Informal Learning Through Science Media Usage

Educational Psychologist

Volumn 49, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 86-103

  Maier, Michaela ^a   Rothmund, Tobias ^a   Retzbach, Andrea ^a   Otto, Lukas ^a   Besley, John C ^b  

^a University of Koblenz Landau   (Germany)

^b MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84903627434     PISSN: 00461520     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2014.916215     Document Type: Article

References (182)

1. Ajzen, I. (2012). Attitudes and persuasion. In K. Deaux & M. Snyder (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of personality and social psychology (pp. 367-393). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
2. 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. doi:10.1177/0963662506070159
3. Anderson, A., Allan, S., Petersen, A., & Wilkinson, C. (2005). The framing of nanotechnologies in the British newspaper press. Science Communication, 27, 200-220. doi:10.1177/1075547005281472
4. Anderson, D. R., Lorch, E. P., Field, D. E., & Sanders, J. (1981). The effects of TV program comprehensibility on preschool children's visual attention to television. Child Development, 52, 151-157. doi:10.2307/1129224
5. Atkin, C. (1973). Instrumental utilities and information seeking. In P. Clarke (Ed.), New models for mass communication research (pp. 205-242). Oxford, England: Sage.
6. Badenschier, F., & Wormer, H. (2012). Issue selection in science journalism: Towards a special theory of news values for science news? In S. Rödder, M. Franzen, & P. Weingart (Eds.), The sciences' media connection and communication to the public and its repercussions. Sociology of the sciences yearbook (pp. 59-86). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
7. Bamberg, S., & Möser, G. (2007). Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27, 14-25. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.12.002
8. Barr, R. (2008). Attention and learning from media during infancy and early childhood. In S. L. Calvert & B. J. Wilson (Eds.), The handbook of children, media, and development (pp. 143-165). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
9. Bauer, M. W. (2009). The evolution of public understanding of science: Discourse and comparative evidence. Science Technology & Society, 14, 221-240. doi:10.1177/097172180901400202
10. Bauer, M. W., Allum, N., & Miller, S. (2007). What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 79-95. doi:10.1177/0963662506071287
11. Bennett, W. L., & Iyengar, S. (2008). A new era of minimal effects? The changing foundations of political communication. Journal of Communication, 58, 707-731.
12. Besley, J. C. (2010). Current research on public perceptions of nanotechnology. Emerging Health Threats Journal, 3, e8. doi:10.3134/ehtj.10.164
13. Besley, J. C., & Shanahan, J. (2005). Media attention and exposure in relation to support for agricultural biotechnology. Science Communication, 26, 347-367. doi:10.1177/1075547005275443
14. Blumler, J. G., & Katz, E. (1974). The uses of mass communications: Current perspectives on gratifications research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
15. Brewer, N. T., Chapman, G. B., Gibbons, F. X., Gerrard, M., McCaul, K. D., & Weinstein, N. D. (2007). Meta-analysis of the relationship between risk perception and health behavior: The example of vaccination. Health Psychology, 26, 136-145. doi:10.1037/0278-6133.26.2.136
16. Brossard, D., & Nisbet, M. C. (2007). Deference to scientific authority among a low information public: Understanding US opinion on agricultural biotechnology. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 19, 24-52. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edl003
17. Brossard, D., & Scheufele, D. A. (2013). Science, new media, and the public. Science, 339, 40-41.
18. Buijzen, M., Van Reijmersdal, E. A., & Owen, L. H. (2010). Introducing the PCMC model: An investigative framework for young people's processing of commercialized media content. Communication Theory, 20, 427-450. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2010.01370.x
19. Burns, T. W., O'Connor, D. J., & Stocklmayer, S. M. (2003). Science communication: A contemporary definition. Public Understanding of Science, 12, 183-202. doi:10.1177/09636625030122004
20. Cacciatore, M. A., Scheufele, D. A., & Corley, E. A. (2011). From enabling technology to applications: The evolution of risk perceptions about nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 20, 385-404. doi:10.1177/0963662509347815
21. Calvert, S. L., Huston, A. C., & Wright, J. C. (1987). Effects of television preplay formats on children's attention and story comprehension. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 8, 329-342. doi:10.1016/0193-3973(87)90008-6
22. Chinn, C. A., Buckland, L. A., & Samarapungavan, A. (2011). Expanding the dimensions of epistemic cognition. Argumens from philosophy and psychology. Educational Psychologist, 46, 141-167.
23. Clark, F., & Illman, D. L. (2006). A longitudinal study of the New York Times science times section. Science Communication, 27, 496-513. doi:10.1177/1075547006288010
24. Clarke, C. E. (2008). A question of balance-The autism-vaccine controversy in the British and American elite press. Science Communication, 30, 77-107. doi:10.1177/1075547008320262
25. Coleman, R., McCombs, M., Shaw, D., & Weaver, D. (2009). Agenda setting. In K. Wahl-Jorgensen & T. Hanitzsch (Eds.), The handbook of journalism studies (pp. 147-160). New York, NY: Routledge.
26. Cooper, B. E. J., Lee, W. E., Goldacre, B. M., & Sanders, T. A. B. (2012). The quality of the evidence for dietary advice given in UK national newspapers. Public Understanding of Science, 21, 664-673. doi:10.1177/0963662511401782
27. Corner, A., Whitmarsh, L., & Xenias, D. (2012). Uncertainty, scepticism and attitudes towards climate change: Biased assimilation and attitude polarisation. Climatic Change, 114, 463-478. doi:10.1007/s10584-012-0424-6
28. Dahlstrom, M. F., & Ho, S. S. (2012). Ethical considerations of using narrative to communicate science. Science Communication, 34, 592-617. doi:10.1177/1075547012454597
29. Dehm, U. (2008). Zwischen Lust und Lernen-Wissens- und Wissenschaftssendungen: Ergebnisse, Möglichkeiten und Grenzen von Medienforschung [Between pleasure and learning-Knowledge- and science-programs: Results, possibilities, and limits of media research]. In H. Hettwer, M. Lehmkuhl, H. Wormer, & F. Zotta (Eds.), WissensWelten. Wissenschaftsjournalismus in Theorie und Praxis [Worlds of knowledge. Science journalism in theory and practice] (pp. 483-500). Güterslohm, Germany: Verlag Bertelsmann Stiftung.
30. Ding, D., Maibach, E. W., Zhao, X., Roser-Renouf, C., & Leiserowitz, A. (2011). Support for climate policy and societal action are linked to perceptions about scientific agreement. Nature Climate Change, 1, 462-466. doi:10.1038/nclimate1295
31. Dohle, S., Keller, C., & Siegrist, M. (2010). Examining the relationship between affect and implicit associations: Implications for risk perception. Risk Analysis, 30, 1116-1128.
32. Donk, A., Metag, J., Kohring, M., & Marcinkowski, F. (2012). Framing emerging technologies: Risk perceptions of nanotechnology in the German press. Science Communication, 34, 5-29. doi:10.1177/1075547011417892
33. Dudo, A. D., Brossard, D., 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, 754-777. doi:10.1177/0093650210384988
34. Dudo, A. D., Dunwoody, S., & Scheufele, D. A. (2011). The emergence of nano news: Tracking thematic trends and changes in U.S. newspaper coverage of nanotechnology. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 88, 55-75. doi:10.1177/107769901108800104
35. Dunwoody, S. (2008). Science journalism. In M. Bucchi & B. Trench (Eds.), Handbook of public communication of science and technology (pp. 15-26). New York, NY: Routledge.
36. 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.
37. Durant, J. R., Evans, G. A., & Thomas, G. P. (1989). The public understanding of science. Nature, 340, 11-14.
38. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
39. 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. doi:10.1177/107769900808500410
40. Engelmann, I. (2012). Alltagsrationalität im Journalismus: Akteurs- und organisationsbezogene Einflussfaktoren der Nachrichtenauswahl [Day-to-day rationality in journalism: Person- and organization-related factors influencing the selection of news]. Konstanz, Germany: UVK.
41. Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51-58. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x
42. Entman, R. M., Matthes, J., & Pellicano, L. (2009). Framing politics in the news: Nature, sources and effects Handbook of journalism studies (pp. 175-190). New York, NY: Routledge.
43. Eurobarometer. (2008). Young people and science: Analytical report. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_239_en.pdf
44. Eurobarometer. (2010). Eurobarometer spezial 340: Wissenschaft und Technik [Science and technology]. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_340_de.pdf
45. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
46. Feygina, I., Jost, J. T., & Goldsmith, R. E. (2010). System justification, the denial of global warming, and the possibility of SPiquotSPisystem-sanctioned changeSPiquotSPi. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 326-338. doi:10.1177/0146167209351435
47. Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A. S., Slovic, P., & Johnson, S. M. (2000). The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13, 1-17. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(200001/03)13:1<1::AID-BDM333>3.0.CO;2-S
48. Fisch, S. M. (2000). A capacity model of children's comprehension of educational content on television. Media Psychology, 2, 63-91. doi:10.1207/s1532785xmep0201
49. 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, NY: Routledge.
50. Fischer, P., Schulz-Hardt, S., & Frey, D. (2008). Selective exposure and information quantity: How different information quantities moderate decision makers' preference for consistent and inconsistent information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 231. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.94.2.94.2.231
51. Floyd, D. L., Prentice-Dunn, S., & Rogers, R. W. (2000). A meta-analysis of research on protection motivation theory. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 407-429. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02323.x
52. Frewer, L. J., Hunt, S., Brennan, M., Kuznesof, S., Ness, M., & Ritson, C. (2003). The views of scientific experts on how the public conceptualize uncertainty. Journal of Risk Research, 6, 75-85. doi:10.1080/1366987032000047815
53. Frewer, L. J., Miles, S., Brennan, M., Kuznesof, S., Ness, M., & Ritson, C. (2002). Public preferences for informed choice under conditions of risk uncertainty. Public Understanding of Science, 11. 363-372. doi:10.1088/0963-6625/11/4/304
54. Friedman, S. M., Dunwoody, S., & Rogers, C. L. (Eds.). (1999). Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
55. Gallup. (2012, March 30). In U.S., global warming views steady despite warm winter [Web log post]. Gallup Politics. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/153608/Global-Warming-Views-Steady-Despite-Warm-Winter.aspx
56. Galtung, J., & Ruge, M. H. (1965). The structure of foreign news. Journal of Peace Research, 2, 64-91. doi:10.2307/423011
57. Gamson, W. A., & Modigliani, A. (1989). Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology, 95, 1-37. doi:10.1086/229213
58. Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1981). Scientists on the TV screen. Society, 18, 41-44. doi:10.1007/BF02701349
59. Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1985). Television entertainment and viewers' conceptions of science. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, The Annenberg School of Communications.
60. Goldman, S. R., & Bisanz, G. L. (2002). Toward a Functional Analysis of Science Genres: Implications for Understanding and Learning Processes. In J. Otero, J. A. Leon & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension (pp. 19-50). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
61. Green, M. C., & Brock, T. C. (2000). The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 701-721. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.701
62. Griffin, R. J., Dunwoody, S., & Neuwirth, K. (1999). Proposed model of the relationship of risk information seeking and processing to the development of preventive behaviors. Environmental Research, 80, 230-245. doi:10.1006/enrs.1998.3940
63. Griffin, R. J., Neuwirth, K., Dunwoody, S., & Giese, J. (2004). Information sufficiency and risk communication. Media Psychology, 6, 23-61. doi:10.1207/s1532785xmep0601_2
64. Griffin, R. J., Yang, Z., ter Huurne, E., Boerner, F., Ortiz, S., & Dunwoody, S. (2008). After the flood: Anger, attribution, and the seeking of information. Science Communication, 29, 285-315. doi:10.1177/1075547007312309
65. Groboljsek, B., & Mali, F. (2012). Daily newspapers' views on nanotechnology in Slovenia. Science Communication, 34, 30-56. doi:10.1177/1075547011427974
66. Günther, L., & Ruhrmann, G. (2013). Science journalists' selection criteria and depiction of nanotechnology in German media. Journal of Science Communication, 12(3), 1-17.
67. Hart, W., Albarracín, D., Eagly, A. H., Brechan, I., Lindberg, M. J., & Merrill, L. (2009). Feeling validated versus being correct: A meta-analysis of selective exposure to information. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 555-588. doi:10.1037/a0015701
68. Hijmans, E., Pleijter, A., & Wester, F. (2003). Covering scientific research in Dutch newspapers. Science Communication, 25, 153-176. doi:10.1177/1075547003259559
69. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16, 235-266.
70. 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. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edn017
71. Hodgetts, D., Chamberlain, K., Scammell, M., Karapu, R., & Nikora, L. W. (2008). Constructing health news: Possibilities for a civic-oriented journalism. Health, 12, 43-66. doi:10.1177/1363459307083697
72. Huston, A. C., Wright, J. C., Wartella, E. A., Rice, M. L., Watkins, B. A., Campbell, T., & Potts, R. (1981). Communicating more than content: Formal features of children's television programs. Journal of Communication, 31, 32-48. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1981.tb00426.x
73. Hwang, Y., & Southwell, B. G. (2009). Science TV news exposure predicts science beliefs: Real world effects among a national sample. Communication Research, 36, 724-742. doi:10.1177/0093650209338912
74. 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. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2008.00324.x
75. 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. doi:10.1177/0963662510387759
76. Johnson, B. B. (2003). Further notes on public response to uncertainty in risks and science. Risk Analysis, 23, 781-789. doi:10.1111/1539-6924.00355
77. Johnson, B. B. (2005). Testing and expanding a model of cognitive processing of risk information. Risk Analysis, 25, 631-650. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00609.x
78. 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, 485-494. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1995.tb00341.x
79. Johnson, B. B., & Slovic, P. (1998). Lay views on uncertainty in environmental health risk assessment. Journal of Risk Research, 1, 261-279. doi:10.1080/136698798377042
80. Kahlor, L., Dunwoody, S., Griffin, R. J., & Neuwirth, K. (2006). Seeking and processing information about impersonal risk. Science Communication, 28, 163-194. doi:10.1177/1075547006293916
81. Kahlor, L., & Rosenthal, S. (2009). If we seek, do we learn? Predicting knowledge of global warming. Science Communication, 30, 380-414. doi:10.1177/1075547008328798
82. Keller, C., Siegrist, M., & Gutscher, H. (2006). The role of the affect and availability heuristics in risk communication. Risk Analysis, 26, 631-639. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00773
83. Kelly, A. E., & Spear, P. S. (1991). Intraprogram synopses for children's comprehension of television content. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 52, 87-98. doi:10.1016/0022-0965(91)90007-f
84. Kimmerle, J., & Cress, U. (2013). The effects of TV and film exposure on knowledge about and attitudes toward mental disorders. Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 931-943. doi:10.1002/jcop.21581
85. Kjærgaard, R. S. (2010). Making a small country count: Nanotechnology in Danish newspapers from 1996 to 2006. Public Understanding of Science, 19, 80-97. doi:10.1177/0963662508093090
86. Klimmt, C., Sowka, A., Rothmund, T., & Gollwitzer, M. (2012, May). Difficult Issues × Busy People × Systemic Constraints: A reciprocity model of bias risks in news media reporting of social science research. Paper presented at the International Communication Association. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=85900179&lang=de&scope=site
87. Koballa, T. R., & Glynn, S. M. (2007). Attitudinal and motivational constructs in science learning. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederderman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 73-102). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
88. Kouw, M., Van Den Heuvel, C., & Scharnhorst, A. (2013). Exploring uncertainty in knowledge representation: Classification, simulations and models of the world. In P. Wouters, A. Beaulieu, A. Scharnhorst & S. Wyatt (Eds.), Virtual knowledge: Experimenting in the humanities and the social sciences (pp. 89-126). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
89. Kua, E., Reder, M., & Grossel, M. J. (2004). Science in the news: A study of reporting genomics. Public Understanding of Science, 13, 309-322. doi:10.1177/0963992504045539
90. Kurath, M., & Gisler, P. (2009). Informing, involving or engaging? Science communication, in the ages of atom-, bio- and nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 18, 559-573. doi:10.1177/0963662509104723
91. Lang, A. (2000). The limited capacity model of mediated message processing. Journal of Communication, 50, 46-70.
92. Lee, C.-J., & Niederdeppe, J. (2011). Genre-specific cultivation effects: Lagged associations between overall TV viewing, local TV news viewing, and fatalistic beliefs about cancer prevention. Communication Research, 38, 731-753. doi:10.1177/0093650210384990
93. 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. doi:10.1177/107769900608300406
94. Leon, B. (2008). Science related information in European television: A study of prime-time news. Public Understanding of Science, 17, 443-460. doi:10.1177/09636625056073089
95. Leskovec, J., Backstrom, L., & Kleinberg, J. (2009, August). Meme-tracking and the dynamics of the news cycle. Paper presented at the ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD).
96. Levine, T. R., Serota, K. B., & Shulman, H. C. (2010). The impact of Lie to Me on viewers' actual ability to detect deception. Communication Research, 37, 847-856. doi:10.1177/0093650210362686
97. Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers. Oxford, England: Harpers.
98. Ley, B. L., Jankowski, N., & Brewer, P. R. (2012). Investigating CSI: Portrayals of DNA testing on a forensic crime show and their potential effects. Public Understanding of Science, 21, 51-67. doi:10.1177/0963662510367571
99. Listerman, T. (2010). Framing of science issues in opinion-leading news: International comparison of biotechnology issue coverage. Public Understanding of Science, 19, 5-15. doi:10.1177/0963662505089539
100. Littek, M. S. (2012). Wissenschaftskommunikation im Web 2.0. Eine empirische Studie zur Mediennutzung von Wissenschaftsblogs [Science communication in the Web 2.0. An empirical study on media use of science blogs]. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang.
101. 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. doi:10.1177/0963662508097625
102. Maeseele, P. A., & Schuurman, D. (2008). Biotechnology and the popular press in Northern Belgium-A case study of hegemonic media discourses and the interpretive struggle. Science Communication, 29, 435-471. doi:10.1177/1075547008316221
103. Marks, L. A., Kalaitzandonakes, N., Wilkins, L., & Zakharova, L. (2007). Mass media framing of biotechnology news. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 183-203. doi:10.1177/0963662506065054
104. Mayer, R. E., Bove, W., Bryman, A., Mars, R., & Tapangco, L. (1996). When less is more: Meaningful learning from visual and verbal summaries of science textbook lessons. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 64-73. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.88.1.64
105. Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 43-52. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3801_6
106. McComas, K. A. (2006). Defining moments in risk communication research: 1996-2005. Journal of Health Communication, 11, 75-91. doi:10.1080/10810730500461091
107. McPherson, M., Houseman, L., & Goodman, I. F. (2008). Absolute Zero: Summative evaluation. Cambridge, MA: Goodman Research Group.
108. McQueen, A., Kreuter, M. W., Kalesan, B., & Alcaraz, K. I. (2011). Understanding narrative effects: The impact of breast cancer survivor stories on message processing, attitudes, and beliefs among African American women. Health Psychology, 30, 674-682. doi:10.1037/a0025395
109. Meier, K., & Feldmeier, F. (2005). Wissenschaftsjournalismus und Wissenschafts-PR im Wandel [Changing science journalism and science PR]. Publizistik, 50, 201-224. doi:10.1007/s11616-005-0126-4
110. Mende, A., Oehmichen, E., & Schröter, C. (2012). Medienübergreifende Informationsnutzung und Informationsrepertoires [Usage and repertoires of information across different media]. Media Perspektiven, 1, 2-17.
111. Michel, E., & Roebers, C. M. (2008). Children's knowledge acquisition through film: Influence of programme characteristics. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 1228-1244. doi:10.1002/acp.1431
112. Milde, J. (2009). Vermitteln und Verstehen [Conveying and understanding]. Wiesbaden, Germany: VS.
113. Milde, J. (2013). Die Analyse wissensvermittelnder Fernsehformate auf der Grundlage theoretischer und empirischer Implikationen aus der (Text-)Verständlichkeitsforschung [The analysis of educational television formats on the basis of theoretical and empirical implications of (text-)intelligibility research]. In R. Schröpf (Ed.), Medien als Mittel urbaner Kommunikation. Deutsch-französische Perspektiven [Media as a means for urban communication. Perspectives in Germany and France] (pp. 143-162). Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang.
114. Milde, J., Günther, L., & Ruhrmann, G. (2013). Qualität in der Wissenschaftsberichterstattung: Eine Analyse zum evidenz-basierten Wissenschaftsjournalismus in TV Wissenschaftsmagazinen am Beispiel der Biomedizin [Quality in science coverage: An analysis of the evidence-based science journalism in television science shows using the example of biomedicine]. Manuscript submitted for publication.
115. Milde, J., & Hölig, S. (2011). "Das Bild ist stärker als das WortSPiquotSPi-Selektions- und Darstellungskriterien von TV-Wissenschaftsjournalisten beim Thema SPiquotSPiMolekulare MedizinSPiquotSPi [SPiquotSPiThe image is stronger than the wordSPiquotSPi-Selection- and presentation-criteria of science TV journalists covering SPiquotSPimolecular medicineSPiquotSPi]. In G. Ruhrmann, J. Milde & A. F. Zillich (Eds.), Molekulare Medizin und Medien (pp. 71-98). Wiesbaden, Germany: VS.
116. Miller, J. D., Augenbraun, E., Schulhof, J., & Kimmel, L. G. (2006). Adult science learning from local television newscasts. Science Communication, 28, 216-242. doi:10.1177/1075547006294461
117. Moyer-Gusé, E. (2008). Toward a theory of entertainment persuasion: Explaining the persuasive effects of entertainment-education messages. Communication Theory, 18, 407-425. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2008.00328.x
118. Moyer-Gusé, E., & Nabi, R. L. (2010). Explaining the effects of narrative in an entertainment television program: Overcoming resistance to persuasion. Human Communication Research, 36, 26-52. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2009.01367.x
119. National Science Board. (2012). Science and technology: Public attitudes and public understanding. Science and engineering indicators 2012. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/c7/c7s1.htm
120. Nauroth, P., Gollwitzer, M., Bender, J., & Rothmund, T. (2014). Gamers against science: The case of the violent video games debate. European Journal of Social Psychology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1002/ejsp.1998
121. Nelkin, D. (1987). Selling science: How the press covers science and technology. New York, NY: Freeman.
122. Neuman, S. B., Burden, D., & Holden, E. (1990). Enhancing children's comprehension of a televised story through previewing. The Journal of Educational Research, 83, 258-265.
123. Nisbet, M. C., & Scheufele, D. A. (2009). What's next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany, 96, 1767-1778. doi:10.3732/ajb.0900041
124. 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, 584-608. doi:10.1177/009365002236196
125. Nolan, J. M. (2010). "An Inconvenient TruthSPiquotSPi increases knowledge, concern, and willingness to reduce greenhouse gases. Environment and Behavior, 42, 643-658. doi:10.1177/0013916509357696
126. Olausson, U. (2009). Global warming-global responsibility? Media frames of collective action and scientific certainty. Public Understanding of Science, 18, 421-436. doi:10.1177/0963662507081242
127. O'Neill, D., & Harcup, T. (2009). News values an selectivity. In K. Wahl-Jorgensen & T. Hanitzsch (Eds.), The handbook of journalism studies (pp. 161-174). New York, NY: Routledge.
128. Östgaard, E. (1965). Factors influencing the flow of news. Journal of Peace Research, 2, 39-63. doi:10.2307/423010
129. Parrott, R., Silk, K., Raup Krieger, J., Harris, T., & Condit, C. (2004). Behavioral health outcomes associated with religious faith and media exposure about human genetics. Health Communication, 16, 29-45. doi:10.1207/s15327027hc1601_3
130. Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism. (2010). The state of the news media: Audience behavior. An annual report on American journalism. Retrieved from http://stateofthemedia.org/2010/online-summary-essay/audience-behavior/
131. Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. (2008). News consumption and believability study. Retrieved from http://people-press.org/http://people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/444.pdf
132. Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism. (2013). The State of the News Media 2013. An annual report on American journalism. Retrieved from http://stateofthemedia.org/2013/special-reports-landing-page/the-changing-tv-news-landscape/
133. Potter, W. J. (2012). Media effects. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
134. Powell, M., Colin, M., Lee Kleinman, D., Delborne, J., & Anderson, A. (2011). Imagining ordinary citizens? Conceptualized and actual participants for deliberations on emerging technologies. Science as Culture, 20, 37-70. doi:10.1080/09505430903567741
135. Rabinovich, A., & Morton, T. A. (2012). Unquestioned answers or unanswered questions: Beliefs about science guide responses to uncertainty in climate change risk communication. Risk Analysis, 32, 992-1002. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01771.x
136. Rayburn, J. D., & Palmgreen, P. (1984). Merging uses and gratifications and expectancy-value theory. Communication Research, 11, 537-562. doi:10.1177/009365084011004005
137. Reid, G. (2012). The television drama-documentary (dramadoc) as a form of science communication. Public Understanding of Science, 21, 984-1001. doi:10.1177/0963662511414982
138. Renninger, K. A., & Hidi, S. (2011). Revisiting the conceptualization, measurement, and generation of interest. Educational Psychologist, 46, 168-184. doi:10.1080/00461520.2011.587723
139. Retzbach, A., & Maier, M. (in press). Communicating scientific uncertainty: Media effects on public engagement with science. Communication Research.
140. Retzbach, J., Retzbach, A., Maier, M., Otto, L., & Rahnke, M. (2013). Effects of repeated exposure to science TV shows on beliefs about scientific evidence and interest in science. Journal of Media Psychology, 25(1), 3-13.
141. Rogers-Hayden, T., & Pidgeon, N. (2007). Moving engagement SPiquotSPiupstreamSPiquotSPi? Nanotechnologies and the royal society and royal academy of engineering's inquiry. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 345-364. doi:10.1177/096366250607614
142. Rothmund, T., Bender, J., Nauroth, P., & Gollwitzer, M. (2013). Value threat can make pacifists oppose violent video games. Manuscript submitted for publication.
143. Ruhrmann, G., Günther, L., Kessler, S. H., & Milde, J. (2013). Frames of scientific evidence: How journalists represent the (un)certainty of molecular medicine in science television programs. Public Understanding of Science. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0963662513510643
144. Schäfer, M. S. (2009). From public understanding to public engagement: An empirical assessment of changes in science coverage. Science Communication, 30, 475-505. doi:10.1177/1075547008326943
145. Scheufele, D. A. (2013). Communicating science in social settings. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(Suppl. 3), 14040-14047. doi:10.1073/pnas.1213275110
146. Shoemaker, P. J., & Reese, S. D. (1996). Mediating the message. Theories of influences on mass media content. New York, NY: Longman.
147. Shoemaker, P. J., Vos, T. P., & Reese, S. D. (2009). Journalists as gatekeepers. In K. Wahl-Jorgensen & T. Hanitzsch (Eds.), The handbook of journalism studies (pp. 73-87). New York, NY: Routledge.
148. Shrum, L. J., Lee, J., Burroughs, J. E., & Rindfleisch, A. (2011). An online process model of second-order cultivation effects: How television cultivates materialism and its consequences for life satisfaction. Human Communication Research, 37, 34-57. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2010.01392.x
149. Smith, S. M., Fabrigar, L. R., & Norris, M. E. (2008). Reflecting on six decades of selective exposure research: Progress, challenges, and opportunities. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 464-493. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00060.x
150. Smithson, M. (1989). Ignorance and uncertainty: Emerging paradigms. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
151. 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. doi:10.1080/03637750600889518
152. Stamm, K. R., Clark, F., & Reynolds Eblacas, P. (2000). Mass communication and public understanding of environmental problems: The case of global warming. Public Understanding of Science, 9, 219-237. doi:10.1088/0963-6625/9/3/302
153. Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 309-317. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.10.004
154. Stephens, L. F. (2005). News narratives about nano S&T in major U.S. and non-U.S. newspapers. Science Communication, 27, 175-199. doi:10.1177/1075547005281520
155. Stocking, S. H., & Holstein, L. W. (1993). Constructing and reconstructing scientific ignorance: Ignorance claims in science and journalism. Knowledge-Creation Diffusion Utilization, 15, 186-210. doi:10.1177/107554709301500205
156. Stocking, S. H., & Holstein, L. W. (2009). Manufacturing doubt: Journalists' roles and the construction of ignorance in a scientific controversy. Public Understanding of Science, 18, 23-42. doi:10.1177/0963662507079373
157. Stryker, J. E. (2003). Media and marijuana: A longitudinal analysis of news media effects on adolescents' marijuana use and related outcomes, 1977-1999. Journal of Health Communication, 8, 305-328.
158. Sturgis, P., Brunton-Smith, I., & Fife-Schaw, C. (2010). Public attitudes to genomic science: an experiment in information provision. Public Understanding of Science, 19, 166-180. doi:10.1177/0963662508093371
159. Taddicken, M. (2013). Climate change from the user's perspective: The impact of mass media and internet use and individual and moderating variables on knowledge and attitudes. Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications, 25, 39-52. doi:10.1027/1864-1105/a000080
160. Ten Eyck, T. A., & Williment, M. (2003). The national media and things genetic: Coverage in the New York Times (1971-2001) and the Washington Post (1977-2001). Science Communication, 25, 129-152. doi:10.1177/1075547003259212
161. ter Huurne, E. F. J., Griffin, R. J., & Gutteling, J. M. (2009). Risk information seeking among U.S. and Dutch residents: An application of the model of risk information seeking and processing. Science Communication, 31, 215-237. doi:10.1177/1075547009332653
162. Valkenburg, P. M., & Vroone, M. (2004). Developmental changes in infants' and toddlers' attention to television entertainment. Communication Research, 31, 288-311. doi:10.1177/0093650204263435
163. Verhoeven, P. (2010). Sound-bite science: On the brevity of science and scientific experts in Western European television news. Science Communication, 32, 330-355. doi:10.1177/1075547010362709
164. Vicsek, L. (2011). Costs and benefits of stem cell research and treatment: Media presentation and audience understanding in Hungary. Science Communication, 33, 309-340. doi:10.1177/1075547010389820
165. Visschers, V. M., Meertens, R. M., Passchier, W. F., & de Vries, N. K. (2009). Probability information in risk communication: A review of the research literature. Risk Analysis, 29, 267-287. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01137.x
166. Visschers, V. H. M., & Siegrist, M. (2008). Exploring the triangular relationship between trust, affect, and risk perception: A review of the literature. Risk Management, 10, 156-167. doi:10.1057/rm.2008.1
167. Weaver, D. A., Lively, E., & Bimber, B. (2009). Searching for a frame: News media tell the story of technological progress, risk, and regulation. Science Communication, 31, 139-166. doi:10.1177/1075547009340345
168. Weber, E. U., & Stern, P. C. (2011). Public understanding of climate change in the United States. American Psychologist, 66, 315-328. doi:10.1037/a0023253
169. Weingart, P., Salzmann, C., & Woermann, S. (2008). The social embedding of biomedicine: An analysis of German media debates 1995-2004. Public Understanding of Science, 17, 381-396. doi:10.1177/0963662506070188
170. White, D. M. (1950). The gate keeper: A case study in the selection of news. Journalism Quarterly, 27, 383-390.
171. Winter, S., & Krämer, N. C. (2012). Selecting science information in Web 2.0: How source cues, message sidedness, and need for cognition influence users' exposure to blog posts. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18, 80-96. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01596.x
172. Winter, S., Krämer, S. C., Appel, J., & Schielke, K. (2010). Information selection in the blogosphere: The effect of expertise, community rating, and age. In S. Ohlsson & R. Catrambone (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 802-807). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
173. Yang, M., & Roskos-Ewoldsen, D. R. (2007). The effectiveness of brand placements in the movies: Levels of placements, explicit and implicit memory, and brand-choice behavior. Journal of Communication, 57, 469-489. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2007.00353.x
174. Yang, Z. J., & Kahlor, L. (2012). What, me worry? The role of affect in information seeking and avoidance. Science Communication. doi:10.1177/1075547012441873
175. Yang, Z. J., Kahlor, L., & Li, H. (2013). A United States-China comparison of risk information-seeking intentions. Communication Research. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0093650213479795
176. Yang, Z. J., McComas, K., Gay, G., Leonard, J. P., Dannenberg, A. J., & Dillon, H. (2010). Motivation for health information seeking and processing about clinical trial enrollment. Health Communication, 25, 423-436. doi:10.1080/10410236.2010.483338
177. Yanovitzky, I., & Blitz, C. L. (2000). Effect of media coverage and physician advice on utilization of breast cancer screening by women 40 years and older. Journal of Health Communication, 5, 117-134.
178. Yaros, R. A. (2006). Is it the medium or the message? Structuring complex news to enhance engagement and situational understanding by nonexperts. Communication Research, 33, 285-309. doi:10.1177/0093650206289154
179. Zehr, S. C. (2000). Public representations of scientific uncertainty about global climate change. Public Understanding of Science, 9, 85-103. doi:10.1088/0963-6625/9/2/301
180. Zhao, X. (2009). Media use and global warming perceptions: A snapshot of the reinforcing spirals. Communication Research, 36, 698-723. doi:10.1177/0093650209338911
181. Zillmann, D., & Bryant, J. (1985). Selective exposure to communication. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
182. Zubayr, C., & Gerhard, H. (2012). Tendenzen im Zuschauerverhalten. Fernsehgewohnheiten und Fernsehreichweiten im Jahr 2011 [Tendencies in audience behavior. Television habits and television outreach in 2011]. Media Perspektiven, 17, 118-132.