Suchergebnisse

We use an experiment with a nationally representative sample of the U.S. population to examine how political partisans consume and process media reports about nanotechnology—a scientific issue that is unfamiliar to most Americans. We manipulate the extent to which participants receive ideological cues contextualizing a news article, and follow their subsequent information seeking about nanotechnology. Our results provide insights into patterns of media use and how media use differs among people with varying political ideologies. When cues clarifying the political stakes of nanotechnology are made available, individuals are willing to read information from countervailing sources. When such cues are lacking, however, individuals avoid incongruent information and opt for headlines from attitude-consistent sources. We explore variations in the circumstances under which ideological selectivity occurs and demonstrate that both confirmation bias and defensive avoidance are heightened under such conditions.

Building on existing theoretical frameworks for the study of incivility, interactivity, and negativity bias, this study contributes to the growing body of literature on the impact of incivility in online comments. Specifically, it tests incivility's impact on news engagement intentions; investigates political and personality predispositions' roles as perceptual filters; and extends this scholarship to the context of multiple scientific news topics. It found that, when dealing with news about two of the more politically divisive technologies—fracking and synthetic biology—ideology moderated the effects of incivility, with uncivil comments encouraging engagement among conservatives but not among liberals. However, in the less politically divisive context of nanotechnology, self-monitoring played a significant role in moderating incivility's effects: with high self-monitors being more motivated, and low self-monitors less motivated, to share nanotech news after exposure to uncivil comments. These results imply that individual predispositions and topic-specific factors both underlie the impact of incivility on news engagement intentions.

Much risk communication research has demonstrated how mass media can influence individual risk perceptions, but lacks a comprehensive conceptual understanding of another key channel of communication: interpersonal discussion. Using the social amplification of risk as a theoretical framework, we consider the potential for discussions to function as amplification stations. We explore this possibility using data from a public opinion survey of residents living in potential locations for a new biological research facility in the United States. Controlling for a variety of key information variables, our results show that two dimensions of discussion—frequency and valence—have impacts on residents' perceptions of the facility's benefits and its risks. We also explore the possibility that an individual's overall attitude moderates the effect of discussion on their perceptions of risks and benefits. Our results demonstrate the potential for discussions to operate as amplifiers or attenuators of perceptions of both risks and benefits.

This study explores the relationships between discussion networks and the development of extreme attitudes toward stem cell research during the 2004 presidential election. The authors test competing theoretical models that address discrepancies in previous attitude polarization research—whether interpersonal discussion leads to attitude extremity or extremity leads to discussion, within the deliberating American public. Using data from a nationwide mail panel survey carried out between 2002 and 2005, the authors explore within-wave and between-wave causal paths, revealing patterns difficult to discern in cross-sectional survey or lab experimental designs. Our findings show that political talk plays a substantial role in shaping and polarizing attitudes on stem cell research, with discussion in networks composed of like-minded others leading directly to the development of extreme attitudes.

AbstractEvents such as the 2017 "March for Science" have brought greater attention to public attitudes toward science and scientists. Our analyses of recent poll data show that Americans' confidence in scientists has been high for roughly 40 years (relative to other institutions), and that it is high even for controversial topics such as global warming and nuclear energy. International comparisons show broad similarities with individuals in Germany and the UK, including that trust in scientists can fluctuate depending on who employs them and what topic is under discussion. Finally, more granular analyses in the United States reveal large divides in trust based on geographic location and religious identification (i.e., rural residents exhibit comparatively low trust and the nonreligious comparatively high trust), while the gap between political partisans has been relatively small but has spiked in recent years.

Using nanotechnology as a case study, this article explores (1) how people's perceptions of benefits and risks are related to their approval of nanotechnology, (2) which information‐processing factors contribute to public risk/benefit perceptions, and (3) whether individuals' predispositions (i.e., deference to scientific authority and ideology) may moderate the relationship between cognitive processing and risk perceptions of the technology. Results indicate that benefit perceptions positively affect public support for nanotechnology; perceptions of risk tend to be more influenced by systematic processing than by heuristic cues, whereas both heuristic and systematic processing influence benefit perceptions. People who are more liberal‐minded tend to be more affected by systematic processing when thinking about the benefits of nanotechnology than those who are more conservative. Compared to less deferent individuals, those who are more deferent to scientific authority tend to be less influenced by systematic processing when making judgments about the benefits and risks of nanotechnology. Implications are discussed.

ObjectivesThe current study examines upstream engagement initiatives using the issue of nanotechnology as a case study.MethodsA series of logistic and OLS regression analyses explore data from a laboratory experiment on information‐seeking behavior, knowledge, and willingness to engage with the issue of nanotechnology in the future.ResultsOur results fail to offer evidence of positive relationships between anticipated discussion and learning and the willingness to engage with the issue of nanotechnology in the future. In addition, our results show that anticipated discussion with opposing others actually encourages individuals to seek out an editorial or opinion piece first as opposed to a news item.ConclusionOur findings point toward important variations in the kinds of information‐seeking behaviors likely to emerge from different conditions under which individuals may be motivated to learn more about emerging science issues, and provide practical insights into which kinds of information‐seeking behaviors are most conducive to knowledge gain and issue engagement.

AbstractThis study analyzes the relationship between state-level variables and Twitter discourse on genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Using geographically identified tweets related to GMOs, we examined how the sentiments expressed about GMOs related to education levels, news coverage, proportion of rural and urban counties, state-level political ideology, amount of GMO-related legislation introduced, and agricultural dependence of each U.S. state. State-level characteristics predominantly did not predict the sentiment of the discourse. Instead, the topics of tweets predicted the majority of variance in tweet sentiment at the state level. The topics that tweets within a state focused on were related to state-level characteristics in some cases.

Due to changes in the media landscape, the vast majority of the public now depends on a mix of media formats for science news. This study analyzes audiences' repertoires of science media consumption, and the effect of these consumption patterns on public understanding of science. We also profile those who rely on a mix of online-only sources and traditional media for science news. Our findings indicate that primarily relying on online-only sources is positively associated with a higher understanding of science, even when pertaining to respondents' level of education and scientific training in the past.