Using the contemporary debate in the United States over embryonic stem cell research as a test case, we outline a theoretical framework that points to the central impact of value predispositions, schema, political knowledge, and forms of mass media use in shaping public perceptions of science. In the process, by proposing an alternative approach to the dominant science literacy model, we address the existing divide between survey-based and ethnographic studies. Analyzing nationally representative survey data collected in the US in the fall of 2003, our findings suggest that value predispositions related to Christian conservatism and social ideology, along with schema related to abortion and reservations about science, serve as primary influences on citizen evaluations of embryonic stem cell research and therapeutic cloning, while our measure of issue-specific political knowledge had no statistically significant impact. In addition, after all controls, attention to newspaper coverage along with various forms of genre-specific entertainment television use have unique influences on citizen evaluations, suggesting that the mass media provide an important part of the social context by which citizens judge controversial science. Other survey results since our data collection in 2003 lend support to our findings. Religious and ideological values appear to filter the influence of information disseminated by scientific institutions. We conclude by discussing future research that connects findings from ethnographic studies with survey-based approaches.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Allum, N., Sturgis, P., Tabourazi, D. and Brunton-Smith, I. (2005) “A Meta-Analysis of Science Knowledge and Attitudes across Cultures,” Paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
2.
Allum, N.C., Boy, D. and Bauer, M.W. (2002) “European Regions and the Knowledge Deficit ,” in M. Bauer and G. Gaskell (eds) Biotechnology: The Making of a Global Controversy, pp. 224—43. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3.
Basalla, G. (1976) “Pop Science: The Depiction of Science in Popular Culture,” in G. Holton and W. Blanpied (eds) Science and its Public, pp. 261—78. Boston: Beacon.
4.
Bauer, M. (2002) “Controversial Medical and Agri-Food Biotechnology: A Cultivation Analysis,” Public Understanding of Science11: 93—111.
5.
Bauer, M. (2005a) “Distinguishing Red and Green Biotechnology: Cultivation Effects of the Elite Press,” International Journal of Public Opinion Research17(1): 63—89.
6.
Bauer, M. (2005b) “Public Perceptions and Mass Media in the Biotechnology Controversy,” International Journal of Public Opinion Research17(1): 5—22.
7.
Bauer, M. and Bonfadelli, H. (2002) “Controversy, Media Coverage and Public Knowledge ,” in M. Bauer and G. Gaskell (eds) Biotechnology: The Making of a Global Controversy, pp. 149—78. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8.
Bauer, M., Petkova, K. and Boyadjieva, P. (2000) “Public Knowledge of and Attitudes to Science: Alternative Measures that May End the `Science Wars,'” Science, Technology, and Human Values1: 30—51.
9.
Besley, J.C. and Shanahan, J. (2005) “Media Attention and Exposure in Relation to Support for Agricultural Biotechnology,” Science Communication26: 347—67.
10.
Blumer, J. and Katz, E., eds (1974) The Uses of Mass Communications: Current Perspectives on Gratifications Research. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
11.
Brossard, D. and Nisbet, M.C. (in press) “Deference to Scientific Authority among a Low Information Public: Explaining American Opinion on Agricultural Biotechnology,” International Journal of Public Opinion Research.
12.
Carroll, J. (2005) “Party Lines Shape Views of What's Morally Acceptable: Embryonic Stem Cell Research Sees Surge in Support among Democrats ,” Gallup News Service, 25 May.
13.
Collins, H. (1987) “Certainty and the Public Understanding of Science: Science on Television,” Social Studies of Science17: 689—713.
14.
Einsiedel, E. (2000) “Understanding `Publics' in the Public Understanding of Science,” in M. Dierkes and C. Grote (eds) Between Understanding and Trust: The Public, Science, and Technology, pp. 205—16. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers.
15.
Ellison, C.G. and Musick, M.A. (1995) “Conservative Protestantism and Public-opinion Toward Science,” Review of Religious Research36: 245—62.
16.
Epstein, S. (1996) Impure Science: AIDS, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
17.
Fiske, S.T. and Taylor, S.E. (1991) Social Cognition, 2nd edn. New York: McGraw-Hill.
18.
Gamson, W.A. and Modigliani, A. (1989) “Media Discourse and Public Opinion on Nuclear Power: A Constructionist Approach,” American Journal of Sociology95: 1—37.
19.
Gaskell, G., Bauer, M., Durant, J. and Allum, N. (1999) “Worlds Apart? The Reception of Genetically-Modified Foods in Europe and the U.S,” Science285: 384.
20.
Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Hoover, S., Morgan, M., Signorelli, N., Cotugno, H.E. and Wuthnow, R. (1984) Religion and Television. Philadelphia : Annenberg School of Communications, University of Pennsylvania.
21.
Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M. and Signorelli, N. (1985) Television Entertainment and Viewers' Conceptions of Science, Report to National Science Foundation. Philadelphia : Annenberg School of Communications, University of Pennsylvania.
22.
Holbert, L.R., Kwak, N. and Shah, D.V. (2003a) “Environmental Concerns, Patterns of Television Viewing, and Pro-Environmental Behaviors: Integrating Models of Media Consumption and Effects,” Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media47(2): 177—96.
23.
Holbert, L.R., Shah, D.V. and Kwak, N. (2003b) “Political Implications of Prime-Time Drama and Sitcom Use: Genres of Representation and Opinions Concerning Women's Rights ,” Journal of Communication53(1): 45—60.
24.
Hoover, S.M. (1990) “Television, Religion, and Religious Television: Purposes and Cross-purposes,” in N. Signorelli and M. Morgan (eds) Cultivation Analysis: New Directions in Media Effects Research, pp. 123—41. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
25.
Hornig, S. (1990) “Television's NOVA and the Construction of Scientific Truth,” Critical Studies in Mass Communication7: 11—23.
26.
Irwin, A. and Michael, M. (2003) Science, Social Theory and Public Knowledge. London: Open University Press.
27.
Irwin, A. and Wynne, B., eds (1996) Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28.
Kallerud, E. and Ramberg, I. (2002) “The Order of Discourse in Surveys of Public Understanding of Science,” Public Understanding of Science11: 213—24.
29.
Kim, S., Scheufele, D.A. and Shanahan, J.E. (2002) “Agenda-Setting, Priming, Framing and Second-Levels in Local Politics,” Journalism andMass Communication Quarterly79(1): 7—25.
30.
Lee, C., Scheufele, D.A. and Lewenstein, B.V. (2005) “Public Attitudes Toward Emerging Technologies: Examining the Interactive Effects of Cognitions and Affect on Public Support for Nanotechnology,” Science Communication27(2): 240—67.
31.
Lodge, M., McGraw, K.M., Conover, P.J., Feldman, S. and Miller, A.H. (1991) “Where is the Schema?Critiques,” American Political Science Review85: 1357—80.
32.
Markus, H. and Zajonc, R.B. (1985) “The Cognitive Perspective in Social Psychology ,” in G. Lindzey and E. Aronson (eds) The Handbook of Social Psychology , 3rd edn, Vol. 1, pp. 137—230. New York: Random House.
33.
McLeod, D.M., Kosicki, G.M. and McLeod, J. (2002) “Resurveying the Boundaries of Political Communications Effects,” in J. Bryant and D. Zillmann (eds) Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research, 2nd edn, pp. 215—67. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
34.
McLeod, J.M. and Becker, L. (1974) “Testing the Validity of Gratifications Measures through Political Effects Analysis,” in J.G. Blumler and E. Katz (eds) The Uses and Gratifications of Mass Communication, pp. 19—32. London: Faber.
35.
McLeod, J.M., Scheufele, D.A. and Moy, P. (1999) “Community, Communication, and Participation: The Role of Mass Media and Interpersonal Discussion in Local Political Participation ,” Political Communication16(3): 315—36.
36.
Michael, M. (1996) “Ignoring Science: Discourses of Ignorance in the Public Understanding of Science,” in A. Irwin and B. Wynne (eds) Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology , pp. 107—25. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
37.
Miller, J.D. (1998) “The Measurement of Civic Scientific Literacy ,” Public Understanding of Science7: 203—23.
38.
Miller, J.D. and Kimmel, L. (2001) Biomedical Communications: Purposes, Audiences, and StrategiesNew York: Academic Press.
39.
Miller, J.D., Pardo, R. and Niwa, F. (1997) Public Perceptions of Science and Technology: A Comparative Study of the European Union, the United States, Japan, and Canada . Chicago, IL: Chicago Academy of Sciences.
40.
National Bioethics Advisory Committee (NBAC) ( 1999) Ethical Issues in Human Stem Cell Research, Vol. 1. Rockville, MD: NBAC.
41.
Nielson, T.V., Jelsøe, E. and Öhman, S. (2002) “Traditional Blue and Modern Green Resistance ,” in M.W. Bauer and G. Gaskell (eds) Biotechnology: The Making of a Global Controversy, pp. 179—202. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
42.
Nisbet, M.C. (2004a) “The Stem Cell Controversy: Towards a Model of Mediated Issue Development,” Paper presented to the annual meetings of the International Communication Association.
43.
Nisbet, M.C. (2004b) “The Polls: Public Opinion about Stem Cell Research and Human Cloning,” Public Opinion Quarterly68(1): 132—55.
44.
Nisbet, M.C. (2005) “The Competition for Worldviews: Values, Information, and Public Support for Stem Cell Research,” International Journal of Public Opinion Research17(1): 90—112.
45.
Nisbet, M.C. and Lewenstein, B.V. (2002) “Biotechnology and the American Media: The Policy Process and the Elite Press, 1970 to 1999,” Science Communication23: 359—91.
46.
Nisbet, M.C., Scheufele, D.A., Shanahan, J.E., Moy, P., Brossard, D. and Lewenstein, B. (2002) “Knowledge, Reservations, or Promise? A Media Effects Model for Public Perceptions of Science and Technology,” Communication Research29: 504—608.
47.
Nisbet, M.C., Brossard, D. and Kroepsch, A. (2003) “Framing Science: The Stem Cell Controversy in an Age of Press/Politics,” Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics8(2): 36—70.
48.
Pan, Z. and Kosicki, G.M. (1993) “Framing Analysis: An Approach to News Discourse ,” Political Communication10: 55—75.
49.
Pew Center for the People and the Press (2005 ) “More See Benefits of Stem Cell Research: Opinions Divide along Religious Lines,” 23 May. Philadelphia, PA . URL: http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=111
50.
Popkin, S. (1991) The Reasoning Voter. Chicago : University of Chicago Press.
51.
Price, V. and Tewksbury, D. (1997) “News Values and Public Opinion: A Theoretical Account of Media Priming and Framing,” in G.A. Barnett and F.J. Boster (eds) Progress in the Communication Sciences, pp. 173—212. New York: Ablex.
52.
Priest, S. (2001) “Misplaced Faith—Communication Variables as Predictors of Encouragement for Biotechnology Development,” Science Communication23(2): 97—110.
53.
Priest, S., Bonfadelli, H. and Rusanen, M. (2004) “The `Trust Gap' Hypothesis: Predicting Support for Biotechnology Across National Cultures as a Function of Trust in Actors ,” Risk Analysis23(4): 751—66.
54.
Scheufele, D.A. (1999) “Framing as a Theory of Media Effects,” Journal of Communication49(1): 103—22.
55.
Scheufele, D.A. (2000) “Agenda-Setting, Priming, and Framing Revisited: Another Look at Cognitive Effects of Political Communication,” Mass Communication and Society3: 297—316.
56.
Scheufele, D.A. and Lewenstein, B. (2005) “The Public and Nanotechnology: How Citizens Make Sense of Emerging Technologies,” Journal of Nanoparticle Research7(6): 659—67.
57.
Scheufele, D.A., Nisbet, M.C. and Brossard, D. (2003) “Pathways to Political Participation? Religion, Communication Contexts, and Mass Media,” International Journal of Public Opinion Research15(3): 300—24.
58.
Scheufele, D.A., Nisbet, M.C., Brossard, D. and Nisbet, E.C. (2004) “Social Structure and Citizenship: Examining the Impacts of Social Setting, Network Heterogeneity, and Informational Variables on Political Participation,” Political Communication21: 315—38.
59.
Shrum, L.J. (2002) “Media Consumption and Perceptions of Social Reality: Effects and Underlying Processes,” in J. Bryant and D. Zillmann (eds) Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research, pp. 69—95. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
60.
Slater, M.D., Rouner, D. and Long, M.A. (forthcoming) “Television Dramas and Support for Controversial Public Policies: Effects and Mechanisms,” Journal of Communication.
61.
Sniderman, P.M., Brody, R.A. and Tetlock, P.E. (1991) Reasoning and Choice: Explorations in Political Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
62.
Sturgis, P. and Allum, N. (2004) “Science in Society: Re-Evaluating the Deficit Model of Public Attitudes,” Public Understanding of Science13(1): 55—74.
63.
Turney, J. (1998) Frankenstein's Footsteps: Science, Genetics, and Popular Culture. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
64.
Wynne, B. (1992) “Misunderstood Misunderstanding: Social Identities and Public Uptake of Science,” Public Understanding of Science1: 281—304.
65.
Zaller, J. (1991) “Information, Values, and Opinions,”American Political Science Review85: 1215—37.
