New media landscapes and the science information consumer

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

Volumn 110, Issue SUPPL. 3, 2013, Pages 14096-14101

  Brossard, Dominique ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

Author keywords

Blogs; Social media

Indexed keywords

ACCESS TO INFORMATION; ATTITUDE; CONSUMER; EMPIRICAL RESEARCH; ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE; HUMAN; INFORMATION SEEKING; INTERNET; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; KNOWLEDGE; LANDSCAPE; NANOTECHNOLOGY; OPTIMISM; PESSIMISM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLIC OPINION; PUBLISHING; REVIEW; SCIENTIST; SEARCH ENGINE; SOCIAL MEDIA; SOCIAL NETWORK; THINKING; ARTICLE; BLOGS; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; METHODOLOGY; REPRODUCIBILITY; SCIENCE; UTILIZATION REVIEW;

BLOGS; SOCIAL MEDIA;

COMMUNICATION; HUMANS; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; INTERNET; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SCIENCE;

EID: 84887726945     PISSN: 00278424     EISSN: 10916490     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1212744110     Document Type: Review

References (42)

1. Gregory J, Miller S (1998) Science in Public: Communication, Culture and Credibility (Plenum, New York).
2. Corley EA, Kim Y, Scheufele DA (2011) Leading U.S. nano-scientists' perceptions about media coverage and the public communication of scientific research findings. J Nanopart Res 13(12):7041-7055.
3. Colson V (2011) Science blogs as competing channels for the dissemination of science news. Journalism 12(7):889-902.
4. Berger J, Milkman KL (2012) What makes online content viral. J Mark Res XLIX: 192-205.
5. Ladwig P, Anderson AA, Brossard D, Scheufele DA, Shaw B (2010) Narrowing the nano discourse? Mater Today 13(5):52-54.
6. Brossard D, Scheufele DA (2013) Social science: Science, new media, and the public. Science 339(6115):40-41.
7. Brossard D (2012) A brave new world: Challenges and opportunities for communicating about biotechnology in new information environments. Biotechnologie-Kommunikation: Kontroversen, Analysen, Aktivitäten, eds Weitze M-D, et al. (Springer, Heidelberg), pp 427-445.
8. Brossard D, Lewenstein BV (2009) A critical appraisal of models of public understanding of science: Using practice to inform theory. Understanding Science: New Agendas in Science Communication, eds Kahlor L, Stout P (Routledge, New York).
9. Nelkin D (1995) Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology (Freeman, New York), Rev Ed.
10. Nisbet MC, et al. (2002) Knowledge, reservations, or promise? A media effects model for public perceptions of science and technology. Communic Res 29(5):584-608.
11. Farhi P (2008) Don't blame the journalism. Am Journal Rev Oct/Nov 2008.
12. Deuze M (2003) The Web and its journalisms: Considering the consequences of different types of newsmedia online. New Media Soc 5(2):203-230.
13. Fausto S, et al. (2012) Research blogging: Indexing and registering the change in science 2.0. PLoS ONE 7(12):e50109.
14. Anderson AA, Brossard D, Scheufele DA, Xenos MA, Ladwig P The "nasty effect": Online incivility and risk perceptions of emerging technologies. J Comput Mediat Commun, in press.
15. Owen S (2011) The layered look: How Google News is integrating the social web. Nieman Journalism Lab (Nieman Foundation at Harvard University, Cambridge, MA).
16. 'Pew Internet and American Life Project (2012) Trend Data (Adults) (Pew Research Center, Washington, DC).
17. Mitchell A, Rosenstiel T, Christian L (2012) Mobile devices and news consumption: Some good signs for journalism. The State of the News Media: An Annual Report on American Journalism (The Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism) (Pew Research Center, Washington, DC).
18. National Science Board (2006) Science and technology: Public attitudes and understanding. Science and Engineering Indicators 2006 (National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA).
19. National Science Board (2008) Science and technology: Public attitudes and understanding. Science and Engineering Indicators 2008 (National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA).
20. National Science Board (2010) Science and technology: Public attitudes and understanding. Science and Engineering Indicators 2010 (National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA).
21. National Science Board (2012) Science and technology: Public attitudes and understanding. Science and Engineering Indicators 2012 (National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA).
22. Dudo A, et al. (2011) Science on television in the 21st century: Recent trends in portrayals and their contributions to public attitudes toward science. Communic Res 48(6):754-777.
23. Allgaier J, Dunwoody S, Brossard D, Lo Y-Y, Peters HP (2013) Journalism and social media as means of neuroscientists' observation of contexts of science. Biosciences 63(4):284-287.
24. McGowan BS, et al. (2012) Understanding the factors that influence the adoption and meaningful use of social media by physicians to share medical information. J Med Internet Res 14(5):e117.
25. Anderson AA, Brossard D, Scheufele DA (2010) The changing information environment for nanotechnology: Online audiences and content. J Nanopart Res 12(4): 1083-1094.
26. Horrigan J (2006) The internet as a resource for news and information about science. Pew Internet and American Life Project (Pew Research Center, Washington, DC).
27. Segev E, Baram-Tsabari A (2012) Seeking science information online: Data mining Google to better understand the roles of the media and the education system. Public Underst Sci 21(7):813-829.
28. Xenos MA, Becker AB, Anderson AA, Brossard D, Scheufele DA (2011) Stimulating upstream engagement: An experimental study of nanotechnology information seeking. Soc Sci Q 92(5):1191-1214.
29. Gerhards Jr, Schäfer MS (2010) Is the internet a better public sphere? Comparing old and new media in the USA and Germany. New Media Soc 12(1):143-160.
30. Cacciatore MA, et al. (2012) Coverage of emerging technologies: A comparison between print and online media. New Media Soc 14(6):1039-1059.
31. Runge KK, et al. (2013) Tweeting nano: How public discourses about nanotechnology develop in social media environments. J Nanopart Res 15:1381.
32. Liang X, Anderson AA, Scheufele DA, Brossard D, Xenos MA (2012) Information snapshots: What Google searches really tell us about emerging technologies. Nano Today 7(2):72-75.
33. Bryant J, Oliver MB (2009) Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research (Routledge, New York), 3rd Ed.
34. Allgaier J (2013) On the shoulders of YouTube: Science in music videos. Sci Commun 35(2):266-275.
35. Winter S, Krämer NC (2012) Selecting science information in Web 2.0: How source cues, message sidedness, and need for cognition influence users' exposure to blog posts. J Comput Mediat Commun 18(1):80-96.
36. Brossard D, Nisbet MC (2007) Deference to scientific authority among a low information public: Understanding U.S. opinion on agricultural biotechnology. Int J Public Opin Res 19(1):24-52.
37. Cacciatore MA, Scheufele DA, Corley EA Another (methodological) look at knowledge gaps and the Internet ' s potential for closing them. Public Underst Sci, in press.
38. Eveland WP, Jr., Cortese J, Park H, Dunwoody S (2004) How Web site organization influences free recall, factual knowledge, and knowledge structure density. Hum Commun Res 30(2):208-233. (Pubitemid 39056971)
39. Eveland WP, Jr., Cooper KE (2013) An Integrated Model of Communication Influence on Beliefs. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110:14088-14095.
40. Brossard D, Scheufele DA, Kim E, Lewenstein BV (2009) Religiosity as a perceptual filter: Examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology. Public Underst Sci 18(5):546-558.
41. Anderson A, Ladwig P, Brossard D, Scheufele DA, Xenos M (2010) Reading blog comments: The role of civility and issue exposure on perceptions of media and attitudes toward science. in ECREA European Communication Conference (Hamburg, Germany). Available at www.ecrea.eu/archive. Accessed November 10, 2012.
42. Scheufele DA, Nisbet MC (2012) Online news and the demise of political debate. Communication Yearbook, ed Salmon CT (Sage, Newbury Park, CA), Vol 36, pp 45-53.