Science audiences, misinformation, and fake news

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

Volumn 116, Issue 16, 2019, Pages 7662-7669

  Scheufele, Dietram A ^a   Krause, Nicole M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

Author keywords

Disinformation; Fake news; Misinformation; Motivated reasoning; Science literacy

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ECOLOGY; HUMAN; LITERACY; MOTIVATION; SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT; SOCIAL NETWORK; DECEPTION; INFORMATION LITERACY; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MASS MEDIUM; POLITICS; SCIENCE; SOCIAL MEDIA; UNITED STATES;

COMMUNICATION; DECEPTION; HUMANS; INFORMATION LITERACY; MASS MEDIA; MOTIVATION; POLITICS; SCIENCE; SOCIAL MEDIA; UNITED STATES;

EID: 85064351303     PISSN: 00278424     EISSN: 10916490     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1805871115     Document Type: Article

References (96)

1. Nuccitelli D (February 12, 2018) The EPA debunked Administrator Pruitt’s latest climate misinformation. The Guardian. Available at https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/feb/12/the-epa-debunked-administrator-pruitts-latest-climate-misinformation. Accessed June 13, 2018.
2. Lewandowsky S, Oreskes N, Risbey JS, Newell BR, Smithson M (2015) Seepage: Climate change denial and its effect on the scientific community. Glob Environ Change 33: 1–13.
3. Loftus EF (2005) Planting misinformation in the human mind: A 30-year investigation of the malleability of memory. Learn Mem 12:361–366.
4. Lazer D, et al. (2017) Combating fake news: An agenda for research and action. Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy, Harvard Kennedy School, Cambridge, MA), p 2.
5. Berelson BR, Lazarsfeld PF, McPhee WN (1954) Voting: A Study of Opinion Formation in a Presidential Campaign (The Univ of Chicago Press, Chicago).
6. Kuklinski JH, Quirk PJ, Jerit J, Schwieder D, Rich RF (2000) Misinformation and the currency of democratic citizenship. J Polit 62:790–816.
7. Hochschild JL, Einstein KL (2015) Do facts matter? Information and misinformation in American politics. Polit Sci Q 130:585–624.
8. National Science Board (2018) Science and engineering indicators 2018 (National Science Foundation, Alexandria, VA).
9. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2016) Science Literacy: Concepts, Contexts, and Consequences (National Academies Press, Washington, DC), p 166.
10. Garrett RK, Weeks BE (2017) Epistemic beliefs’ role in promoting misperceptions and conspiracist ideation. PLoS One 12:e0184733.
11. Scheufele DA (2013) Communicating science in social settings. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110:14040–14047.
12. Funk C, Gottfried J, Mitchell A (2017) Science news and information today (Pew Research Center, Washington, DC).
13. Turri J (2012) Is knowledge justified true belief? Synthese 184:247–259.
14. Brossard D, Nisbet MC (2007) Deference to scientific authority among a low information public: Understanding US opinion on agricultural biotechnology. Int J Public Opin Res 19:24–52.
15. Funk C, Rainie L, Page D (2015) Public and scientists’ views on science and society (Pew Research Center, Washington, DC).
16. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2016) Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects (National Academies Press, Washington, DC), p 420.
17. Bhattacharjee Y (2010) Scientific literacy. NSF board draws flak for dropping evolution from Indicators. Science 328:150–151.
18. Kahan DM (2017) ‘Ordinary science intelligence’: A science-comprehension measure for study of risk and science communication, with notes on evolution and climate change. J Risk Res 20:995–1016.
19. Uscinski JE, Klofstad C, Atkinson MD (2016) What drives conspiratorial beliefs? The role of informational cues and predispositions. Polit Res Q 69:57–71.
20. Cacciatore MA, et al. (2014) Misperceptions in polarized politics: The role of knowledge, religiosity, and media. PS Polit Sci Polit 47:654–661.
21. van Prooijen JW (2017) Why education predicts decreased belief in conspiracy theories. Appl Cogn Psychol 31:50–58.
22. Oliver JE, Wood TJ (2014) Conspiracy theories and the paranoid style(s) of mass opinion. Am J Pol Sci 58:952–966.
23. Berinsky AJ (2018) Telling the truth about believing the lies? Evidence for the limited prevalence of expressive survey responding. J Polit 80:211–224.
24. Vosoughi S, Roy D, Aral S (2018) The spread of true and false news online. Science 359:1146–1151.
25. Lazer DMJ, et al. (2018) The science of fake news. Science 359:1094–1096.
26. Livingstone S (2004) Media literacy and the challenge of new information and communication technologies. Commun Rev 7:3–14.
27. Wineburg S, McGrew S, Breakstone J, Ortega T (2016) Evaluating information: The cornerstone of civic online reasoning (Stanford History Education Group, Stanford Univ, Stanford, CA).
28. Barthel M, Mitchell A, Holcomb J (2016) Many Americans believe fake news is sowing confusion (Pew Research Center, Washington, DC).
29. Klurfeld J, Schneider H (2014) News literacy: Teaching the internet generation to make reliable information choices (The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC).
30. Vraga EK, Bode L (2017) Leveraging institutions, educators, and networks to correct misinformation: A commentary on Lewandosky, Ecker, and Cook. J Appl Res Mem Cogn 6:382–388.
31. Smith J, Jackson G, Raj S (2017) Designing against misinformation (Facebook Design, Menlo Park, CA).
32. Mosseri A (2018) Helping ensure news on Facebook is from trusted sources (Facebook Newsroom, Menlo Park, CA).
33. Isaac M (January 11, 2018) Facebook overhauls news feed to focus on what friends and family share. New York Times. Available at https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/11/technology/facebook-news-feed.html. Accessed June 15, 2018.
34. Frenkel S, Casey N, Mozur P (January 14, 2018) In some countries, Facebook’s fiddling has magnified fake news. New York Times. Available at https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/14/technology/facebook-news-feed-changes.html. Accessed June 15, 2018.
35. Graves L (2016) Deciding What’s True: Fact-Checking Journalism and the New Ecology of News (Columbia Univ Press, New York).
36. Conroy NJ, Rubin VL, Chen Y (2015) Automatic deception detection: Methods for finding fake news. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology (Wiley, New York), pp 1–4.
37. Gupta A, Lamba H, Kumaraguru P, Joshi A (2013) Faking Sandy: Characterizing and identifying fake images on Twitter during Hurricane Sandy. Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on World Wide Web (Assoc for Computing Machinery, New York), pp 729–736.
38. Weise E (April 10, 2017) We tried Google’s new fact-check filter on the Internet’s favorite hoaxes. USA Today. Available at https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2017/04/10/google-fact-check-snopes-politifact-factcheck/100263464/. Accessed June 13, 2018.
39. Ferrara E, Varol O, Davis C, Menczer F, Flammini A (2016) The rise of social bots. Commun ACM 59:96–104.
40. Bode L, Vraga EK (2015) In related news, that was wrong: The correction of misinformation through related stories functionality in social media. J Commun 65: 619–638.
41. Lewandowsky S, Ecker UK, Cook J (2017) Beyond misinformation: Understanding and coping with the “post-truth” era. J Appl Res Mem Cogn 6:353–369.
42. Lewandowsky S, Ecker UK, Seifert CM, Schwarz N, Cook J (2012) Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychol Sci Public Interest 13:106–131.
43. Festinger L (1957) A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (Standford Univ Press, Stanford, CA).
44. Iyengar S, Hahn KS (2009) Red media, blue media: Evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. J Commun 59:19–39.
45. Yeo SK, Xenos MA, Brossard D, Scheufele DA (2015) Selecting our own science: How communication contexts and individual traits shape information seeking. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci 658:172–191.
46. Kull S, Ramsay C, Lewis E (2003) Misperceptions, the media, and the Iraq war. Polit Sci Q 118:569–598.
47. Nelson JL, Webster JG (2017) The myth of partisan selective exposure: A portrait of the online political news audience. Soc Media Soc 3:2056305117729314.
48. Druckman JN (2012) The politics of motivation. Crit Rev A J Polit Soc 24:199–216.
49. Scheufele DA (2014) Science communication as political communication. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111:13585–13592.
50. Kunda Z (1990) The case for motivated reasoning. Psychol Bull 108:480–498.
51. Lord CG, Ross L, Lepper MR (1979) Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. J Pers Soc Psychol 37: 2098–2109.
52. Druckman JN, Bolsen T (2011) Framing, motivated reasoning, and opinions about emergent technologies. J Commun 61:659–688.
53. Ho SS, Brossard D, Scheufele DA (2008) Effects of value predispositions, mass media use, and knowledge on public attitudes toward embryonic stem cell research. Int J Public Opin Res 20:171–192.
54. Kraft PW, Lodge M, Taber CS (2015) Why people “don’t trust the evidence” motivated reasoning and scientific beliefs. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci 658:121–133.
55. Lodge M, Taber CS (2013) The Rationalizing Voter (Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, UK).
56. Nyhan B, Reifler J (2010) When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Polit Behav 32:303–330.
57. Wood T, Porter E (2016) The elusive backfire effect: Mass attitudes’ steadfast factual adherence. Polit Behav 2018:1–29.
58. Weeks BE (2015) Emotions, partisanship, and misperceptions: How anger and anxiety moderate the effect of partisan bias on susceptibility to political misinformation. J Commun 65:699–719.
59. Milkman KL, Berger J (2014) The science of sharing and the sharing of science. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111:13642–13649.
60. Xenos MA, Becker AB, Anderson AA, Brossard D, Scheufele DA (2011) Stimulating upstream engagement: An experimental study of nanotechnology information seeking. Soc Sci Q 92:1191–1214.
61. Garrett RK (2017) The “echo chamber” distraction: Disinformation campaigns are the problem, not audience fragmentation. J Appl Res Mem Cogn 6:370–376.
62. Kitts JA (2003) Egocentric bias or information management? Selective disclosure and the social roots of norm misperception. Soc Psychol Q 66:222–237.
63. Schwarz N, Sanna LJ, Skurnik I, Yoon C (2007) Metacognitive experiences and the intricacies of setting people straight: Implications for debiasing and public information campaigns. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 39:127–161.
64. Berinsky AJ (2017) Rumors and health care reform: Experiments in political misinformation. Br J Polit Sci 47:241–262.
65. Huckfeldt RR, Mendez JM, Osborn T (2004) Disagreement, ambivalence, and engagement: The political consequences of heterogeneous networks. Polit Psychol 25: 65–95.
66. DiFonzo N, et al. (2013) Rumor clustering, consensus, and polarization: Dynamic social impact and self-organization of hearsay. J Exp Soc Psychol 49:378–399.
67. Lerman K, Yan X, Wu X-Z (2016) The” majority illusion” in social networks. PLoS One 11:e0147617.
68. Friggeri A, Adamic LA, Eckles D, Cheng J (2014) Rumor cascades. Proceedings of the Eighth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (AAAI, Palo Alto, CA).
69. Shane S (September 7, 2017) The fake Americans Russia created to influence the election. New York Times. Available at https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/07/us/politics/russiafacebook-twitter-election.html. Accessed July 28, 2018.
70. Messing S, Westwood SJ (2014) Selective exposure in the age of social media: Endorsements trump partisan source affiliation when selecting news online. Communic Res 41:1042–1063.
71. Sloan WD (2002) The Media in America: A History (Vision, San Ramon, CA).
72. Hamilton J (2004) All the News That’s Fit to Sell: How the Market Transforms Information into News (Princeton Univ Press, Princeton).
73. Schudson M (1981) Discovering the News: A Social History of American Newspapers (Basic Books, New York).
74. Downie L, Schudson M (2009) The reconstruction of American journalism. Available at https://archives.cjr.org/reconstruction/the_reconstruction_of_american.php.
75. Wittebols JH (2004) The Soap Opera Paradigm: Television Programming and Corporate Priorities (Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, MD).
76. Schiller D (1999) Digital Capitalism: Networking the Global Market System (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).
77. Prior M (2007) Post-Broadcast Democracy: How Media Choice Increases Inequality in Political Involvement and Polarizes Elections (Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, UK).
78. Turow J (2007) Breaking up America: Advertisers and the New Media World (The Univ of Chicago Press, Chicago).
79. Newman N (2017) Reuters Institute digital news report 2017 (Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, Oxford).
80. 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.
81. Rutenberg J (April 17) For news outlets squeezed from the middle, it’s bend or bust. New York Times. Available at https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/18/business/media/for-news-outlets-squeezed-from-the-middle-its-bend-or-bust.html. Accessed May 27, 2018.
82. Drummond C, Fischhoff B (2017) Individuals with greater science literacy and education have more polarized beliefs on controversial science topics. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 114:9587–9592.
83. Kahan DM (2017) Protecting or polluting the science communication environment?: The case of childhood vaccines. The Oxford Handbook of the Science of Science Communication, eds Jamieson KH, Kahan DM, Scheufele DA (Oxford Univ Press, Oxford), Vol 1, pp 421–432.
84. Weingart P (2017) Is there a hype problem in science? If so, how is it addressed? The Oxford Handbook of the Science of Science Communication, eds Jamieson KH, Kahan DM, Scheufele DA (Oxford Univ Press, New York), pp 111–118.
85. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2015) Trust and Confidence at the Interfaces of the Life Sciences and Society: Does the Public Trust Science? A Workshop Summary (The National Academies Press, Washington, DC), p 66.
86. Dudo A, Dunwoody S, Scheufele DA (2011) The emergence of nano news: Tracking thematic trends and changes in U.S. newspaper coverage of nanotechnology. Journal Mass Commun 88:55–75.
87. Boykoff MT, Boykoff JM (2004) Balance as bias: Global warming and the US prestige press. Glob Environ Change 14:125–136.
88. Van Duyn E, Collier J (2018) Priming and fake news: The effects of elite discourse on evaluations of news media. Mass Commun Soc, 10.1080/15205436.2018.1511807.
89. Coe K, Kenski K, Rains SA (2014) Online and uncivil? Patterns and determinants of incivility in newspaper website comments. J Commun 64:658–679.
90. Anderson AA, Brossard D, Scheufele DA, Xenos MA, Ladwig P (2014) The “Nasty Effect:” Online incivility and risk perceptions of emerging technologies. J Comput Mediat Commun 19:373–387.
91. Anderson AA, Yeo SK, Brossard D, Scheufele DA, Xenos MA (2018) Toxic talk: How online incivility can undermine perceptions of media. Int J Public Opin Res 30: 156–168.
92. Yeo SK, et al. (2017) The effect of comment moderation on perceived bias in science news. Inf Commun Soc 22:129–146.
93. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2017) Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda (The National Academies Press, Washington, DC), p 152.
94. Cacciatore MA, et al. (2018) Is Facebook making us dumber? Exploring social media use as a predictor of political knowledge. Journal Mass Commun Q 95:404–424.
95. Brossard D (2013) New media landscapes and the science information consumer. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110(Suppl 3):14096–14101.
96. The Economist (2018) The Economist/YouGov Poll. Available at https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/wa3gpxn761/econTabReport.pdf. Retrieved September 13, 2018.