Conflicting stories about public scientific controversies: Effects of news convergence and divergence on scientists’ credibility
Surveys suggest that approximately one third of news consumers have encountered conflicting reports of the same information. News coverage of science is especially prone to conflict, but how news consumers perceive this situation is currently unknown. College students (N = 242) participated in a lab...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) England), 2012-08, Vol.21 (6), p.689-704 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 704 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 6 |
| container_start_page | 689 |
| container_title | Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) |
| container_volume | 21 |
| creator | Jensen, Jakob D. Hurley, Ryan J. |
| description | Surveys suggest that approximately one third of news consumers have encountered conflicting reports of the same information. News coverage of science is especially prone to conflict, but how news consumers perceive this situation is currently unknown. College students (N = 242) participated in a lab experiment where they were exposed to news coverage about one of two scientific controversies in the United States: dioxin in sewage sludge or the reintroduction of gray wolves to populated areas. Participants received (a) one news article (control), (b) two news articles that were consistent (convergent), or (c) two news articles that conflicted (divergent). The effects of divergence induced uncertainty differed by news story. Greater uncertainty was associated with increased scientists’ credibility ratings for those reading dioxin regulation articles and decreased scientists’ credibility ratings for those reading wolf reintroduction articles. Unlike other manifestations of uncertainty in scientific discourse, conflicting stories seem to generate effects that vary significantly by topic. Consistent with uncertainty management theory, uncertainty is embraced or rejected by situation. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1177/0963662510387759 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1399056702</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_0963662510387759</sage_id><sourcerecordid>1399056702</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c464t-84decc35d94ee7afcae6370aa9814128676fafae89932034ee0585d1b165f4453</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkc1qFUEQhRtRzE1070oa3LgZ7f8fd3KJUQi40fXQ01N96TC3-9rdo2QXfAtfzydxhpsECYirquJ8dYriIPSCkjeUav2WWMWVYpISbrSW9hHaUK5opxSxj9FmlbtVP0GntV4RQrhg6ik6YdxwRqXcoJ_bnMIUfYtph2vLJULFbshzw4d5WARcfYTUYlhan1Mr-TuUulDv8HkI4FvFOeAEP-oqL9oOkgfs0ojHeD_mdOdTW_198wv7AmMc4hTb9TP0JLipwvPbeoa-fjj_sv3YXX6--LR9f9l5oUTrjBjBey5HKwC0C96B4po4Zw0VlBmlVXDBgbGWs-VRACKNHOlAlQxCSH6GXh99DyV_m6G2fh-rh2lyCfJce8qtJVJpwv6PMkYFE9Ks6KsH6FWeS1oe6SlhWhBr1HqbHClfcq0FQn8oce_K9QL1a5T9wyiXlZe3xvOwh_F-4S67BeiOQHU7-PvqPwz_AG3yqHA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1027409865</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Conflicting stories about public scientific controversies: Effects of news convergence and divergence on scientists’ credibility</title><source>PAIS Index</source><source>SAGE Complete A-Z List</source><creator>Jensen, Jakob D. ; Hurley, Ryan J.</creator><creatorcontrib>Jensen, Jakob D. ; Hurley, Ryan J.</creatorcontrib><description>Surveys suggest that approximately one third of news consumers have encountered conflicting reports of the same information. News coverage of science is especially prone to conflict, but how news consumers perceive this situation is currently unknown. College students (N = 242) participated in a lab experiment where they were exposed to news coverage about one of two scientific controversies in the United States: dioxin in sewage sludge or the reintroduction of gray wolves to populated areas. Participants received (a) one news article (control), (b) two news articles that were consistent (convergent), or (c) two news articles that conflicted (divergent). The effects of divergence induced uncertainty differed by news story. Greater uncertainty was associated with increased scientists’ credibility ratings for those reading dioxin regulation articles and decreased scientists’ credibility ratings for those reading wolf reintroduction articles. Unlike other manifestations of uncertainty in scientific discourse, conflicting stories seem to generate effects that vary significantly by topic. Consistent with uncertainty management theory, uncertainty is embraced or rejected by situation.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0963-6625</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1361-6609</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/0963662510387759</identifier><identifier>PMID: 23832155</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London, England: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>College students ; Conflict ; Consumers ; Credibility ; Dioxin ; Media coverage ; News ; News media ; Public interest ; Rating ; Regulation ; Science ; Scientists ; Surveys ; Uncertainty ; United States</subject><ispartof>Public understanding of science (Bristol, England), 2012-08, Vol.21 (6), p.689-704</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2010</rights><rights>Copyright Sage Publications Ltd. Aug 2012</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c464t-84decc35d94ee7afcae6370aa9814128676fafae89932034ee0585d1b165f4453</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c464t-84decc35d94ee7afcae6370aa9814128676fafae89932034ee0585d1b165f4453</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0963662510387759$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0963662510387759$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,21819,27865,27866,27924,27925,43621,43622</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23832155$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Jensen, Jakob D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hurley, Ryan J.</creatorcontrib><title>Conflicting stories about public scientific controversies: Effects of news convergence and divergence on scientists’ credibility</title><title>Public understanding of science (Bristol, England)</title><addtitle>Public Underst Sci</addtitle><description>Surveys suggest that approximately one third of news consumers have encountered conflicting reports of the same information. News coverage of science is especially prone to conflict, but how news consumers perceive this situation is currently unknown. College students (N = 242) participated in a lab experiment where they were exposed to news coverage about one of two scientific controversies in the United States: dioxin in sewage sludge or the reintroduction of gray wolves to populated areas. Participants received (a) one news article (control), (b) two news articles that were consistent (convergent), or (c) two news articles that conflicted (divergent). The effects of divergence induced uncertainty differed by news story. Greater uncertainty was associated with increased scientists’ credibility ratings for those reading dioxin regulation articles and decreased scientists’ credibility ratings for those reading wolf reintroduction articles. Unlike other manifestations of uncertainty in scientific discourse, conflicting stories seem to generate effects that vary significantly by topic. Consistent with uncertainty management theory, uncertainty is embraced or rejected by situation.</description><subject>College students</subject><subject>Conflict</subject><subject>Consumers</subject><subject>Credibility</subject><subject>Dioxin</subject><subject>Media coverage</subject><subject>News</subject><subject>News media</subject><subject>Public interest</subject><subject>Rating</subject><subject>Regulation</subject><subject>Science</subject><subject>Scientists</subject><subject>Surveys</subject><subject>Uncertainty</subject><subject>United States</subject><issn>0963-6625</issn><issn>1361-6609</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkc1qFUEQhRtRzE1070oa3LgZ7f8fd3KJUQi40fXQ01N96TC3-9rdo2QXfAtfzydxhpsECYirquJ8dYriIPSCkjeUav2WWMWVYpISbrSW9hHaUK5opxSxj9FmlbtVP0GntV4RQrhg6ik6YdxwRqXcoJ_bnMIUfYtph2vLJULFbshzw4d5WARcfYTUYlhan1Mr-TuUulDv8HkI4FvFOeAEP-oqL9oOkgfs0ojHeD_mdOdTW_198wv7AmMc4hTb9TP0JLipwvPbeoa-fjj_sv3YXX6--LR9f9l5oUTrjBjBey5HKwC0C96B4po4Zw0VlBmlVXDBgbGWs-VRACKNHOlAlQxCSH6GXh99DyV_m6G2fh-rh2lyCfJce8qtJVJpwv6PMkYFE9Ks6KsH6FWeS1oe6SlhWhBr1HqbHClfcq0FQn8oce_K9QL1a5T9wyiXlZe3xvOwh_F-4S67BeiOQHU7-PvqPwz_AG3yqHA</recordid><startdate>20120801</startdate><enddate>20120801</enddate><creator>Jensen, Jakob D.</creator><creator>Hurley, Ryan J.</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>Sage Publications Ltd</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope><scope>JQ2</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20120801</creationdate><title>Conflicting stories about public scientific controversies: Effects of news convergence and divergence on scientists’ credibility</title><author>Jensen, Jakob D. ; Hurley, Ryan J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c464t-84decc35d94ee7afcae6370aa9814128676fafae89932034ee0585d1b165f4453</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>College students</topic><topic>Conflict</topic><topic>Consumers</topic><topic>Credibility</topic><topic>Dioxin</topic><topic>Media coverage</topic><topic>News</topic><topic>News media</topic><topic>Public interest</topic><topic>Rating</topic><topic>Regulation</topic><topic>Science</topic><topic>Scientists</topic><topic>Surveys</topic><topic>Uncertainty</topic><topic>United States</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Jensen, Jakob D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hurley, Ryan J.</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><collection>ProQuest Computer Science Collection</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Public understanding of science (Bristol, England)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Jensen, Jakob D.</au><au>Hurley, Ryan J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Conflicting stories about public scientific controversies: Effects of news convergence and divergence on scientists’ credibility</atitle><jtitle>Public understanding of science (Bristol, England)</jtitle><addtitle>Public Underst Sci</addtitle><date>2012-08-01</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>21</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>689</spage><epage>704</epage><pages>689-704</pages><issn>0963-6625</issn><eissn>1361-6609</eissn><abstract>Surveys suggest that approximately one third of news consumers have encountered conflicting reports of the same information. News coverage of science is especially prone to conflict, but how news consumers perceive this situation is currently unknown. College students (N = 242) participated in a lab experiment where they were exposed to news coverage about one of two scientific controversies in the United States: dioxin in sewage sludge or the reintroduction of gray wolves to populated areas. Participants received (a) one news article (control), (b) two news articles that were consistent (convergent), or (c) two news articles that conflicted (divergent). The effects of divergence induced uncertainty differed by news story. Greater uncertainty was associated with increased scientists’ credibility ratings for those reading dioxin regulation articles and decreased scientists’ credibility ratings for those reading wolf reintroduction articles. Unlike other manifestations of uncertainty in scientific discourse, conflicting stories seem to generate effects that vary significantly by topic. Consistent with uncertainty management theory, uncertainty is embraced or rejected by situation.</abstract><cop>London, England</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><pmid>23832155</pmid><doi>10.1177/0963662510387759</doi><tpages>16</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0963-6625 |
| ispartof | Public understanding of science (Bristol, England), 2012-08, Vol.21 (6), p.689-704 |
| issn | 0963-6625 1361-6609 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1399056702 |
| source | PAIS Index; SAGE Complete A-Z List |
| subjects | College students Conflict Consumers Credibility Dioxin Media coverage News News media Public interest Rating Regulation Science Scientists Surveys Uncertainty United States |
| title | Conflicting stories about public scientific controversies: Effects of news convergence and divergence on scientists’ credibility |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-08T00%3A33%3A23IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Conflicting%20stories%20about%20public%20scientific%20controversies:%20Effects%20of%20news%20convergence%20and%20divergence%20on%20scientists%E2%80%99%20credibility&rft.jtitle=Public%20understanding%20of%20science%20(Bristol,%20England)&rft.au=Jensen,%20Jakob%20D.&rft.date=2012-08-01&rft.volume=21&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=689&rft.epage=704&rft.pages=689-704&rft.issn=0963-6625&rft.eissn=1361-6609&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/0963662510387759&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1399056702%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1027409865&rft_id=info:pmid/23832155&rft_sage_id=10.1177_0963662510387759&rfr_iscdi=true |