? A media effects model for public perceptions of science and technology. Communication Research, 29, 584-608.
43. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
44. Perkowitz, S. (2007). Hollywood science: Movies, science, and the end of the world. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
45. Saito, S. (2007). Television and the cultivation of gender-role attitudes in Japan: Does television contribute to the maintenance of the status quo? Journal of Communication, 57, 511-531.
46. Scheufele, D. A., & Dudo, A. (2010). Emerging agendas at the intersection of political and science communication: The case of nanotechnology. In C. Salmon (Ed.), Communication yearbook 34 (pp. 142-167). London, UK: Routledge.
47. Shanahan, J. (1993). Television and the cultivation of environmental concern: 1988-1992. In A. Hansen (Ed.), The mass media and environmental issues (pp. 181-197). Leicester, UK: University of Leicester Press.
48. Shanahan, J. (1998). Television and authoritarianism: Exploring the concept of mainstreaming. Political Communication, 15, 483-495.
49. Shanahan, J., & Morgan, M. (1999). Television and its viewers: Cultivation theory and research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
50. Shanahan, J., Morgan, M., & Stenbjerre, M. (1997). Green or brown? Television and the cultivation of environmental concern. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 41, 305-323.
51. Shrum, L. J., & Bischak, V. (2001). Mainstreaming, resonance, and impersonal impact: Testing moderators of the cultivation effect for estimates of crime risk. Human Communication Research, 27, 187-215.
52. Signorielli, N., Gross, L., & Morgan, M. (1982). Violence in television programs: Ten years later. In D. Pearl, L. Bouthilet, & J. Lazar (Eds.), Television and behavior: Ten years of scientific progress and implications for the eighties. Vol. 2: Technical Reports (pp. 154-174). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
53. Smith, T. W. (1988). Rotation design of the GSS, No. 52. Chicago, IL: NORC.
54. Tweney, D. (2010). Video boxes, "Notbooks" and E-books to dominate gadgets in 2010. Retrieved from http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/01/ces-2010-preview/
55. Wade, S., & Schramm, W. (1969). The mass media as sources of public affairs, science and health knowledge. Public Opinion Quarterly, 33, 197-209.
56. Yang, F., Ramasubramanian, S., & Oliver, M. B. (2008). Cultivation effects on quality of life indicators: Exploring the effects of American television consumption on feelings of relative deprivation in South Korea and India. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 52, 247-267.
57. Ziman, J. (1991). Public understanding of science. Science, Technology & Human Values, 16, 99-105.