Gender on the brain: A case study of science communication in the new media environment

PLoS ONE

Volumn 9, Issue 10, 2014, Pages

  O'Connor, Cliodhna ^a   Joffe, Helene ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BRAIN FUNCTION; CASE STUDY; CONTENT ANALYSIS; CULTURAL FACTOR; EMOTION; EPISTEMOLOGY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; NEUROSCIENCE; NEUROSEXISM; PRODUCTIVITY; PUBLICATION; RESEARCH; SEX DIFFERENCE; SOCIAL ADAPTATION; SOCIETY; STEREOTYPY; BRAIN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MASS MEDIUM; MEDICAL RESEARCH; SEXUAL DEVELOPMENT;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; BRAIN; COMMUNICATION; COMMUNICATIONS MEDIA; HUMANS; NEUROSCIENCES; SEX CHARACTERISTICS; STEREOTYPED BEHAVIOR;

EID: 84908637110     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0110830     Document Type: Article

References (106)

1. Ingalhalikar M, Smith A, Parker D, Satterthwaite TD, Elliott MA, et al. (2014) Sex differences in the structural connectome of the human brain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111: 823-828.
2. Choudhury S, Slaby J, editors (2012) Critical neuroscience: A handbook of the social and cultural contexts of neuroscience. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
3. Pickersgill M (2013) The social life of the brain: Neuroscience in society. Current Sociology 61: 322-340.
4. O'Connor C, Rees G, Joffe H (2012) Neuroscience in the public sphere. Neuron 74: 220-226.
5. Rose N, Abi-Rached JM (2013) Neuro: The new brain sciences and the management of the mind. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
6. Choudhury S, Nagel SK, Slaby J (2009) Critical neuroscience: Linking neuroscience and society through critical practice. BioSocieties 4: 61-77.
7. Dumit J (2004) Picturing personhood: Brain scans and biomedical identity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
8. O'Connor C, Joffe H (2013) How has neuroscience affected lay understandings of personhood? A review of the evidence. Public Understanding of Science 22: 254-268.
9. Beery AK, Zucker I (2011) Sex bias in neuroscience and biomedical research. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 35: 565-572.
10. Geller SE, Adams MG, Carnes M (2006) Adherence to federal guidelines for reporting of sex and race/ethnicity in clinical trials. Journal of Women's Health 15: 1123-1131.
11. Kim AM, Tingen CM, Woodruff TK (2010) Sex bias in trials and treatment must end. Nature 465: 688-689.
12. Cahill L (2006) Why sex matters for neuroscience. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 7: 477-484.
13. Fine C (2013) Is there neurosexism in functional neuroimaging investigations of sex differences? Neuroethics 6: 369-409.
14. Jordan-Young R, Rumiati R (2012) Hardwired for sexism? Approaches to sex/gender in neuroscience. Neuroethics 5: 305-315.
15. Jordan-Young R (2010) Brain storm: The flaws in the science of sex differences. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
16. Eliot L (2011) The trouble with sex differences. Neuron 72: 895-898.
17. Vidal C (2012) The sexed brain: Between science and ideology. Neuroethics 5: 295-303.
18. Fine C, Jordan-Young R, Kaiser A, Rippon G (2013) Plasticity, plasticity, plasticity⋯and the rigid problem of sex. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 17: 550-551.
19. Fine C (2010) Delusions of gender. London: Icon Books.
20. Bluhm R, Jacobson AJ, Maibom HL, editors (2012) Neurofeminism: Issues at the intersection of feminist theory and cognitive science. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
21. Matusall S (2013) Hormone troubles: Feminist analyses of contemporary neurosciences. Social Studies of Science 43: 780-791.
22. Fausto-Sterling A (2000) Sexing the body: Gender politics and the construction of sexuality. New York, NY: Basic Books.
23. Eliot L (2013) Single-sex education and the brain. Sex Roles 69: 363-381.
24. Brescoll V, LaFrance M (2004) The correlates and consequences of newspaper reports of research on sex differences. Psychological Science 15: 515-520.
25. Coleman JM, Hong Y-Y (2007) Beyond nature and nurture: The influence of lay gender theories on self-stereotyping. Self and Identity 7: 34-53.
26. Dar-Nimrod I, Heine SJ (2006) Exposure to scientific theories affects women's math performance. Science 314: 435.
27. Thoman DB, White PH, Yamawaki N, Koishi H (2008) Variations of gender-math stereotype content affect women's vulnerability to stereotype threat. Sex Roles 58: 702-712.
28. Jacobs JE, Eccles JS (1985) Gender differences in math ability: The impact of media reports on parents. Educational Researcher 14: 20-25.
29. Keller J (2005) In genes we trust: The biological component of psychological essentialism and its relationship to mechanisms of motivated social cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 88: 686-702.
30. Morton TA, Postmes T, Haslam AS, Hornsey MJ (2009) Theorizing gender in the face of social change: Is there anything essential about essentialism? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 96: 653-664.
31. Holton G (1996) On the art of scientific imagination. Daedalus 125: 183-208.
32. Latour B, Woolgar S (1986) Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
33. Moscovici S (1993) Toward a social psychology of science. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 23: 343-374.
34. Moscovici S (1988) Notes towards a description of Social Representations. European Journal of Social Psychology 18: 211-250.
35. Jovchelovitch S (2008) The rehabilitation of common sense: Social representations, science and cognitive polyphasia. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 38: 431-448.
36. O'Connor C, Joffe H (2013) Media representations of early human development: Protecting, feeding and loving the developing brain. Social Science and Medicine 97: 297-306.
37. Wagner W (2007) Vernacular science knowledge: Its role in everyday life communication. Public Understanding of Science 16: 7-22.
38. Bangerter A, Heath C (2004) The Mozart effect: Tracking the evolution of a scientific legend. British Journal of Social Psychology 43: 605-623.
39. Kahan DM, Braman D, Gastil J, Slovic P, Mertz CK (2007) Culture and identity-protective cognition: Explaining the white male effect in risk perception. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 3: 465-505.
40. Kahan DM, Jenkins-Smith H, Braman D (2011) Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. Journal of Risk Research 14: 147-174.
41. Jost JT, Banaji MR, Nosek BA (2004) A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology 25: 881-919.
42. Joffe H (2011) Public apprehension of emerging infectious diseases: Are changes afoot? Public Understanding of Science 20: 446-460.
43. Joffe H (1999) Risk and 'the Other'. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
44. Joffe H, Rossetto T, Solberg C, O'Connor C (2013) Social representations of earthquakes: A study of people living in three highly seismic areas. Earthquake Spectra 29: 367-397.
45. Smith N, Joffe H (2013) How the public engages with global warming: A social representations approach. Public Understanding of Science 22: 16-32.
46. Wagner W, Elejabarrieta F, Lahnsteiner I (1995) How the sperm dominates the ovum - objectification by metaphor in the social representation of conception. European Journal of Social Psychology 25: 671-688.
47. Bangerter A (2000) Transformation between scientific and social representations of conception: The method of serial reproduction. British Journal of Social Psychology 39: 521-535.
48. Wagner W, Kronberger N, Seifert F (2002) Collective symbolic coping with new technology: Knowledge, images and public discourse. British Journal of Social Psychology 41: 323-343.
49. Bauer MW (2002) Controversial medical and agri-food biotechnology: A cultivation analysis. Public Understanding of Science 11: 93-111.
50. Washer P (2006) Representations of mad cow disease. Social Science and Medicine 62: 457-466.
51. Brumfiel G (2009) Supplanting the old media? Nature 458: 274-277.
52. Shema H, Bar-Ilan J, Thelwall M (2012) Research blogs and the discussion of scholarly information. PLoS ONE 7: e35869.
53. Eperen LV, Marincola FM (2011) How scientists use social media to communicate their research. Journal of Translational Medicine 9: 199-201.
54. Stafford T, Bell V (2012) Brain network: Social media and the cognitive scientist. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 16: 489-490.
55. Allgaier J, Dunwoody S, Brossard D, Lo Y-Y, Peters HP (2013) Journalism and social media as means of observing the contexts of science. BioScience 63: 284-287.
56. National Science Board (2012) Science and engineering indicators 2012. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
57. Pearce W, Holmberg K, Hellsten I, Nerlich B (2014) Climate change on Twitter: Topics, communities and conversations about the 2013 IPCC Working Group 1 report. PLoS ONE 9: e94785.
58. Chew C, Eysenbach G (2010) Pandemics in the age of Twitter: Content analysis of tweets during the 2009 H1N1 outbreak. PLoS ONE 5: e14118.
59. Signorini A, Segre AM, Polgreen PM (2011) The use of Twitter to track levels of disease activity and public concern in the U.S. during the Influenza A H1N1 pandemic. PLoS ONE 6: e19467.
60. Whiteley L (2012) Resisting the revelatory scanner? Critical engagements with fMRI in popular media. BioSocieties 7: 245-272.
61. Rowe G, Hawkes G, Houghton J (2008) Initial UK public reaction to avian influenza: Analysis of opinions posted on the BBC website. Health, Risk and Society 10: 361-384.
62. Koteyko N, Jaspal R, Nerlich B (2013) Climate change and 'climategate' in online reader comments: A mixed methods study. The Geographical Journal 179: 74-86.
63. Jaspal R, Nerlich B, Koteyko N (2013) Contesting science by appealing to its norms: Readers discuss climate science in the Daily Mail. Science Communication 35: 383-410.
64. Laslo E, Baram-Tsabari A, Lewenstein BV (2011) A growth medium for the message: Online science journalism affordances for exploring public discourse of science and ethics. Journalism 12: 847-870.
65. Lee E-J, Yoon Jae Jang (2010) What do others' reactions to news on internet portal sites tell us? Effects of presentation format and readers' need for cognition on reality perception. Communication Research 37: 825-846.
66. O'Connell G, De Wilde J, Haley J, Shuler K, Schafer B, et al. (2011) The brain, the science and the media. EMBO Reports 12: 630-636.
67. Racine E, Bar-Ilan O, Illes J (2006) Brain imaging. Science Communication 28: 122-143.
68. Racine E, Waldman S, Rosenberg J, Illes J (2010) Contemporary neuroscience in the media. Social Science and Medicine 71: 725-733.
69. Noor KBM (2008) Case study: A strategic research methodology. American Journal of Applied Sciences 5: 1602-1604.
70. Baxter P, Jack S (2008) Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report 13: 544-559.
71. Gerring J (2007) Case study reseach: Principles and practices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
72. Yin RK (2009) Case study research: Design and methods. London: Sage.
73. Brossard D (2009) Media, scientific journals and science communication: Examining the construction of scientific controversies. Public Understanding of Science 18: 258-274.
74. Seale C (2010) How the mass media report social statistics: A case study concerning research on end-of-life decisions. Social Science and Medicine 71: 861-868.
75. Bauer MW, Gaskell G (1999) Towards a paradigm for research on social representations. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 29: 163-186.
76. Bauer MW (2000) Classical content analysis: A review. In: Bauer MW, Gaskell G, editors. Qualitative researching with text, image and sound: A practical handbook. London: Sage. pp. 131-151.
77. Krippendorf K (2004) Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. London: Sage.
78. Smith N, Joffe H (2009) Climate change in the British press: The role of the visual. Journal of Risk Research 12: 647-663.
79. Neuendorf K (2011) Content analysis-a methodological primer for gender research. Sex Roles 64: 276-289.
80. Collins RL (2011) Content analysis of gender roles in media: Where are we now and where should we go? Sex Roles 64: 290-298.
81. Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33: 159-174.
82. Bauer MW (2009) The evolution of public understanding of science-discourse and comparative evidence. Science, Technology and Society 14: 221-240.
83. Hilgartner S (1990) The dominant view of popularization: Conceptual problems, political uses. Social Studies of Science 20: 519-539.
84. Holtzman NA, Bernhardt BA, Mountcastle-Shah E, Rodgers JE, Tambor E, et al. (2005) The quality of media reports on discoveries related to human genetic diseases. Community Genetics 8: 133-144.
85. Brechman J, Lee CJ, Cappella JN (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.
86. De Semir V, Ribas C, Revuelta G (1998) Press releases of science journal articles and subsequent newspaper stories on the same topic. JAMA 280: 294-295.
87. Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Andrews A, Stukel TA (2012) Influence of medical journal press releases on the quality of associated newspaper coverage: Retrospective cohort study. BMJ 344: d8164.
88. Yavchitz A, Boutron I, Bafeta A, Marroun I, Charles P, et al. (2012) Misrepresentation of randomized controlled trials in press releases and news coverage: A cohort study. PLoS Medicine 9: e1001308.
89. Prentice DA, Miller DT (2007) Psychological essentialism of human categories. Current Directions in Psychological Science 16: 202-206.
90. Haslam N, Rothschild L, Ernst D (2000) Essentialist beliefs about social categories. British Journal of Social Psychology 39: 113-127.
91. Becker JC, Wright SC (2011) Yet another dark side of chivalry: Benevolent sexism undermines and hostile sexism motivates collective action for social change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 101: 62-77.
92. Glick P, Fiske S (1996) The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 70: 491-512.
93. Fiske S, Cuddy AJC, Glick P, Xu J (2002) A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 82: 878-902.
94. Kay AC, Jost JT (2003) Complementary justice: Effects of ''poor but happy'' and ''poor but honest'' stereotype exemplars on system justification and implicit activation of the justice motive. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 85: 823-837.
95. Jost JT, Kay AC (2005) Exposure to benevolent sexism and complementary gender stereotypes: Consequences for specific and diffuse forms of system justification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 88: 498-509.
96. Brescoll VL, Uhlmann EL, Newman GE (2013) The effects of system-justifying motives on endorsement of essentialist explanations for gender differences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 105: 891-908.
97. McCabe DP, Castel AD (2008) Seeing is believing: The effect of brain images on judgments of scientific reasoning. Cognition 107: 343-352.
98. Weisberg DS, Keil FC, Goodstein J, Rawson E, Gray JR (2008) The seductive allure of neuroscience explanations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 20: 470-477.
99. Bro?er C, Heerings M (2013) Neurobiology in public and private discourse: the case of adults with ADHD. Sociology of Health and Illness 35: 49-65.
100. Meurk C, Carter A, Hall W, Lucke J (2014) Public understandings of addiction: Where do neurobiological explanations fit? Neuroethics 7: 51-62.
101. Singh I (2013) Brain talk: Power and negotiation in children's discourse about self, brain and behaviour. Sociology of Health and Illness 35: 813-827.
102. O'Connor C, Joffe H (2014) Social representations of brain research: Exploring public (dis)engagement with contemporary neuroscience. Science Communication 36: 617-645.
103. Pickersgill M, Cunningham-Burley S, Martin P (2011) Constituting neurologic subjects: Neuroscience, subjectivity and the mundane significance of the brain. Subjectivity 4: 346-365.
104. Bauer MW (2005) Public perceptions and mass media in the biotechnology controversy. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 17: 5-22.
105. Ten Eyck TA (2005) The media and public opinion on genetics and biotechnology: Mirrors, windows, or walls? Public Understanding of Science 14: 305-316.
106. Morton TA, Haslam SA, Postmes T, Ryan MK (2006) We value what values us: The appeal of identity-affirming science. Political Psychology 27: 823-838.