Effects of repeated exposure to science TV shows on beliefs about scientific evidence and interest in science

Journal of Media Psychology

Volumn 25, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 3-13

  Retzbach, Joachim ^a   Retzbach, Andrea ^a   Maier, Michaela ^a   Otto, Lukas ^a   Rahnke, Marion ^a  

^a Rheinland Pfälzische Technische Universität Kaiserslautern Landau   (Germany)

Author keywords

Cultivation processes; Science communication; Uncertainty

Indexed keywords

EID: 84877271527     PISSN: 18641105     EISSN: 21512388     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1027/1864-1105/a000073     Document Type: Article

References (73)

1. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
2. Ainley, M., Hidi, S., & Berndorff, D. (2002). Interest, learning, and the psychological processes that mediate their relationship. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 3-13.
3. Bandura, A. (2009). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. In J. Bryant & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 94-124). New York: Routledge.
4. Baram-Tsabari, A., & Segev, E. (2011). Exploring new web-based tools to identify public interest in science. Public Understanding of Science, 20(1), 130-143.
5. Besley, J. C. (2010). Public engagement. In S. H. Priest (Ed.), Encyclopedia of science and technology communication (pp. 603-608). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
6. Besley, J. C., & Shanahan, J. (2005). Media attention and exposure in relation to support for agricultural biotechnology. Science Communication, 26, 347-367. (Pubitemid 40856014)
7. Braver, M. C. W., & Braver, S. L. (1988). Statistical treatment of the Solomon four-group design: A meta-analytic approach. Psychological Bulletin, 104, 150-154.
8. Brechman, J., Lee, C., & Cappella, J. N. (2009). Lost in translation? A comparison of cancer genetics reporting in the press release and its subsequent coverage in the press. Science Communication, 30, 453-474.
9. Brewer, P. R., & Ley, B. L. (2010). Media use and public perceptions of DNA evidence. Science Communication, 32(1), 93-117.
10. Bromme, R., Kienhues, D., & Stahl, E. (2008). Knowledge and epistemological beliefs: An intimate but complicate relationship. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Knowing, knowledge, and beliefs: Epistemological studies across diverse cultures (pp. 423-444). New York: Springer.
11. Brunswik, E. (1956). Perception and the representative design of psychological experiments (2nd ed.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
12. Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(1), 116-131.
13. Campbell, P. (2011). Understanding the receivers and the reception of science's uncertain messages. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 369, 4891-4912.
14. Crismore, A., & Vande Kopple, W. J. (1997). Hedges and readers: Effects on attitudes and learning. In R. Markkanen & H. Schrçder (Eds.), Hedging and discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a programatic phenomenon in academic texts (pp. 83-114). Berlin, Germany: de Gruyter.
15. Dudo, A. D., and Brossard., D. E., Shanahan, J., Scheufele, D. A., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (2011). Science on television in the 21st century: Recent trends in portrayals and their contributions to public attitudes toward science. Communication Research, 38(6), 754-777.
16. Dumanoski, D., and Farland., W. H., & Krimsky, S. (1999). Science in the public arena: A panel discussion. In S. M. Friedman (Ed.), Communicating uncertainty. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
17. Durant, J. (2010). Public understanding of science. In S. H. Priest (Ed.), Encyclopedia of science and technology communication (pp. 616-619). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
18. Einsiedel, E., & Thorne, B. (1999). Public responses to uncertainty. In S. M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, & C. L. Rogers (Eds.), Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science (pp. 43-57). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
19. Entradas, M., Miller, S., & Peters, H. P. (2011). Preaching to the converted? An analysis of the UK public for space exploration. Public Understanding of Science. doi: 10.1177/0963662511411255.
20. Evans, G., & Durant, J. (1995). The relationship between knowledge and attitudes in the public understanding of science in Britain. Public Understanding of Science, 4, 57-74.
21. Fisch, S. M. (2009). Educational television and interactive media for children. In J. Bryant & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 402-435). New York: Routledge.
22. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
23. Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1981). Scientists on the TV screen. Society, 18, 41-44.
24. Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1985). Television entertainment and viewers' conceptions of science. Philadelphia, PA: The Annenberg School of Communications, University of Pennsylvania.
25. GESIS. (2011). GLES 2009. Mannheim, Germany: GESIS.
26. Gott, R., & Duggan, S. (1998). Understanding scientific evidence. In M. Ratcliff (Ed.), ASE guide to secondary science education (pp. 92-99). Cheltenham, UK: Stanley Thornes.
27. Hofer, B. K. & Pintrich, P. R. (Eds.). (2002). Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
28. Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science education, 88(1), 28-54. (Pubitemid 38544888)
29. Jensen, J. D. (2008). Scientific uncertainty in news coverage of cancer research: Effects of hedging on scientists' and journalists' credibility. Human Communication Research, 34, 347-369.
30. Jensen, J. D., & Hurley, R. J. (2012). Conflicting stories about public scientific controversies: Effects of news convergence and divergence on scientists' credibility. Public Understanding of Science, 21, 689-704.
31. Johnson, B. B., & Slovic, P. (1995). Presenting uncertainty in health risk assessment: Initial studies of its effects on risk perception and trust. Risk Analysis, 15(4), 485-494. (Pubitemid 26435052)
32. Kepplinger, H. M. (2010). Medieneffekte [Media effects]. Wiesbaden: Verlag fur Sozialwissenschaften.
33. Kienhues, D., Bromme, R., & Stahl, E. (2008). Changing epistemological beliefs: The unexpected impact of a short-term intervention. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 545-565.
34. Kolb, S. (2004). Verlasslichkeit von Inhaltsanalysedaten [Reliability of content analysis data]. Medien und Kommunikations wissenschaft, 52, 335-354.
35. Krapp, A., & Prenzel, M. (2011). Research on interest in science: Theories, methods, and findings. International Journal of Science Education, 33(1), 27-50.
36. Kruglanski, A. W. (2004). The psychology of closed mindedness. New York: Psychology Press.
37. Kruglanski, A. W., and Webster., D. M., & Klem, A. (1993). Motivated resistance and openness to persuasion in the presence or absence of prior information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(5), 861-876.
38. Lai, W. Y. Y., & Lane, T. (2009). Characteristics of medical research news reported on front pages of newspapers. PLoS ONE, 4(7), e6103.
39. Leiserowitz, A. (2004). Before and after The Day After Tomorrow: A U.S. study of climate change risk perception. Environment, 46(9), 22-37. (Pubitemid 39431075)
40. Leshner, A. L. (2003). Public engagement with science. Science, 299(5609), 977.
41. Maier, M., Adam, S., de Vreese, C, Schuck, A., Berganza, R., Stetka, V., et al. (2011). Between integration and demarcation: Effects of Europeanized and national campaigns on voters in the 2009 European Parliament election. In M. Maier, J. Strçmback, & L. Lee Kaid (Eds.), Political communication in European Parliamentary elections (pp. 233-256). Farnham, UK: Ashgate.
42. Mares, M.-L., Cantor, J., & Steinbach, J. B. (1999). Using television to foster children's interest in science. Science Communication, 20, 283-297.
43. Maurer, M. (2011). Wie Journalisten mit Ungewissheit umgehen. Eine Untersuchung am Beispiel der Berichterstattung iiber die Folgen des Klimawandels [How journalists deal with uncertainty. A study using the example of reports about the consequences of climate change]. Medien und Kommunikationswissenschaft, 59, 60-74.
44. McPherson, M., Houseman, L., & Goodman, I. F. (2008). Absolute Zero summative evaluation. Cambridge, MA: Goodman Research Group.
45. Mende, A., Oehmichen, E., & Schrçter, C. (2012). Medienüber-greifende Informationsnutzung und Informationsrepertoires [Usage and repertoires of information across different media]. Media Perspektiven, 1, 2-17.
46. Milde, J., Giinther, L., & Ruhrmann, G. (2011, May). Framing scientific evidence in German science TV shows. Paper presented at the 61st annual meeting of the International Communication Association (ICA), Boston, USA.
47. Miller, J. D. (1983). Scientific literacy: A conceptual and empirical review. Daedalus, 112(2), 29-48.
48. Morgan, M., Shanahan, J., & Signorelli, 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: Routledge.
49. National Research Council. (2009). Learning science in informal environments: People, places, and pursuits. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
50. Niederdeppe, J., and Fowler., E. F., Goldstein, K, & Pribble, J. (2010). Does local television news coverage cultivate fatalistic beliefs about cancer prevention?. Journal of Communication, 60(2), 230-253.
51. Nisbet, M. C, Scheufele, D. A., Shanahan, J., Moy, P., Brossard, D. E., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2002). Knowledge, reservations, or promise? A media effects model for public perceptions of science and technology. Communication Research, 29(5), 584-608.
52. Oliver, M. B., & Krakowiak, M. (2009). Individual differences in media effects. In J. Bryant & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 517-531). New York: Routledge.
53. Popper, K. R. (1976). Logik der Forschung [The logic of scientific discovery]. Tubingen: Mohr.
54. Retzbach, A., Marschall, J., Rahnke, M., Otto, L., & Maier, M. (2011). Public understanding of science and the perception of nanotechnology: The roles of interest in science, methodological knowledge, epistemological beliefs, and beliefs about science. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 13, 6231-6244.
55. Retzbach, J., Otto, L., & Maier, M. (2013). Measuring the perceived uncertainty of scientific evidence and its relationship to engagement with science. Manuscript submitted for publication.
56. Richter, T. (2007). Wie analysiert man Interaktionen von metrischen und kategorialen Pradiktoren? Nicht mit Median-Splits! [How to analyze interactions of metric and categorial predictors: Not with median splits!]. Zeitschrift fitr Medienpsychologie, 19, 116-125.
57. Rozin, P. (2009). What kind of empirical research should we publish, fund, and reward? A different perspective. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(4), 435-439.
58. Rubin, A. M. (2009). Uses-and-gratifications perspective on media effects. In J. Bryant & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 165-184). New York: Routledge.
59. Schommer, M. (1994). Synthesizing epistemological belief research: Tentative understandings and provocative confusions. Educational Psychology Review, 6(4), 293-319.
60. Schommer, M. (1998). The influence of age and education on epistemological beliefs. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68(4), 551-562. (Pubitemid 128655661)
61. Selby, C. C. (2006). What makes it science? Journal of College Science Teaching, 35, 8-11.
62. Shrum, L. J. (1995). Assessing the social influence of television: A social cognition perspective on cultivation effects. Communication Research, 22, 402-429.
63. Shrum, L. J. (1996). Psychological processes underlying cultivation effects: Further tests of construct accessibility. Human Communication Research, 22, 482-509. (Pubitemid 126332735)
64. Slater, M. D. (2004). Operationalizing and analyzing exposure: The foundation of media effects research. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 81, 168-183. (Pubitemid 38783537)
65. Slovic, P. (2010). The feeling of risk: New perspectives on risk perception. London: Earthscan.
66. Solomon, R. L. (1949). An extension of control group design. Psychological Bulletin, 46, 137-150.
67. Southwell, B. G., & Torres, A. (2006). Connecting interpersonal and mass communication: Science news exposure, perceived ability to understand science, and conversation. Communication Monographs, 73, 334-350. (Pubitemid 44576502)
68. Stares, S. (2009). Using latent class models to explore crossnational typologies of public engagement with science and technology in Europe. Science, Technology & Society, 14, 289-329.
69. Stocking, S. H. (2010). Uncertainty in science communication. In S. H. Priest (Ed.), Encyclopedia of science and technology communication (pp. 919-921). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
70. Sturgis, P., & Allum, N. (2004). Science in society: Reevaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Understanding of Science, 13(1), 55-74. (Pubitemid 38662277)
71. Tamborini, R., Weber, R., Eden, A., Bowman, N. D., & Grizzard, M. (2010). Repeated exposure to daytime soap opera and shifts in moral judgment toward social convention. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 54, 621-640.
72. Webster, D. M., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1994). Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(6), 1049-1062.
73. Wiedemann, P. M., and Thalmann., A. T., Grutsch, M. A., & Schiitz, H. (2006). The impacts of precautionary measures and the disclosure of scientific uncertainty on EMF risk perception and trust. Journal of Risk Research, 9(4), 361-372. (Pubitemid 43982800)