Communicating Scientific Uncertainty: Media Effects on Public Engagement With Science

Communication Research

Volumn 42, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 429-456

  Retzbach, Andrea ^a   Maier, Michaela ^a  

^a University of Koblenz Landau ^*  (Germany)

Author keywords

experimental design; media effects; public engagement with science; science communication; scientific uncertainty

Indexed keywords

EID: 84924986075     PISSN: 00936502     EISSN: 15523810     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0093650214534967     Document Type: Article

References (84)

1. Anderson A. A.,Scheufele D. A.,Brossard D.,Corley E. A.The role of media and deference to scientific authority in cultivating trust in sources of information about emerging technologies.International Journal of Public Opinion Research. 2012;24:225-237
2. Ashby F. G.,Isen A. M.,Turken U.A neuropsychological theory of positive affect and its influence on cognition.Psychological Review. 1999;106:529-550
3. Bandura A.Social cognitive theory of mass communication.Media Psychology. 2001;3:265-299
4. Bandura A.Media effects: Advances in theory and research. Bryant J.Oliver M. B., ed. New York, NY: Routledge; 2009:94-124.
5. Bauer M. W.The evolution of public understanding of science: Discourse and comparative evidence.Science Technology and Society. 2009;14:221-240
6. Besley J. C.Current research on public perceptions of nanotechnology.Emerging Health Threats Journal. 2010;3:e8
7. Besley J. C.,Kramer V.,Priest S.Expert opinion on nanotechnology: Risks, benefits, and regulation.Journal of Nanoparticle Research. 2008;10:549-558
8. Bless H.,Wänke M.,Bohner G.,Fellhauer R. F.Need for Cognition: Eine Skala zur Erfassung von Engagement und Freude bei Denkaufgaben.Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie. 1994;25:147-154
9. Borah P.Seeking more information and conversations: Influence of competitive frames and motivated processing.Communication Research. 2011;38:303-325
10. Braver M. W.,Braver S. L.Statistical treatment of the Solomon four-group design: A meta-analytic approach.Psychological Bulletin. 1988;104:150-154
11. Brechman J.,Lee C.-J.,Cappella J. N.Lost in translation? A comparison of cancer-genetics reporting in the press release and its subsequent coverage in the press.Science Communication. 2009;30:453-474
12. Cacioppo J. T.,Petty R. E.The need for cognition.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1982;42:116-131
13. Campbell P.Understanding the receivers and the reception of science’s uncertain messages.Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical, & Engineering Sciences. 2011;369:4891-4912
14. Carlisle J. E.,Feezell J. T.,Michaud K. E. H.,Smith E. R. A.N.,Smith L.The public’s trust in scientific claims regarding offshore oil drilling.Public Understanding of Science. 2010;19:514-527
15. Chong D.,Druckman J. N.A theory of framing and opinion formation in competitive elite environments.Journal of Communication. 2007;57:99-118
16. Corner A.,Whitmarsh L.,Xenias D.Uncertainty, scepticism and attitudes towards climate change: Biased assimilation and attitude polarisation.Climatic Change. 2012;114:463-478
17. Crismore A.,Kopple V. W. J.Hedging and discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts. Markkanen R.Schröder H., ed. Berlin, Germany: de Gruyter; 1997:83-114.
18. Critchley C. R.Public opinion and trust in scientists: The role of the research context, and the perceived motivation of stem cell researchers.Public Understanding of Science. 2008;17:309-327
19. Ding D.,Maibach E. W.,Zhao X.,Roser-Renouf C.,Leiserowitz A.Support for climate policy and societal action are linked to perceptions about scientific agreement.Nature Climate Change. 2011;1:462-466
20. Dudo A. D.,Brossard D.,Shanahan J.,Scheufele D. A.,Morgan M.,Signorielli N.Science on television in the 21st century: Recent trends in portrayals and their contributions to public attitudes toward science.Communication Research. 2011;38:754-777
21. Durant J.Encyclopedia of science and technology communication. Priest S. H., ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 2010:616-619.
22. Ebeling M. F. E.Mediating uncertainty: Communicating the financial risks of nanotechnologies.Science Communication. 2008;29:335-361
23. Einsiedel E.,Thorne B.Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science. Friedman S. M.Dunwoody S.Rogers C. L., ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1999:43-57.
24. Frewer L. J.Risk perception, social trust, and public participation in strategic decision making: Implications for emerging technologies.AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment. 1999;28:569-574
25. Frewer L. J.,Hunt S.,Brennan M.,Kuznesof S.,Ness M.,Ritson C.The views of scientific experts on how the public conceptualize uncertainty.Journal of Risk Research. 2003;6:75-85
26. Frewer L. J.,Miles S.,Brennan M.,Kuznesof S.,Ness M.,Ritson C.Public preferences for informed choice under conditions of risk uncertainty.Public Understanding of Science. 2002;11:363-372
27. Friedman S. M.,Egolf B. P.A longitudinal study of newspaper and wire service coverage of nanotechnology risks.Risk Analysis. 2011;31:1701-1717
28. Funtowicz S. O.,Ravetz J. R.Uncertainty, complexity and post-normal science.Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 1994;13:1881-1885
29. Gerbner G.,Gross L.,Morgan M.,Signorielli N.Scientists on the TV screen.Society. 1981;18:41-44
30. Gerbner G.,Gross L.,Morgan M.,Signorielli N.Television entertainment and viewers’ conceptions of science. Philadelphia: The Annenberg School of Communications, University of Pennsylvania; 1985:
31. Hart P. S.,Nisbet E. C.Boomerang effects in science communication: How motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies.Communication Research. 2012;39:701-723
32. HayesA. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable moderation, mediation, and conditional process modeling. Retrieved from http://www.afhayes.com/spss-sas-and-mplus-macros-and-code.html
33. Heidmann I.,Milde J.Communication about scientific uncertainty: How scientists and science journalists deal with uncertainties in nanoparticle research.Environmental Sciences Europe. 2013;25:
34. Hmielowski J. D.,Feldman L.,Myers T. A.,Leiserowitz A.,Maibach E.An attack on science? Media use, trust in scientists, and perceptions of global warming.Public Understanding of Science. 2013;:
35. Hwang Y.,Southwell B. G.Science TV news exposure predicts science beliefs: Real world effects among a national sample.Communication Research. 2009;36:724-742
36. Jensen J. D.Scientific uncertainty in news coverage of cancer research: Effects of hedging on scientists and journalists credibility.Human Communication Research. 2008;34:347-369
37. Jensen J. D.,Hurley R. J.Conflicting stories about public scientific controversies: Effects of news convergence and divergence on scientists’ credibility.Public Understanding of Science. 2012;21:689-704
38. Johnson B. B.,Slovic P.Presenting uncertainty in health risk assessment: Initial studies of its effects on risk perception and trust.Risk Analysis. 1995;15:485-494
39. Johnson B. B.,Slovic P.Lay views on uncertainty in environmental health risk assessment.Journal of Risk Research. 1998;1:261-279
40. Kahan D. M.,Braman D.,Slovic P.,Gastil J.,Cohen G.Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology.Nature Nanotechnology. 2009;4:87-90
41. Kienhues D.,Bromme R.,Stahl E.Changing epistemological beliefs: The unexpected impact of a short-term intervention.British Journal of Educational Psychology. 2008;78:545-565
42. Klaine S. J.,Koelmans A. A.,Horne N.,Carley S.,Handy R. D.,Kapustka L.,.. von der Kammer F.Paradigms to assess the environmental impact of manufactured nanomaterials.Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 2012;31:3-14
43. Kouw M.,Van Den Heuvel C.,Scharnhorst A.Virtual knowledge: Experimenting in the humanities and the social sciences. Wouters P.Beaulieu A.Scharnhorst A.Wyatt S., ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2013:89-126.
44. Krapp A.,Prenzel M.Research on interest in science: Theories, methods, and findings.International Journal of Science Education. 2011;33:27-50
45. Kurath M.,Gisler P.Informing, involving or engaging? Science communication, in the ages of atom-, bio- and nanotechnology.Public Understanding of Science. 2009;18:559-573
46. Lai W. Y. Y.,Lane T.,Ruttenberg A.Characteristics of medical research news reported on front pages of newspapers.PLoS ONE. 2009;4 (7): e6103
47. Lecheler S.,de Vreese C. H.What a difference a day makes? The effects of repetitive and competitive news framing over time.Communication Research. 2013;40:147-175
48. Lee C.-J.,Niederdeppe J.Genre-specific cultivation effects: Lagged associations between overall TV viewing, local TV news viewing, and fatalistic beliefs about cancer prevention.Communication Research. 2011;38:731-753
49. Lee C.-J.,Scheufele D. A.The influence of knowledge and deference toward scientific authority: A media effects model for public attitudes toward nanotechnology.Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. 2006;83:819-834
50. Leshner A. L.Public engagement with science.Science. 2003;299 (5609):
51. Levine T. R.,Serota K. B.,Shulman H. C.The impact of Lie to Me on viewers’ actual ability to detect deception.Communication Research. 2010;37:847-856
52. MarschallJ.OttoL.RahnkeM.MaierM. (2011a). Interest in science. Unpublished instrument. Retrieved from http://www.uni-koblenz-landau.de/landau/fb8/ikms/ikmrest/forschung/wiskom/dokvfkwe/iis.pdf
53. MarschallJ.OttoL.RahnkeM.MaierM. (2011b). Perceived uncertainty of scientific evidence. Unpublished instrument. Retrieved from http://www.uni-koblenz-landau.de/landau/fb8/ikms/ikmrest/forschung/wiskom/dokvfkwe/puse.pdf
54. McPherson M.,Houseman L.,Goodman I. F.Absolute zero: Summative evaluation. Cambridge, MA: Goodman Research Group; 2008:
55. Mende A.,Oehmichen E.,Schröter C.Medienübergreifende Informationsnutzung und Informationsrepertoires [Usage and repertoires of information across different media].Media Perspektiven. 2012;1:2-17
56. Miller J. D.Scientific literacy: A conceptual and empirical review.Daedalus. 1983;112:29-48
57. Miller S.Public understanding of science at the crossroads.Public Understanding of Science. 2001;10:115-120
58. Morgan M.,Shanahan J.,Signorielli N.Media effects: Advances in theory and research. Bryant J.Oliver M. B., ed. New York, NY: Routledge; 2009:34-49.
59. Nabi R. L.,Sullivan J. L.Does television viewing relate to engagement in protective action against crime? A cultivation analysis from a theory of reasoned action perspective.Communication Research. 2001;28:802-825
60. National Science Board. (2012). Science and technology: Public attitudes and public understanding. In Science and engineering indicators 2012. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/c7/c7s1.htm
61. Nickerson R. S.Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises.Review of General Psychology. 1998;2:175-220
62. Nisbet M. C.,Scheufele D. A.,Shanahan J.,Moy P.,Brossard D. E.,Lewenstein B. V.Knowledge, reservations, or promise? A media effects model for public perceptions of science and technology.Communication Research. 2002;29:584-608
63. Oliver M. B.,Krakowiak K. M.Media effects: Advances in theory and research. Bryant J.Oliver M. B., ed. New York, NY: Routledge; 2009:517-531.
64. Petty R. E.,Cacioppo J. T.Advances in experimental social psychology. Berkowitz L., ed. San Diego, CA: Academic Press; 1986:123-205.
65. Popper K. R.The logic of scientific discovery. London, England: Hutchinson; 1959:
66. Powell M.,Colin M.,Kleinman D. L.,Delborne J.,Anderson A.Imagining ordinary citizens? Conceptualized and actual participants for deliberations on emerging technologies.Science as Culture. 2011;20:37-70
67. Price V.,Tewksbury D.Progress in communication sciences. Barnett G.Boster F., ed. Norwood, NJ: Ablex; 1997:173-212.
68. Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies. (2014). Consumer products inventory:. An inventory of nanotechnology-based consumer products introduced on the market. Retrieved from http://www.nanotechproject.org/cpi/
69. Rabinovich A.,Morton T. A.Unquestioned answers or unanswered questions: Beliefs about science guide responses to uncertainty in climate change risk communication.Risk Analysis. 2012;32:992-1002
70. Renninger K. A.,Hidi S.Revisiting the conceptualization, measurement, and generation of interest.Educational Psychologist. 2011;46:168-184
71. Retzbach J.,Retzbach A.,Maier M.,Otto L.,Rahnke M.Effects of repeated exposure to science TV shows on beliefs about scientific evidence and interest in science.Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications. 2013;25:3-13
72. Roco M. C.,Bainbridge W. S.Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology: Maximizing human benefit.Journal of Nanoparticle Research. 2005;7:1-13
73. Rogers-Hayden T.,Pidgeon N.Moving engagement “upstream”? Nanotechnologies and the royal society and royal academy of engineering’s inquiry.Public Understanding of Science. 2007;16:345-364
74. Sherif M.,Taub D.,Hovland C. I.Assimilation and contrast effects of anchoring stimuli on judgments.Journal of Experimental Psychology. 1958;55:150-155
75. Shrum L. J.Assessing the social influence of television: A social cognition perspective on cultivation effects.Communication Research. 1995;22:402-429
76. Shrum L. J.Media effects: Advances in theory and research. Bryant J.Oliver M. B., ed. New York, NY: Routledge; 2009:50-73.
77. Siegrist M.,Cvetkovich G.Perception of hazards: The role of social trust and knowledge.Risk Analysis. 2000;20:713-720
78. Solomon R. L.An extension of control group design.Psychological Bulletin. 1949;46:137-150
79. Southwell B. G.,Torres A.Connecting interpersonal and mass communication: Science news exposure, perceived ability to understand science, and conversation.Communication Monographs. 2006;73:334-350
80. Stocking S. H.Encyclopedia of science and technology communication. Priest S. H., ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2010:919-921.
81. Thøgersen J.Media attention and the market for “green” consumer products.Business Strategy and the Environment. 2006;15:145-156
82. Webster D. M.,Kruglanski A. W.Individual differences in need for cognitive closure.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1994;67:1049-1062
83. Yaros R. A.Is it the medium or the message? Structuring complex news to enhance engagement and situational understanding by nonexperts.Communication Research. 2006;33:285-309
84. Zhao X.Media use and global warming perceptions: A snapshot of the reinforcing spirals.Communication Research. 2009;36:698-723