Exploring audience judgments of social science in media discourse the case of the violent video games debate

Journal of Media Psychology

Volumn 25, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 27-38

  Sjöström, Arne ^a   Sowka, Alexandra ^b   Gollwitzer, Mario ^a   Klimmt, Christoph ^b   Rothmund, Tobias ^c  

^a PHILIPPS UNIVERSITY MARBURG   (Germany)

^b Hanover University of Music and Drama   (Germany)

^c University of Koblenz   (Germany)

Author keywords

Public understanding of science; Public view of journalism; Science communication; Social science; Violent video games

Indexed keywords

EID: 84877253971     PISSN: 18641105     EISSN: 21512388     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1027/1864-1105/a000077     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Albaek, E. (1995). Between knowledge and power: Utilization of social science in public policymaking. Policy Sciences, 28, 79-100.
2. Albaek, E., and Christiansen., P. M., & Togeby, L. (2003). Experts in the mass media: Researchers as sources in Danish daily newspapers, 1961-2001. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 80, 937-948. (Pubitemid 38473897)
3. 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.
4. Anderson, C. A. (2004). An update on the effects of violent video games. Journal of Adolescence, 27, 113-122. (Pubitemid 38228509)
5. Bogner, A., & Menz, W. (2006). Science crime: The Korean cloning scandal and the role of ethics. Science and Public Policy, 33, 601-612. (Pubitemid 44869458)
6. Brosius, H. B. (1995). Alltagsrationalitdt in der Nachrichtenre-zeption. Ein Modell zur Wahrnehmung und Verarbeitung von Nachrichteninhalten [Everyday rationality within news reception: A model of perception and processing of news contents]. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
7. Brossard, D., and Scheufele., D. A., Kim, E., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2009). Religiosity as a perceptual filter: Examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 18, 546-558.
8. Bushman, B. J., and Rothstein., H. R., & Anderson, C. A. (2010). Much ado about something: Violent video game effects and a school of red herring - Reply to Ferguson and Kilburn (2010). Psychological Bulletin, 136, 182-187.
9. Donsbach, W., Rentsch, M., Schielicke, A. M., & Degen, S. (2009). Entzauberung eines Berufs. Was die Deutschen vom Journalismus erwarten und wie sie enttäuscht werden [Demystification of a profession: What Germans expect from journalism and how they got disapointed]. Konstanz: UVK.
10. Edwards, C. (2004). Evaluating European public awareness of science initiatives: A review of the literature. Science Communication, 25, 260-271. (Pubitemid 38254744)
11. Elmer, C, Badenschier, F., & Wormer, H. (2008). Science for everybody? How the coverage of research issues in German newspapers has increased dramatically. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 85, 878-893.
12. Federal Statistical Office of Germany. (2010). Statistisches Jahrbuch (2011) [Statistical yearbook]. Wiesbaden: Statistisches Bundesamt.
13. Fengler, S., & Ruß-Mohl, S. (2008). Journalists and the information-attention markets: Towards an economic theory of journalism. Journalism, 9, 667-690.
14. Ferguson, C. J. (2008). The school shooting/violent video game link: Causal link or moral panic? Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 5, 25-37.
15. Ferguson, C. J., & Kilburn, J. (2010). Much ado about nothing: The misestimation and over interpretation of violent video game effects in Eastern and Western nations - Comment on Anderson et al. (2010). Psychological Bulletin, 136, 151-173.
16. Gunther, A. C, & Liebhart, J. L. (2006). Broad reach or biased source? Decomposing the hostile media effect. Journal of Communication, 56, 449-466. (Pubitemid 44138392)
17. Haslam, C, & Bryman, A. (1994). Social scientists meet the media. London: Routledge.
18. Kepplinger, H. M., Brosius, H., & Staab, J. F. (1991). Instrumental actualization: A theory of mediated conflicts. European Journal of Communication, 6, 263-290.
19. Kim, H. S. (2007). PEP/IS: A New Model for Communicative Effectiveness of Science. Science Communication, 28, 287-313.
20. Klimmt, C, Sowka, A., Rothmund, T., & Gollwitzer, M. (2012, May). Difficult issues Xbusy people Xsystemic constraints: A reciprocity model of bias risks in news media reporting of social science research. Paper presented at the annual conference of the International Communication Association (ICA). Phoenix, AZ, USA.
21. Liebes, T. (1997). Reporting the Israeli-Arab conflict: How hegemony works. London: Routledge.
22. Lindblom, C. E., & Cohen, D. K. (1979). Usable knowledge: Social science and social problem solving. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
23. Liptak, A. (2010, November 2). Justices debate video game ban. In The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com
24. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123-205.
25. 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.
26. Rçdder, S. (2009). Reassessing the concept of a medialization of science: A story from the 'book of life'. Public Understanding of Science, 18, 452-463.
27. Schafer, M. S. (2009). From public understanding to public engagement: An empirical assessment of changes in science coverage. Science Communication, 30, 475-505.
28. Scheufele, D. (2006). Five lessons in nano outreach. Materials Today, 9(5), 64.
29. Schmierbach, M. (2005). The influence of methodology on journalists' assessments of social science research. Science Communication, 26, 269-288.
30. Shamos, M. (1995). The myth of scientific literacy. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
31. Sowka, A., Klimmt, C, Rothmund, T., & Gollwitzer, M. (2011, July). Appearance of social science research in the media: An exploration of news reports on violent video games. Paper presented at the conference of the International Association for Media and Communication Research (IAMCR), Istanbul, Turkey.
32. Trepte, S., Burkhardt, S., & Weidner, W. (2008). Wissenschaft in den Medien prdsentieren. Ein Ratgeber fur die Scientific Community [Presenting science in the media: A guidebook for the scientific community]. Frankfurt a. M.: Campus.
33. Tsfati, Y., & Cappella, J. N. (2003). Do people watch what they do not trust? Exploring the association between news media skepticism and exposure. Communication Research, 30, 504-529. (Pubitemid 37170551)
34. Tsfati, Y., Meyers, O., & Peri, Y. (2006). What is good journalism? Comparing Israeli public and journalists' perspectives. Journalism, 7, 152-173.
35. Weigold, M. F. (2001). Communicating science: A review of the literature. Science Communication, 23, 164-193. (Pubitemid 33744499)
36. Weingart, P. (1998). Science and the Media. Research Policy, 27, 869-879. (Pubitemid 128419006)
37. Wessler, H. (1995). Die journalistische Verwendung sozialwis- senschaftlichen Wissens und ihre Bedeutung fur gesells-chaftliche Diskurse [The journalistic use of social science knowledge and its implications for societal discourses]. Publizistik, 40, 20-38.
38. Wynne, B. (2006). Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science: Hitting the notes, but missing the music? Community Genetics, 9, 211-220. (Pubitemid 43854187)