Advertisement

Rezeption und Wirkung öffentlicher Wissenschaftskommunikation

  • Julia MetagEmail author
Chapter

Zusammenfassung

Der Beitrag beschäftigt sich mit der Frage, wie und auf welchem Wege Personen wissenschaftliche Informationen wahrnehmen und wie sich dies auf ihre Meinung zu Wissenschaft, ihr Wissen über wissenschaftliche Themen und ihr wissenschaftsbezogenes Verhalten auswirkt. Die Entwicklung der Forschung in diesem Bereich wird entlang der in der Wissenschaftskommunikation prominenten Paradigmen der Scientific Literacy, des Public Understanding of Science sowie des Public Engagement with Science aufgezeigt. Auf der Makro-Ebene lassen sich der Agenda-Setting-Ansatz, die Wissenskluft- und Kultivierungsforschung sowie die Theorie der Schweigespirale als relevante Wirkungsansätze für Informationen über Wissenschaftsthemen identifizieren. Auf der Mikro-Ebene wird die Rolle von Informationsverarbeitungsprozessen, Framing und Priming bei der Rezeption von wissenschaftlichen Inhalten thematisiert. Der Beitrag zeigt, dass der Großteil der Forschung in dem Bereich mit standardisierten Methoden (Survey-Forschung, Experimente) arbeitet und sich neuere Forschung vor allem der Rezeption von Wissenschaft online widmet.

Schlüsselwörter

Wissenschaftskommunikation Rezeptionsforschung Medienwirkung Einstellungen Scientific Literacy Public Understanding of Science Individuen Gesellschaft 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Empfohlene Literatur

  1. Besley, J. C. (2013). The State of Public Opinion Research on Attitudes and Understanding of Science and Technology. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 33(1-2), 12–20. doi: 10.1177/0270467613496723
  2. Lee, C.-J., Scheufele, D. A., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2005). Public Attitudes toward Emerging Technologies: Examining the Interactive Effects of Cognitions and Affect on Public Attitudes toward Nanotechnology. Science Communication, 27(2), 240–267. doi: 10.1177/1075547005281474
  3. Nisbet, M. C., Scheufele, D. A., Shanahan, J., Moy, P., Brossard, D., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2002). Knowledge, Reservations, or Promise? A Media Effects Model for Public Perceptions of Science and Technology. Communication Research, 29(5), 584–608. doi: 10.1177/009365002236196
  4. Retzbach, A., & Maier, M. (2015). Communicating Scientific Uncertainty: Media Effects on Public Engagement With Science. Communication Research, 42(3), 429–456. doi: 10.1177/0093650214534967

Literatur

  1. Abbott, E. A. (2010). Cultivation Theory and Science. In S. Priest (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Science and Technology Communication . 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks California 91320 United States: SAGE Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
  2. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Theories of Cognitive Self-Regulation, 50(2), 179–211. doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
  3. Allum, N., Sturgis, P., Tabourazi, D., & Brunton-Smith, I. (2008). Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: a meta-analysis. Public Understanding of Science, 17(1), 35–54. doi: 10.1177/0963662506070159
  4. Anderson, A. A., Scheufele, D. A., Brossard, D., & Corley, E. A. (2012). 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, 24(2), 225–237. doi: 10.1093/ijpor/edr032
  5. Arlt, D. (2013). Laufzeitverlängerung von Atomkraftwerken – nein, danke!?: Eine kommunikationswissenschaftliche Studie zum Einfluss medialer Kommunikation auf Einstellungen gegenüber Atomkraft. Nachhaltigkeits-, Energie- und Umweltkommunikation: Bd. 1. Ilmenau: Univ.-Verl.Google Scholar
  6. Arlt, D., & Wolling, J. (2014). Fukushima-Effekte in Deutschland? Die Reaktorkatastrophe als Ursache von Veränderungen in der Berichterstattung und in der öffentlichen Meinung über die Atomenergie. In J. Wolling & D. Arlt (Eds.), Nachhaltigkeits-, Energie- und Umweltkommunikation: Bd. 2. Fukushima und die Folgen. Medienberichterstattung, Öffentliche Meinung, Politische Konsequenzen (pp. 269–296). Ilmenau, Thür: TU Ilmenau Universitätsbibliothek.Google Scholar
  7. Bauer, M. W. (2005). Distinguishing Red and Green Biotechnology: Cultivation Effects of the Elite Press. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17(1), 63–89. doi: 10.1093/ijpor/edh057
  8. Bauer, M. W., & Falade, B. A. (2014). Public Understanding of Science: Survey Research Around the World. In M. Bucchi & B. Trench (Eds.), Routledge international handbooks. Routledge handbook of public communication of science and technology (2nd ed., pp. 140–159). London u. a.: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Bauer, M. W., Shukla, R., & Allum, N. (2012). Towards cultural indicators of science with global validity. In M. W. Bauer, R. Shukla, & N. Allum (Eds.), Routledge studies in science, technology and society: Vol. 15. The culture of science. How the public relates to science across the globe (pp. 39–54). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Bertolotti, M., & Catellani, P. (2014). Effects of message framing in policy communication on climate change. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44(5), 474–486. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2033
  11. Besley, J. C. (2013). The State of Public Opinion Research on Attitudes and Understanding of Science and Technology. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 33(1-2), 12–20. doi: 10.1177/0270467613496723
  12. Binder, A. R. (2010). Routes to Attention or Shortcuts to Apathy? Exploring Domain-Specific Communication Pathways and Their Implications for Public Perceptions of Controversial Science. Science Communication, 32(3), 383–411. doi: 10.1177/1075547009345471
  13. Binder, A. R., Cacciatore, M. A., Scheufele, D. A., Shaw, B. R., & Corley, E. A. (2012). Measuring risk/benefit perceptions of emerging technologies and their potential impact on communication of public opinion toward science. Public understanding of science (Bristol, England), 21(7), 830–847. doi: 10.1177/0963662510390159
  14. Blank, J. M., & Shaw, D. (2015). Does Partisanship Shape Attitudes toward Science and Public Policy? The Case for Ideology and Religion. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 658(1), 18–35. doi: 10.1177/0002716214554756
  15. Bonfadelli, H., Dahinden, U., & Leonarz, M. (2002). Biotechnology in Switzerland: high on the public agenda, but only moderate support. Public Understanding of Science, 11(2), 113–130. doi: 10.1088/0963-6625/11/2/302
  16. Bore, I.-L. K., & Reid, G. (2014). Laughing in the Face of Climate Change? Satire as a Device for Engaging Audiences in Public Debate. Science Communication, 36(4), 454–478. doi: 10.1177/1075547014534076
  17. Bos, M., Koolstra, C. M., & Willems, J. (2010). Early Exposures to Ecogenomics: Effects of Priming and Web Site Interactivity Among Adolescents. Science Communication, 32(2), 232–255. doi: 10.1177/1075547009358625
  18. Brossard, D. (2009). Media, scientific journals and science communication: examining the construction of scientific controversies. Public Understanding of Science, 18(3), 258–274. doi: 10.1177/0963662507084398
  19. Brulle, R. J., Carmichael, J., & Jenkins, J. C. (2012). Shifting public opinion on climate change: an empirical assessment of factors influencing concern over climate change in the U.S., 2002–2010. Climatic Change, 114(2), 169–188. doi: 10.1007/s10584-012-0403-y
  20. Burningham, K., Barnett, J., Carr, A., Clift, R., & Wehrmeyer, W. (2007). Industrial constructions of publics and public knowledge: a qualitative investigation of practice in the UK chemicals industry. Public Understanding of Science, 16(1), 23–43. doi: 10.1177/0963662506071285
  21. Cacciatore, M. A., Scheufele, D. A., & Corley, E. A. (2014). Another (methodological) look at knowledge gaps and the Internet’s potential for closing them. Public Understanding of Science, 23(4), 376–394. doi: 10.1177/0963662512447606
  22. Capstick, S., Whitmarsh, L., Poortinga, W., Pidgeon, N., & Upham, P. (2015). International trends in public perceptions of climate change over the past quarter century. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 6(1), 35–61. doi: 10.1002/wcc.321
  23. Cobb, M. D. (2005). Framing Effects on Public Opinion about Nanotechnology. Science Communication, 27(2), 221–239. doi: 10.1177/1075547005281473
  24. Corner, A., Whitmarsh, L., & Xenias, D. (2012). Uncertainty, scepticism and attitudes towards climate change: biased assimilation and attitude polarisation. Climatic Change, 114(3-4), 463–478. doi: 10.1007/s10584-012-0424-6
  25. Dijkstra, A. M., & Gutteling, J. M. (2012). Communicative Aspects of the Public-Science Relationship Explored: Results of Focus Group Discussions About Biotechnology and Genomics. Science Communication, 34(3), 363–391. doi: 10.1177/1075547011417894
  26. Ding, D., Maibach, E. W., Zhao, X., Roser-Renouf, C., & Leiserowitz, A. (2011). Support for climate policy and societal action are linked to perceptions about scientific agreement. Nature Climate Change, 1(9), 462–466. doi: 10.1038/nclimate1295
  27. Dobos, A. R., Orthia, L. A., & Lamberts, R. (2014). Does a picture tell a thousand words? The uses of digitally produced, multimodal pictures for communicating information about Alzheimer’s disease. Public understanding of science (Bristol, England). doi: 10.1177/0963662514533623
  28. Dragojlovic, N., & Einsiedel, E. (2013). Framing Synthetic Biology: Evolutionary Distance, Conceptions of Nature, and the Unnaturalness Objection. Science Communication, 35(5), 547–571. doi: 10.1177/1075547012470707
  29. Druckman, J. N., & Bolsen, T. (2011). Framing, Motivated Reasoning, and Opinions About Emergent Technologies. Journal of Communication, 61(4), 659–688. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01562.x
  30. Dudo, A., Brossard, D., Shanahan, J., Scheufele, D. A., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (2011). Science on Television in the 21st Century: Recent Trends in Portrayals and Their Contributions to Public Attitudes Toward Science. Communication Research, 38(6), 754–777. doi: 10.1177/0093650210384988
  31. Dudo, A., Cicchirillo, V., Atkinson, L., & Marx, S. (2014). Portrayals of Technoscience in Video Games: A Potential Avenue for Informal Science Learning. Science Communication, 36(2), 219–247. doi: 10.1177/1075547013520240
  32. Durant, J. (2010). Public Understanding of Science. In S. Priest (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Science and Technology Communication . 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks California 91320 United States: SAGE Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
  33. Eveland, W. P., & Cooper, K. E. (2013). An integrated model of communication influence on beliefs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110 Suppl 3, 14088–14095. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1212742110
  34. Feldman, L., Myers, T. A., Hmielowski, J. D., & Leiserowitz, A. (2014). The Mutual Reinforcement of Media Selectivity and Effects: Testing the Reinforcing Spirals Framework in the Context of Global Warming. Journal of Communication, 64(4), 590–611. doi: 10.1111/jcom.12108
  35. Fung, T. K., Brossard, D., & Ng, I. (2011). There Is Water Everywhere: How News Framing Amplifies the Effect of Ecological Worldviews on Preference for Flooding Protection Policy. Mass Communication and Society, 14(5), 553–577. doi: 10.1080/15205436.2010.521291
  36. Gelmez Burakgazi, S., & Yildirim, A. (2014). Accessing Science Through Media: Uses and Gratifications Among Fourth and Fifth Graders for Science Learning. Science Communication, 36(2), 168–193. doi: 10.1177/1075547013505847
  37. Gerbner, G. (1987). Science on television – How it affecs public conceptions. Issues in Science and Technology, 3(3), 109–115.Google Scholar
  38. Gerbner, G., & Gross, L. (1976). Living With Television: The Violence Profile. Journal of Communication, 26(2), 172–194. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1976.tb01397.x
  39. Godard, B., Ozdemir, V., Fortin, M., & Egalite, N. (2010). Ethnocultural community leaders’ views and perceptions on biobanks and population specific genomic research: a qualitative research study. Public Understanding of Science, 19(4), 469–485. doi: 10.1177/0963662509104721
  40. Guenther, L., Froehlich, K., Milde, J., Heidecke, G., & Ruhrmann, G. (2014). Effects of Valenced Media Frames of Cancer Diagnoses and Therapies: Quantifying the Transformation and Establishing of Evaluative Schemas. Health communication, 1–10. doi: 10.1080/10410236.2014.917839
  41. Ho, S. S., Brossard, D., & Scheufele, D. A. (2008). Effects of Value Predispositions, Mass Media Use, and Knowledge on Public Attitudes Toward Embryonic Stem Cell Research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 20(2), 171–192. doi: 10.1093/ijpor/edn017
  42. Ho, S. S., Detenber, B. H., Rosenthal, S., & Lee, E. W. J. (2014). Seeking Information About Climate Change: Effects of Media Use in an Extended PRISM. Science Communication, 36(3), 270–295. doi: 10.1177/1075547013520238
  43. Ho, S. S., Liao, Y., & Rosenthal, S. (2014). Applying the Theory of Planned Behavior and Media Dependency Theory: Predictors of Public Pro-environmental Behavioral Intentions in Singapore. Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture, 1–23. doi : 10.1080/17524032.2014.932819
  44. Ho, S. S., Scheufele, D. A., & Corley, E. A. (2013). Factors influencing public risk-benefit considerations of nanotechnology: Assessing the effects of mass media, interpersonal communication, and elaborative processing. Public understanding of science (Bristol, England), 22(5), 606–623. doi: 10.1177/0963662511417936
  45. Holbach, T., & Maurer, M. (2014). Wissenswerte Nachrichten. Publizistik, 59(1), 65–81. doi: 10.1007/s11616-013-0191-z
  46. Hong, H. (2014). Audience responses to television news coverage of medical advances: The mediating role of audience emotions and identification. Public understanding of science (Bristol, England). doi: 10.1177/0963662514544919
  47. Hu, Y., & Shyam Sundar, S. (2010). Effects of Online Health Sources on Credibility and Behavioral Intentions. Communication Research, 37(1), 105–132. doi: 10.1177/0093650209351512
  48. Johnson, J. D., & Case, D. O. (2012). Health information seeking. Health communication: v. 4. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  49. Katz-Kimchi, M., & Atkinson, L. (2014). Popular Climate Science and Painless Consumer Choices: Communicating Climate Change in the Hot Pink Flamingos Exhibit, Monterey Bay Aquarium, California. Science Communication, 36(6), 754–777. doi: 10.1177/1075547014555998
  50. Kim, J., Yeo, S. K., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D. A., & Xenos, M. A. (2014). Disentangling the influence of value predispositions and risk/benefit perceptions on support for nanotechnology among the American public. Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 34(5), 965–980. doi: 10.1111/risa.12141
  51. Kortenkamp, K. V., & Basten, B. (2015). Environmental Science in the Media: Effects of Opposing Viewpoints on Risk and Uncertainty Perceptions. Science Communication. doi: 10.1177/1075547015574016
  52. Kristiansen, S., & Bonfadelli, H. (2014). Risikoberichterstattung und Risikoperzeption. Reaktionen von Medien und Bevölkerung in der Schweiz auf den AKW-Unfall in Fukushima. In J. Wolling & D. Arlt (Eds.), Nachhaltigkeits-, Energie- und Umweltkommunikation: Bd. 2. Fukushima und die Folgen. Medienberichterstattung, Öffentliche Meinung, Politische Konsequenzen (pp. 297–321). Ilmenau, Thür: TU Ilmenau Universitätsbibliothek.Google Scholar
  53. Krosnick, J. A., Holbrook, A. L., & Visser, P. S. (2000). The impact of the fall 1997 debate about global warming on American public opinion. Public Understanding of Science, 9(3), 239–260. doi: 10.1088/0963-6625/9/3/303
  54. Lazard, A., & Atkinson, L. (2015). Putting Environmental Infographics Center Stage: The Role of Visuals at the Elaboration Likelihood Model’s Critical Point of Persuasion. Science Communication, 37(1), 6–33. doi: 10.1177/1075547014555997
  55. Lee, C.-J., Scheufele, D. A., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2005). Public Attitudes toward Emerging Technologies: Examining the Interactive Effects of Cognitions and Affect on Public Attitudes toward Nanotechnology. Science Communication, 27(2), 240–267. doi: 10.1177/1075547005281474
  56. Lehmkuhl, M. J. (2008). Congruency within rural social networks as an indicator of interpersonal influence on risk judgments: the great stir caused by BSE in a village in northern Germany. Public Understanding of Science, 17(4), 485–502. doi: 10.1177/0963662506075652
  57. Leiserowitz, A. (2006). Climate Change Risk Perception and Policy Preferences: The Role of Affect, Imagery, and Values. Climatic Change, 77(1-2), 45–72. doi: 10.1007/s10584-006-9059-9
  58. Ley, B. L., Jankowski, N., & Brewer, P. R. (2012). Investigating CSI: Portrayals of DNA testing on a forensic crime show and their potential effects. Public Understanding of Science, 21(1), 51–67. doi: 10.1177/0963662510367571
  59. Liu, H., & Priest, S. (2009). Understanding public support for stem cell research: media communication, interpersonal communication and trust in key actors. Public Understanding of Science, 18(6), 704–718. doi: 10.1177/0963662508097625
  60. McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), 176. doi: 10.1086/267990
  61. Metag, J. (2015). Interpersonale Kommunikation in der Wissenschaftskommunikation. Bestandsaufnahme und Analyse am Beispiel energiepolitischer Maßnahmen. In: M.S. Schäfer, S. Kristiansen, & H. Bonfadelli (Hrsg.): Wissenschaftskommunikation im Wandel (S. 315-341). Köln: Herbert von Halem.Google Scholar
  62. Metag, J., Schäfer, M.S, Barsuhn, T., Füchslin, T., & Kleinen-von Königslöw, K. (2016). Perceptions of Climate Change Imagery: Evoked Salience and Self-Efficacy in Germany, Switzerland and Austria. Science Communication, 38(2), 197-227. doi:  10.1177/1075547016635181
  63. Miller, J. D. (1992). Toward a scientific understanding of the public understanding of science and technology. Public Understanding of Science, 1(1), 23–26. doi: 10.1088/0963-6625/1/1/005
  64. Miller, J. D. (1983). Scientific Literacy: A Conceptual and Empirical Review. Daedalus, 112(2), p 29-48. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20024852
  65. Neuwirth, K. (2010). Spiral of Silence and Science. In S. Priest (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Science and Technology Communication . 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks California 91320 United States: SAGE Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
  66. Nicholson-Cole, S. A. (2005). Representing climate change futures: a critique on the use of images for visual communication. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 29(3), 255–273. doi: 10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2004.05.002
  67. Nisbet, E. C., Cooper, K. E., & Ellithorpe, M. (2014). Ignorance or bias? Evaluating the ideological and informational drivers of communication gaps about climate change. Public understanding of science (Bristol, England). doi: 10.1177/0963662514545909
  68. Nisbet, E. C., Hart, P. S., Myers, T., & Ellithorpe, M. (2013). Attitude Change in Competitive Framing Environments? Open-/Closed-Mindedness, Framing Effects, and Climate Change. Journal of Communication, 63(4), 766–785. doi: 10.1111/jcom.12040
  69. Nisbet, M. C. (2005). The Competition for Worldviews: Values, Information, and Public Support for Stem Cell Research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17(1), 90–112. doi: 10.1093/ijpor/edh058
  70. Nisbet, M. C., & Scheufele, D. A. (2009). What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. American journal of botany, 96(10), 1767–1778. doi: 10.3732/ajb.0900041
  71. Nisbet, M. C., Scheufele, D. A., Shanahan, J., Moy, P., Brossard, D., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2002). Knowledge, Reservations, or Promise?: A Media Effects Model for Public Perceptions of Science and Technology. Communication Research, 29(5), 584–608. doi: 10.1177/009365002236196
  72. Nisbet, M. C. (2009). Communicating Climate Change: Why Frames Matter for Public Engagement. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 51(2), 12–23. doi: 10.3200/ENVT.51.2.12-23
  73. Noelle-Neumann, E. (1989). Die Theorie der Schweigespirale als Instrument der Medienwirkungsforschung. In F. Neidhardt, M. R. Lepsius, H. Esser, M. Kaase, & W. Schulz (Eds.), Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie Sonderhefte. Massenkommunikation (pp. 418–440). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  74. O’Neill, S. J., Boykoff, M., Niemeyer, S., & Day, S. A. (2013). On the use of imagery for climate change engagement. Global Environmental Change, 23(2), 413–421. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.11.006
  75. O’Neill, S. J., & Hulme, M. (2009). An iconic approach for representing climate change. Global Environmental Change, 19(4), 402–410. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.07.004
  76. Pardo, R., & Calvo, F. (2002). Attitudes toward science among the European public: a methodological analysis. Public Understanding of Science, 11(2), 155–195. doi: 10.1088/0963-6625/11/2/305
  77. Peters, H. P., & Heinrichs, H. (2005). Öffentliche Kommunikation über Klimawandel und Sturmflutrisiken: Bedeutungskonstruktion durch Experten, journalisten und Bürger. Schriften des Forschungszentrums Jülichs. Reihe Umwelt: Bd. 58. Jülich: Forschungszentrums Jülich, Zentralbibliothek.Google Scholar
  78. Priest, S. H. (2006). Public Discourse and Scientific Controversy: A Spiral-of-Silence Analysis of Biotechnology Opinion in the United States. Science Communication, 28(2), 195–215. doi: 10.1177/1075547006293918
  79. Priest, S. H. (1995). Information Equity, Public Understanding of Science, and the Biotechnology Debate. Journal of Communication, 45(1), 39–54. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1995.tb00713.x
  80. Priest, S. H., Bonfadelli, H., & Rusanen, M. (2003). The \”Trust Gap\” Hypothesis: Predicting Support for Biotechnology Across National Cultures as a Function of Trust in Actors. Risk Analysis, 23(4), 751–766. doi: 10.1111/1539-6924.00353
  81. Qin, W., & Brown, J. L. (2006). Consumer Opinions about Genetically Engineered Salmon and Information Effect on Opinions: A Qualitative Approach. Science Communication, 28(2), 243–272. doi: 10.1177/1075547006294770
  82. Rabinovich, A., & Morton, T. A. (2012). Unquestioned answers or unanswered questions: beliefs about science guide responses to uncertainty in climate change risk communication. Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 32(6), 992–1002. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01771.x
  83. Retzbach, A., & Maier, M. (2015). Communicating Scientific Uncertainty: Media Effects on Public Engagement With Science. Communication Research, 42(3), 429–456. doi: 10.1177/0093650214534967
  84. Riesch, H. (2014). Why did the proton cross the road? Humour and science communication. Public understanding of science (Bristol, England). doi: 10.1177/0963662514546299
  85. Rodriguez Estrada, F., & Davis, L. S. (2015). Improving Visual Communication of Science Through the Incorporation of Graphic Design Theories and Practices Into Science Communication. Science Communication, 37(1), 140–148. doi: 10.1177/1075547014562914
  86. Sanz-Menéndez, L., & Van Ryzin, Gregg G. (2015). Economic crisis and public attitudes toward science: A study of regional differences in Spain. Public understanding of science (Bristol, England), 24(2), 167–182. doi: 10.1177/0963662513489790
  87. Schapira, M. M., Imbert, D., Oh, E., Byhoff, E., & Shea, J. A. (2014). Public engagement with scientific evidence in health: A qualitative study among primary-care patients in an urban population. Public understanding of science (Bristol, England). doi: 10.1177/0963662514560489
  88. Scheufele, D. A., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2005). The Public and Nanotechnology: How Citizens Make Sense of Emerging Technologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 7(6), 659–667. doi: 10.1007/s11051-005-7526-2
  89. Shanahan, J. (2010). Agenda Setting and Science. In S. Priest (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Science and Technology Communication . 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks California 91320 United States: SAGE Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
  90. Shanahan, J., & McComas, K. (1998). Nature stories: Depictions of the environment and their effects: Hampton Press, Incorporated.Google Scholar
  91. Smith, N., & Leiserowitz, A. (2012). The rise of global warming skepticism: exploring affective image associations in the United States over time. Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 32(6), 1021–1032. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01801.x
  92. Southwell, B. G., & Torres, A. (2006). Connecting Interpersonal and Mass Communication: Science News Exposure, Perceived Ability to Understand Science, and Conversation. Communication Monographs, 73(3), 334–350. doi: 10.1080/03637750600889518
  93. Spence, A., & Pidgeon, N. (2010). Framing and communicating climate change: The effects of distance and outcome frame manipulations. Global Environmental Change, 20(4), 656–667. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.07.002
  94. Stamm, K. R., Clark, F., & Reynolds Eblacas, P. (2000). Mass communication and public understanding of environmental problems: the case of global warming. Public Understanding of Science, 9(3), 219–237.Google Scholar
  95. Stewart, C. O., Dickerson, D. L., & Hotchkiss, R. (2009). Beliefs About Science and News Frames in Audience Evaluations of Embryonic and Adult Stem Cell Research. Science Communication, 30(4), 427–452. doi: 10.1177/1075547008326931
  96. Su, L. Y.-F., Cacciatore, M. A., Scheufele, D. A., Brossard, D., & Xenos, M. A. (2014). Inequalities in Scientific Understanding: Differentiating Between Factual and Perceived Knowledge Gaps. Science Communication, 36(3), 352–378. doi: 10.1177/1075547014529093
  97. Suhay, E., & Druckman, J. N. (2015). The Politics of Science: Political Values and the Production, Communication, and Reception of Scientific Knowledge. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 658(1), 6–15. doi: 10.1177/0002716214559004
  98. Tichenor, P. J., Donohue, G. A., & Olien, C. N. (1970). Mass Media Flow and Differential Growth in Knowledge. Public Opinion Quarterly, 34(2), 159. doi: 10.1086/267786
  99. Trumbo, J. (1999). Visual Literacy and Science Communication. Science Communication, 20(4), 409–425. doi: 10.1177/1075547099020004004
  100. Wallington, S. F. (2010). Knowledge Gap Hypothesis. In S. Priest (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Science and Technology Communication . 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks California 91320 United States: SAGE Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
  101. Welbourne, D. J., & Grant, W. J. (2015). Science communication on YouTube: Factors that affect channel and video popularity. Public understanding of science (Bristol, England). doi: 10.1177/0963662515572068
  102. Westphal, S., Hendriks, F., & Malik, M. (2015). Vertrauenswürdigkeit ohne Vertrauen? Wie die Kommunikation wissenschaftlicher Unsicherheiten die Bewertungen und Entscheidungen von Rezipienten beeinflusst. In M. S. Schäfer, S. Kristiansen, & H. Bonfadelli (Eds.), Wissenschaftskommunikation im Wandel (pp. 342–365). Köln: Herbert von Halem Verlag.Google Scholar
  103. Whitmarsh, L. (2009). What’s in a name? Commonalities and differences in public understanding of “climate change” and “global warming”. Public Understanding of Science, 18(4), 401–420. doi: 10.1177/0963662506073088
  104. Winter, S., & Krämer, N. C. (2014). A question of credibility – Effects of source cues and recommendations on information selection on news sites and blogs. Communications, 39(4). doi: 10.1515/commun-2014-0020
  105. Wolling, J., & Arlt, D. (2015). Informieren und framen. Zum Einfluss der Medienberichterstattung auf Vorstellungen und Einstellungen zur Energiewende in Deutschland. In M. S. Schäfer, S. Kristiansen, & H. Bonfadelli (Eds.), Wissenschaftskommunikation im Wandel (pp. 288–314). Köln: Herbert von Halem Verlag.Google Scholar
  106. Yang, Z. J., Rickard, L. N., Harrison, T. M., & Seo, M. (2014). Applying the Risk Information Seeking and Processing Model to Examine Support for Climate Change Mitigation Policy. Science Communication, 36(3), 296–324. doi: 10.1177/1075547014525350
  107. Yaros, R. A. (2011). Effects of Text and Hypertext Structures on User Interest and Understanding of Science and Technology. Science Communication, 33(3), 275–308. doi: 10.1177/1075547010386803
  108. Zhao, X. (2009). Media Use and Global Warming Perceptions: A Snapshot of the Reinforcing Spirals. Communication Research, 36(5), 698–723. doi: 10.1177/0093650209338911
  109. Zhao, X., Rolfe-Redding, J., & Kotcher, J. E. (2014). Partisan differences in the relationship between newspaper coverage and concern over global warming. Public understanding of science (Bristol, England). doi: 10.1177/0963662514558992

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.FreiburgSchweiz

Personalised recommendations