The role of media and deference to scientific authority in cultivating trust in sources of information about emerging technologies

International Journal of Public Opinion Research

Volumn 24, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 225-237

  Anderson, Ashley A ^a   Scheufele, Dietram A ^a,b   Brossard, Dominique ^a,b   Corley, Elizabeth A ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^b ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84862216623     PISSN: 09542892     EISSN: 14716909     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/ijpor/edr032     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. 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.
2. Brossard, D., &Shanahan, J. (2003). Do citizens want to have their say? Media, agricultural biotechnology, and authoritarian views of democratic processes in science. Mass Communication and Society, 6, 291-312.
3. Chan, S. (1997). Effects of attention to campaign coverage on political trust. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 9, 286-296.
4. Chryssochoidis, G., Strada, A., &Krystallis, A. (2009). Public trust in institutions and information sources regarding risk management and communication: Towards integrating extant knowledge. Journal of Risk Research, 12, 137-185.
5. Cobb, M. D., &Macoubrie, J. (2004). Public perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks, benefits and trust. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 6, 395-405.
6. Cordis Europa (2010). Nanotechnology in the EC Programmes. Retrieved from http://cordis.europa.eu/nanotechnology/src/ec-programmes.htm.
7. Dudo, A., Dunwoody, S., &Scheufele, D. A. (2011). The emergence of nano news: Tracking thematic trends and changes in media coverage of nanotechnology. Journalism &Mass Communication Quarterly, 88, 55-75.
8. Earle, T. C., Siegrist, M., &Gutscher, H. (2007). Trust, risk perception and the TCC model of cooperation. In M. Siegrist, T. C. Earle &H. Gutscher (Eds.), Trust in risk management: Uncertainty and Scepticism in the public mind. London, UK: Earthscan.
9. Frewer, L., Lassen, J., Kettlitz, B., Scholderer, J., Beekman, V., &Berdal, K. G. (2004). Societal aspects of genetically modified foods. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 42, 1181-1193.
10. Gaskell, G., Einsiedel, E., Hallman, W., Priest, S. H., Jackson, J., &Olsthoorn, J. (2005). Social values and the governance of science. Science, 310(5756), 1908-1909.
11. Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., &Signorielli, N. (1981). Health and medicine on television. New England Journal of Medicine, 305, 901-904.
12. 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.
13. Ho, S. S., Scheufele, D. A., &Corley, E. A. (2010). Making sense of policy choices: Understanding the roles of value predispositions, mass media, and cognitive processing in public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 12, 2703-2715.
14. Jasanoff, S. (1990). The fifth branch: Science advisers as policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
15. Khushf, G. (2006). An ethic for enhancing human performance through integrative technologies. In W. S. Bainbridge &M. Roco (Eds.), Managing Nano-Bio-Info-Cogno Innovations: Converging technologies in society (pp. 255-278). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
16. Knight, A. (2007). Intervening effects of knowledge, morality, trust, and benefits on support for animal and plant biotechnology applications. Risk Analysis, 27, 1553-1563.
17. Lang, J. T., &Hallman, W. K. (2005). Who Does the Public Trust? The Case of Genetically Modified Food in the United States. Risk Analysis, 25, 1241-1252.
18. Lee, C. J., &Scheufele, D. A. (2006). The influence of knowledge and deference toward scientific authority: A media effects model for public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Journalism &Mass Communication Quarterly, 83, 819-834.
19. Liu, H., &Priest, S. (2009). Understanding public support for stem cell research: Media communication, interpersonal communication and trust in key actors. Public Understanding of Science, 18, 704-718.
20. Moy, P., &Pfau, M. (2000). With malice toward all?: The media and public confidence in democratic institutions. Westport, Conn.: Praeger.
21. National Nanotechnology Initiative (2010). Research and development leading to a revolution in technology and industry: Supplement to the President's FY 2011 budget. Retrieved from http://www.nano.gov/NNI-2011-budget- supplement.pdf.
22. Nisbet, M. C., Scheufele, D. A., Shanahan, J., Moy, P., Brossard, D., &Lewenstein, B. V. (2002). Knowledge, reservations, or promise? A media effects model for public perceptions of science and technology. Communication Research, 29, 584-608.
23. Olofsson, A., Ohman, S., &Rashid, S. (2006). Attitudes to gene technology: The significance of trust in institutions. European Societies, 8, 601-624.
24. Patterson, T. E. (1996). Bad news, period. PS: Political Science and Politics, 29, 17-20.
25. Poortinga, W., &Pidgeon, N. F. (2003). Exploring the dimensionality of trust in risk regulation. Risk Analysis, 23(5), 961-972.
26. Poortinga, W., &Pidgeon, N. F. (2005). Trust in risk regulation: Cause or consequence of the acceptability of GM food? Risk Analysis, 25(1), 199-209.
27. Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone. New York: Simon &Schuster.
28. Priest, S. H. (2008). North American audiences for news of emerging technologies: Canadian and US responses to bio- and nanotechnologies. Journal of Risk Research, 11(7), 877-889.
29. 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.
30. Robinson, M. J. (1976). Public affairs television and the growth of political malaise: The case of ''The Selling of the Pentagon''. American Political Science Review, 70, 409-432.
31. Rowe, G., &Frewer, L. J. (2000). Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science Technology &Human Values, 25, 3-29.
32. Scheufele, D. A., Corley, E. A., Shih, T. J., Dalrymple, K. E., &Ho, S. S. (2009). Religious beliefs and public attitudes toward nanotechnology in Europe and the United States. Nature Nanotechnology, 4, 91-94.
33. Scheufele, D. A., &Lewenstein, B. V. (2005). The public and nanotechnology: How citizens make sense of emerging technologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 7, 659-667.
34. 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.
35. Siegrist, M. (2010). Trust and confidence: The difficulties in distinguishing the two concepts in research. Risk Analysis, 30, 1022-1024.
36. Siegrist, M., &Cvetkovich, G. (2000). Perception of hazards: The role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Analysis, 20, 713-719.