Suchergebnisse

This study examines if accounting for the causal location of information within a narrative can improve the predictability of narrative persuasion. Using perceived realism as a variable of narrative persuasion and environmental communication as a context, results reveal a significant moderating influence of the location of information relative to the cause-and-effect structure of the narrative. Specifically, external realism increased the acceptance of narrative information, but only after accounting for the additional variance of location and only for the subset of information on the causal line of the narrative. Future studies should continue to explore how the variance associated with this narrative causality can be leveraged toward a more nuanced understanding of narrative persuasion.

Narratives represent a powerful and ubiquitous form of communication that influence what individuals believe about the world. While the field of narrative persuasion investigates how narratives affect attitudes and behaviors, it rarely considers structural variables discussed in the field of discourse psychology. This study examines the utility of bridging these fields by testing the persuasive influence of novel science information relative to the internal causal structure of a narrative. Results suggest that information placed at causal locations of a narrative result in greater acceptance of information than the same information placed at noncausal locations within the same narrative. These findings suggest that the within-narrative variable of causality can influence the persuasive impact of information inserted into a narrative. In response, this study identifies a significant source of variance that has thus far been overlooked in studies of narrative persuasion.

Studies that investigate how the mass media cover risk issues often assume that certain characteristics of content are related to specific risk perceptions and behavioral intentions. However, these relationships have seldom been empirically assessed. This study tests the influence of three message‐level media variables—risk precision information, sensational information, and self‐efficacy information—on perceptions of risk, individual worry, and behavioral intentions toward a pervasive health risk. Results suggest that more precise risk information leads to increased risk perceptions and that the effect of sensational information is moderated by risk precision information. Greater self‐efficacy information is associated with greater intention to change behavior, but none of the variables influence individual worry. The results provide a quantitative understanding of how specific characteristics of informational media content can influence individuals' responses to health threats of a global and uncertain nature.

"From climate to vaccination, stem-cell research to evolution, scientific work is often the subject of public controversies in which scientists and science communicators find themselves enmeshed. Especially with such hot-button topics, science communication plays vital roles. Gathering together the work of a multidisciplinary, international collection of scholars, the editors of Ethics and Practice in Science Communication present an enlightening dialogue involving these communities, one that articulates the often differing objectives and ethical responsibilities communicators face in bringing a range of scientific knowledge to the wider world. In three sections--how ethics matters, professional practice, and case studies--contributors to this volume explore the many complex questions surrounding the communication of scientific results to nonscientists. Has the science been shared clearly and accurately? Have questions of risk, uncertainty, and appropriate representation been adequately addressed? And, most fundamentally, what is the purpose of communicating science to the public: Is it to inform and empower? Or to persuade--to influence behavior and policy? By inspiring scientists and science communicators alike to think more deeply about their work, this book reaffirms that the integrity of the communication of science is vital to a healthy relationship between science and society today"--The publisher

Recent gene-editing technologies are heralded by proponents as a revolution for developing gene-edited foods (GEFs) while critics demand increased governance and scrutiny of potential societal impacts. Governance of GEFs is different in the United States, where GEFs are entering the market, and Europe, which restricts GEF development. Definitive regulations for governing GEFs are not yet solidified in either region. We identify and compare how English-language media in the United States and Europe portray potential risks, benefits, and regulation of GEFs, and we explore how these portrayals may reflect their regulatory environments. Results show that the regions similarly prioritize benefit frames that emphasize the social and scientific progress GEFs may bring, and few articles express skepticism about potential benefits. Comparing samples across regions exposes differences between Europe and the United States in the risk and benefit portrayals and in governance initiatives. Both regions prioritize policy risks that are counter to their current oversight regimes: the US media sample focused on GEFs being underregulated while the European sample emphasize risks of too much regulation. This may demonstrate the power of media to reflect and even cultivate public opinion and may influence future policy revisions within these distinct regulatory environments.