Leveraging scientific credibility about Arctic sea ice trends in a polarized political environment

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

Volumn 111, Issue , 2014, Pages 13598-13605

  Jamieson, Kathleen Hall ^a   Hardy, Bruce W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Biased assimilation; Climate communication; Identity protection

Indexed keywords

ARCTIC; ARTICLE; BIASED ASSIMILATION; CLIMATE CHANGE; CLIMATE COMMUNICATION; EXPERT WITNESS; GOVERNMENT; HUMAN; ICE COVER; IDENTITY PROTECTION; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; METHODOLOGY; POLITICS; PUBLIC OPINION; PUBLISHING; QUESTIONNAIRE; THEORETICAL MODEL; UNITED STATES;

BIASED ASSIMILATION; CLIMATE COMMUNICATION; IDENTITY PROTECTION;

ARCTIC REGIONS; CLIMATE CHANGE; COMMUNICATION; EXPERT TESTIMONY; HUMANS; ICE COVER; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; JOURNALISM; MODELS, THEORETICAL; POLITICS; PUBLIC OPINION; QUESTIONNAIRES; UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION;

EID: 84907202512     PISSN: 00278424     EISSN: 10916490     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1320868111     Document Type: Article

References (69)

1. Lord C, Ross L, Lepper M. (1979) Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. J Pers Soc Psychol 37(11):2098-2109.
2. Corner A, Whitmarsh L, Xenias D. (2012) Uncertainty, scepticism and attitudes towards climate change: Biased assimilation and attitude polarisation. Clim Change 114(3-4): 463-478.
3. Kahan D, Peters E, Dawson E., Slovic P. (2013) Motivated Numeracy and Enlightened Self-Government. Available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2319992. Accessed September 3, 2013.
4. Kahan D, et al. (2012) The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nat Clim Chang 2(10):732-735.
5. National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine (2008) Science, Evolution, and Creationism (National Academy Press, Washington, DC), p 47.
6. CBS News 60 Minutes/Vanity Fair (2013) Poll: Genetically Modified Food/Sports/Gun Control (The Roper Center, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT).
7. McCright A, Dunlap R. (2010) Anti-reflexivity: The American conservative movement's success in undermining climate science and policy. Theory Cult Soc 27(2-3):100-133.
8. Pew Research Center (2014) Climate Change: Key Data Points from Pew Research. Available at www.pewresearch.org/key-data-points/climate-change-key-data-points-from-pew-research/. Accessed January 27, 2014.
9. Fredrickson BL, Kahneman D. (1993) Duration neglect in retrospective evaluations of affective episodes. J Pers Soc Psychol 65(1):45-55.
10. Gregory R, Lichtenstein S, MacGregor D. (1993) The role of past states in determining reference points for policy decisions. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 55(2):195-206.
11. Rose D (2013) And now it's COOLING! Return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 29% in a year. Mail Online. Available at www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/And-global-COOLING-Return-Arctic-ice-cap-grows-29-year.html. Accessed September 7, 2013.
12. Dixon H (2013) Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists. The Telegraph. Available at www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10294082/Global-warming-No-actually-were-cooling-claim-scientists.html. Accessed September 8, 2013.
13. McCright A, Dunlap R. (2011) The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public's views of global warming, 2001-2010. Sociol Q 52(2):155-194.
14. Lewandowsky S, Gignac GE, Oberauer K. (2013) The role of conspiracist ideation and worldviews in predicting rejection of science. PLoS ONE 8(10):e75637.
15. Hamilton L (2011) Education, politics and opinions about climate change evidence for interaction effects. Clim Change 104(2):231-242.
16. US National Academy of Sciences and The Royal Society (2014) Climate Change: Evidence & Causes. Available at http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/events/a-discussion-on-climate-change-evidence-and-causes/. Accessed February 27, 2014.
17. American Association for the Advancement of Science (2014) What We Know: The Reality, Risks and Response to Climate Change. Available at http://whatweknow.aaas.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/AAAS-What-We-Know.pdf. Accessed March 6, 2014.
18. US Global Change Research Program (2014) National Climate Assessment. Available at http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report. Accessed March 2, 2014.
19. NASA Earth Observatory (2013) 2013 Arctic Sea Ice Minimum. Available at http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=82094. Accessed September 21, 2013.
20. Lewandowsky S, Gignac G, Vaughan S. (2012) The pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science. Nat Clim Chang 3(4):399-404.
21. Kenski K, Hardy B, Jamieson KH (2010) The Obama Victory: How Media, Money, and Message Shaped the 2008 Election (Oxford Univ Press, New York).
22. Stephanopoulos G (2008) Exclusive interview with Senator Hillary Clinton. This Week with George Stephanopoulos. Available at http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/story?id=4783456&page=1&singlePage=true. Accessed November 1, 2013.
23. Hmielowski JD, Feldman L, Myers T.A., Leiserowitz A., Maibach E (April 3, 2013) An attack on science? Media use, trust in scientists, and perceptions of global warming. Public Underst Sci.
24. Fox News (2013) Arctic sea ice up 60 percent in 2013. FoxNews.com. Available at www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/09/arctic-sea-ice-up-60-percent-in-2013/. Accessed September 9, 2013.
25. Limbaugh R (2014) What to Do About Al Gore's Movie in School? Available at www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/03/24/what-to-do-about-algore-s-movie-in-school. Accessed March 24, 2014.
26. Limbaugh R (2014) How We Saved a Biracial Tree-and Other Global Warming News. Available at http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/03/18/quick-hits-page. Accessed March 18, 2014.
27. Scheufele DA (2013) Communicating science in social settings. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110(SUPPL. 3):14040-14047.
28. University of Chicago National Opinion Research Center (2012) General Social Survey (Weighted Data). Available at www3.norc.org/GSS+Website/Download/SPSS+Format/. Accessed March 1, 2014.
29. Gauchat G (2012) Politicization of science in the public sphere: A study of public trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010. Am Sociol Rev 77(2):167-187.
30. Cobb M, Macoubrie J. (2004) Public perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks, benefits, and trust. J Nanopart Res 6(4):395-405.
31. Macoubrie J (2006) Nantoechnology: Public concern, reasoning and trust in government. Public Underst Sci 15(2):2221-2241.
32. Metzger M, Flanagin A, Medders R. (2010) Social and heuristic approaches to credibility evaluation online. J Commun 60(3):413-439.
33. Renn O, Levine D. (1991) Trust and credibility in risk communication. Communicating Risks to the Public, eds Kasperson R, Stallen P (Kluwer, Norwell, MA), pp 175-218.
34. Eagly A, Chaiken S. (1993) The Psychology of Attitudes (Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York).
35. Albarracín D, Vargas P. (2010) Attitudes and persuasion: From biology to social responses to persuasive intent. The Handbook of Social Psychology, eds Fiske S, Gilbert D, Lindzey G (Wiley, Hoboken, NJ), pp 394-427.
36. Lupia A (2013) Communicating science in politicized environments. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110(SUPPL. 3):14048-14054.
37. Black E (1970) The second persona. Q J Speech 56(2):109-119.
38. Krosnick J (2012) Trust in Scientists, Controversy and American Public Opinion on Climate Change: How Attitude Formation and Change Unfolds. National Academy of Sciences Lecture Video. Available at www.youtube.com/watch?v=T95hk631MQo. Accessed September 9, 2013.
39. Rabinovich A, Morton T, Birney M. (2011) Communicating climate science: The role of perceived communicator's motives. J Environ Psychol 32(1):11-18.
40. Dietz T (2013) Bringing values and deliberation to science communication. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110(SUPPL. 3):14081-14087.
41. Dewey J (1954) The Public and Its Problems (Ohio Univ Press, Athens, OH), p 365.
42. Cacioppo J, Petty R, Sidera J. (1982) The effects of a salient self-schema on the evaluation of proattitudinal editorials: Top-down versus bottom-up message processing. J Exp Soc Psychol 18:324-338.
43. Nelkin D (1995) Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology (Freeman, New York).
44. The White House (2014) President Obama Speaks on Response to the California Drought. Available at www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2014/02/14/president-obama-speaks-response-california-drought#transcript. Accessed February 14, 2014.
45. Gillis J (2014) Science linking drought to global warming remains matter of dispute. The New York Times. Available at www.nytimes.com/2014/02/17/science/some-scientists-disagree-with-presidents-linking-drought-to-warming.html?-r=0. Accessed February 16, 2014.
46. Ding D, et al. (2011) Support for climate policy and societal action are linked to perceptions about scientific agreement. Nat Clim Chang 1(9):462-466.
47. Jamieson KH, Cappella J. (2008) Echo Chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the Conservative Media Establishment (Oxford Univ Press, New York).
48. Stroud N (2010) Polarization and partisan selective exposure. J Commun 60(3): 556-576.
49. Frey D (1986) Recent research on selective exposure to information. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 19:41-80.
50. Garrett R (2009) Politically motivated reinforcement seeking: Reframing the selective exposure debate. J Commun 59(4):676-699.
51. Garrett R (2009) Echo chambers online?: Politically motivated selective exposure among Internet news users. J Comput Mediat Commun 14(2):265-285.
52. Garrett R, Carnahan D, Lynch E. (2013) A turn toward avoidance? Selective exposure to online political information, 2004-2008. Polit Behav 35(1):113-134.
53. Webster J (2007) Diversity of exposure. Media Diversity and Localism: Meaning and Metrics, ed Napoli P (Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ), pp 309-326.
54. Wanta W, Hu Y. (1994) The effects of credibility, reliance, and exposure on media agenda-setting: A path analysis model. Journal Q 71(1):90-98.
55. Miller J, Krosnick J. (2000) News media impact on the ingredients of presidential evaluations: Politically knowledgeable citizens are guided by a trusted source. Am J Pol Sci 44(2):301-315.
56. Olmstead K, Jurkowitz M, Mitchell A., Enda J. (2013) How Americans get TV news at home. Pew Research Journalism Project. Available at www.journalism.org/2013/10/11/how-americans-get-tv-news-at-home/. Accessed October 11, 2013.
57. Nisbet M, et al. (2002) Knowledge, reservations, or promise? A media effects model for public perceptions of science and technology. Communic Res 29(5):584-608.
58. Pew Research Center (2009) Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media. Available at www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/public-praises-science-scientists-fault-public-media/. Accessed October 30, 2013.
59. Horrigan J (2006) The Internet as a Resource for News and Information About Science. Pew 2006 Internet & American Life Project. Available at www.pewInternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2006/PIP-Exploratorium-Science.pdf.pdf. Accessed October 30, 2013.
60. Pew Research Center (2013) Trust in Government Nears Record Low, but Most Federal Agencies Are Viewed Favorably. Available at www.people-press.org/2013/10/18/trust-in-government-nears-record-low-but-most-federal-agencies-are-viewed-favorably/. Accessed October 8, 2013.
61. McCarty N, Poole K, Rosenthal H. (2006) Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).
62. National Snow & Ice Data Center (2013) Quick Facts on Arctic Sea Ice. Available at http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/quickfacts/seaice.html. Accessed September 8, 2013.
63. Gentner D, Holyoak KJ (1997) Reasoning and learning by analogy. Am Psychol 52(1): 32-34.
64. FDR Library (1940) Franklin Roosevelt's Press Conference. Available at http://docs.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/odllpc2.html. Accessed March 1, 2014.
65. Sopory P, Dillard J. (2002) The persuasive effects of metaphor: A meta-analysis. Hum Commun Res 28(3):382-419.
66. McCroskey J, Combs W. (1969) The effects of the use of analogy on attitude change and source credibility. J Commun 19(4):333-339.
67. Petty R, Cacioppo J, Strathman A., Priester J. (2005) To think or not to think. Persuasion: Psychological Insights and Perspectives, eds Brock T, Green M (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA), pp 81-116.
68. Petty R, Wegener D. (1999) The elaboration likelihood model: Current status and controversies. Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology, eds Chaiken S, Trope Y (Guilford, New York), pp 37-72.
69. Petty R, Cacioppo J. (1979) Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses. J Pers Soc Psychol 37(10): 1915-1926.