Influence in science dialogue: Individual attitude changes as a result of dialogue between laypersons and scientists

Public Understanding of Science

Volumn 21, Issue 7, 2012, Pages 848-864

  Zorn, Theodore E ^a   Roper, Juliet ^a   Weaver, C Kay ^a   Rigby, Colleen ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WAIKATO   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

attitude change; biotechnology; dialogue; influence; self efficacy

Indexed keywords

EID: 84867031542     PISSN: 09636625     EISSN: 13616609     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0963662510386292     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Allport GWThe Nature of Prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books; 1954:.
2. Ajzen I.Nature and operation of attitudes.Annual Review of Psychology. 2001;52:27-58.
3. Bandura ASelf-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: Freeman; 1997:.
4. Bendell JUnfolding stakeholder thinking 2: Relationships, communication, reporting and performance. Andriof JWaddock SHusted BRahman SS, ed. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing Limited; 2003:53-69.
5. Black L.Building connection while thinking together: By-products of employee training in dialogue.Western Journal of Communication. 2005;69 (3): 273-92.
6. Bohm DOn Dialogue. New York: Routledge; 1996:.
7. Bokeno RM,Gantt VW.Dialogic mentoring.Management Communication Quarterly. 2000;14 (2): 237-70.
8. Boster FJ,Cruz MGThe persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice. Dillard JPPfau M, ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2002:477-94.
9. Burson MC.Finding clarity in the midst of conflict: Facilitating dialogue and skilfull discussion using a model from the Quaker tradition.Group Facilitation. 2002;4 (1): 23-9.
10. Campbell JD,Fairey PJ.Informational and normative routes to conformity: The effect of faction size as a function of norm extremity and attention to the stimulus.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1989;57 (3): 457-68.
11. Cohen JStatistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1988:.
12. Cunningham-Burley S.Public knowledge and public trust.Community Genetics. 2006;9 (3): 204-10.
13. Cuppen E,Hisschemöller M,Midden C.Bias in the exchange of arguments: The case of scientists' evaluation of lay viewpoints on GM food.Public Understanding of Science. 2009;18 (5): 591-606.
14. Davies S.Doing dialogue: Genre and flexibility in public engagement with science.Science as Culture. 2009;18 (4): 397-416.
15. Davies S,McCallie E,Simonsson E,Lehr JL,Duensing S.Discussing dialogue: Perspectives on the value of science dialogue events that do not inform policy'.Public Understanding of Science. 2009;18 (3): 338-53.
16. Deutsch MReflections on 100 Years of Experimental Social Psychology. Rodriguez ALevine RV, ed. New York: Basic Books; 1999:1-34.
17. Deutsch M,Gerard HB.A study of normative and informational influences upon individual judgment.Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 1955;51 (3): 629-36.
18. Ellinor L,Gerard GDialogue: Rediscover the Transforming Power of Conversation. New York: Wiley; 1998:.
19. Grönlund Å.e-democracy: In search of tools and methods for effective participation.Journal of Multicriteria Decision Analysis. 2003;12 (2-3): 93-100.
20. Hipkins R,Stockwell W,Bolstad R,Baker RCommonsense, Trust, and Science: How Patterns of Beliefs and Attitudes to Science Pose Challenges for Effective Communication. Wellington: Ministry of Research, Science and Technology; 2002:.
21. Hollingshead AB,Contractor NSThe Handbook of New Media. Lievrouw LLivingstone S, ed. London: Sage; 2002:221-35.
22. Huitema D,Kerkhof M. v. d,Pesch U.The nature of the beast: Are citizens' juries deliberative or pluralist?.Policy Sciences. 2007;40 (4): 287-311.
23. Isaacs WDialogue and the Art of Thinking Together. New York: Currency Doubleday; 1999:.
24. Kenyon W.A critical review of citizens' juries: How useful are they in facilitating public participation in the EU water framework directive?.Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. 2005;48 (3): 431-43.
25. Kerr A,Cunningham-Burley S,Tutton R.Shifting subject positions: Experts and lay people in public dialogue.Social Studies of Science. 2007;37 (3): 385-411.
26. Ketrow SMHandbook of Group Communication Theory and Research. Frey LRGouran DSPoole MS, ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1999:251-87.
27. Kinnear PR,Gray CDSPSS 14 Made Simple. Hove: Psychology Press; 2006:.
28. Koesten J,Miller KI,Hummert ML.Family communication, self-efficacy, and white female adolescents' risk behavior.Journal of Family Communication. 2002;2:7-27.
29. Lindskold S,Betz B,Walters PS.Transforming competitive or cooperative climates.Journal of Conflict. 1986;30 (1): 99-114.
30. Luskin RC,Fishkin JS,Iyengar SConsidered Opinions on U.S. Foreign Policy: Evidence from Online and Face-to-face Deliberative Polling. San Francisco, CA: The Center for Deliberative Democracy; 2006:.
31. Meyers RA,Brashers DEThe Handbook of Group Communication Theory and Research. Frey LR, ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1999:288-312.
32. Mullen B.Group composition, salience, and cognitive representations: The phenomenology of being in a group.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 1991;27 (4): 297-323.
33. Nagda BA.Breaking barriers, crossing borders, building bridges: Communication processes in intergroup dialogues.Journal of Social Issues. 2006;62 (3): 553-76.
34. Pettigrew TF,Tropp LR.A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2006;90 (5): 751-83.
35. PhillipsLJ (2009) Analysing the dialogic turn in the communication of research-based knowledge: An exploration of the tensions in collaborative research. Public Understanding of Science OnlineFirst: 1-21. Available at: pus.sagepub.com/content/early/2009/08/18/0963662509340092.abstract.
36. Price V,Nir L,Cappella JN.Normative and informational influences in online political discussions.Communication Theory. 2006;16 (1): 47-74.
37. Renn O.A model for an analytic-deliberative process in risk management.Environmental Science and Technology. 1999;33 (18): 3049-55.
38. Rowe G,Horlick-Jones T,Walls J,Poortinga W,Pidgeon NF.Analysis of a normative framework for evaluating public engagement exercises: Reliability, validity and limitations.Public Understanding of Science. 2008;17 (4): 419-44.
39. Sassenberg K,Moskowitz GB,Jacoby J,Hansen N.The carry-over effect of competition: The impact of competition on prejudice towards uninvolved outgroups.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2007;43 (4): 529-38.
40. van der Sanden MCA,Meijman FJ.Dialogue guides awareness and understanding science: An essay on different goals of dialogue leading to different science communication approaches.Public Understanding of Science. 2008;17 (1): 89-103.
41. Walls J,Rogers-Hayden T,Mohr A,O'Riordan T.Seeking citizens' views on GM crops: Experiences from the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand.Environment. 2005;47 (7): 22-37.
42. Weber JM,Kopelman S,Messick DM.A conceptual review of decision making in social dilemmas: Applying a logic of appropriateness.Personality and Social Psychology Review. 2004;8 (3): 281-307.
43. Wong RY,Hong Y.Dynamic influences of culture on cooperation in the prisoner's dilemma.Psychological Science. 2005;16 (6): 429-34.
44. Wood W,Lundgren S,Ouellette JA,Busceme S,Blackstone T.Minority influence: A meta-analytic review of social influence processes.Psychological Bulletin. 1994;115 (3): 323-45.
45. WrightKB (2005) Researching Internet-based populations: Advantages and disadvantages of online survey research, online questionnaire authoring software packages, and web survey services. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication10. Available at: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2005.tb00259.x/abstract.
46. Wright S,Street J.Democracy, deliberation and design: The case of online discussion forums.New Media and Society. 2007;9 (5): 849-69.
47. YunGWTrumboC. W (2000) Comparative response to a survey executed by post, e-mail, and web form. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication6. Available at: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2000.tb00112.x/abstract.
48. Zorn TE,Roper J,Broadfoot K,Weaver CK.Focus groups as sites of influential interaction: Building communicative self-efficacy and effecting attitudinal change in discussing controversial topics.Journal of Applied Communication Research. 2006;34 (2): 115-40.