The public controversy surrounding bisphenol A (BPA) revolves around competing claims about what scientific evidence shows regarding the effects of the chemical on human health. This study uses an experiment embedded within a public opinion survey to test the effects of exposure to such claims on public support for banning the use of BPA in products. Exposure to the claim that “there is not enough scientific evidence that BPA harms human health” reduced support, whereas exposure to the claim that there “is enough scientific evidence” failed to increase support. No effect emerged among those simultaneously exposed to both claims. The “not enough evidence” claim influenced less educated respondents and women but not college-educated respondents or men. Aspects of the underlying structure of opinion also differed depending on which claim(s) respondents received. The results illuminate how members of the public respond to competing scientific claims regarding controversial issues.
BesleyJCShanahanJ (2005) Media attention and exposure in relation to support for agricultural biotechnology. Science Communication26(4): 347–367.
2.
BoykoffMTBoykoffJM (2004) Balance as bias: Global warming and the U.S. prestige press. Global Environmental Change14(2): 125–136.
3.
BrechmanJLeeCCappellaJN (2009) Lost in translation: A comparison of cancer-genetics reporting in the press release and its subsequent coverage in the press. Science Communication30(4): 453–474.
4.
BrewerPRLeyBL (2011) Multiple exposures: Scientific controversy, the media, and public responses to bisphenol A. Science Communication33(1): 76–97.
5.
BrossardDNisbetMC (2006) Deference to scientific authority among a low information public: Understanding U.S. opinion on agricultural biotechnology. International Journal of Public Opinion Research19(1): 24–52.
6.
CampbellB (1985) Uncertainty as a symbol of symbolic disputes among experts. Social Studies of Science15(3): 429–453.
7.
CobbMD (2005) Framing effects on public opinion about nanotechnology. Science Communication27(2): 221–239.
8.
CorbettJBDurfeeJL (2004) Testing public (un)certainty of science: Media representations of global warming. Science Communication26(2): 129–151.
9.
DavidsonDJFreudenburgWR (1996) Gender and environmental risk concerns: A review and analysis of available research. Environment & Behavior28(3): 302–339.
10.
DearingJW (1995) Newspaper coverage of maverick science: Creating controversy through balancing. Public Understanding of Science4(4): 341–361.
11.
DruckmanJNBolsenT (2011) Framing, motivated reasoning, and public opinion about emergent technologies. Journal of Communication1(4): 659–688.
12.
DunwoodyS (1999) Scientists, journalists, and the meaning of uncertainty. In: FriedmanSMDunwoodySRogersCL (eds) Communicating Uncertainty: Media Coverage of New and Controversial Science. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 59–80.
13.
FlynnJSlovicPMertzCK (1994) Gender, race, and perceptions of environmental health risks. Risk Analysis14(6): 1101–1108.
14.
HornigS (1992) Gender differences in responses to news about science and technology. Science, Technology, & Human Values17(4): 532–542.
15.
HuntPASusiarjoMRubioCHassoldTJ (2009) The bisphenol A experience: A primer for the analysis of environmental effects on mammalian reproduction. Biology of Reproduction81(5): 807–813.
16.
IyengarSKinderDR (1987) News That Matters: Television and American Opinion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
17.
JasanoffS (1990) The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
18.
KinderDRSandersLM (1996) Divided by Color: Racial Politics and Democratic Ideals. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
19.
KissingerMRustS (2009) BPA industry fights back: Public relations blitz takes cue from tobacco companies’ past tactics. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel22August. Available at (accessed 21 October 2009): http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/54195297.html
20.
KrimskyS (2000) Hormonal Chaos: The Scientific and Social Origins of the Environmental Endocrine Hypothesis. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
21.
KrimskyS (2005) The weight of scientific evidence in policy and law. American Journal of Public Health 95(S1): S129–S136.
22.
LangIAGallowayTSScarlettAHenleyWEDepledgeMWallaceRBMelzerD (2008) Association of urinary bisphenol A concentration with medical disorders and laboratory abnormalities in adults. Journal of the American Medical Association300(11): 1303–1310.
23.
LeeCScheufeleDALewensteinBV (2005) Public attitudes toward emerging technologies: Examining the interactive effects of cognitions and affect on public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Science Communication27(2): 240–267.
24.
LeyBL (2009) From Pink to Green: Disease Prevention and the Environmental Breast Cancer Movement. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
25.
McCrightAMDunlapRE (2003) Defeating Kyoto: The conservative movement’s impact on U.S. climate change policy. Social Problems50(3): 348–373.
26.
McGuireWJ (1968) Personality and susceptibility to social influence. In: BorgottaEFLambertWW (eds) Handbook of Personality Theory and Research. Chicago: Rand McNally, pp. 1130–1187.
NisbetMCGoidelRK (2007) Understanding citizen perceptions of science controversy: Bridging the ethnographic-survey research divide. Public Understanding of Science16(4): 421–440.
NisbetMCBrossardDKroepschA (2003) Framing science: The stem cell controversy in an age of press/politics. Press/Politics8(2): 36–70.
31.
O’ConnorREBordRJFisherA (1999) Risk perceptions, general environmental beliefs, and willingness to address climate change. Risk Analysis19(3): 461–471.
32.
PriestSH (2001) Misplaced faith: Communication variables as predictors of encouragement for biotechnology development. Science Communication23(2): 97–110.
33.
ScheufeleDALewensteinBV (2005) The public and nanotechnology: How citizens make sense of emerging technologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research7(6): 659–667.
34.
SchumanHPresserS (1996) Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys: Experiments on Question Form, Wording, and Context. San Diego: SAGE Publications.
35.
SchützHWiedemannPM (2008) Framing effects on risk perception of nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science17(3): 369–379.
36.
ShackleySWynneB (1996) Representing uncertainty in global climate change science and policy: Boundary ordering devices and authority. Science, Technology, & Human Values21(3): 275–230.
37.
SlovicP (1993) Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. Risk Analysis13(6): 675–682.
38.
SteelBSWarnerRLLachD (2010) Gender differences in support for scientific involvement in U.S. environmental policy. Science, Technology, & Human Values35(2): 147–173.
39.
StockingSHHolsteinLW (1993) Constructing and reconstructing scientific ignorance: Ignorance claims in science and journalism. Science Communication15(2): 186–210.
40.
StockingSHHolsteinLW (2009) Manufacturing doubt: Journalists’ roles and the construction of ignorance in a scientific controversy. Public Understanding of Science18(1): 23–42.
Van LiereKDDunlapRE (1980) The social bases of environmental concern: A review of hypotheses, explanations, and empirical evidence. Public Opinion Quarterly44(2): 181–197.
45.
VandenbergLNMaffiniMVSonnenscheinCRubinBSSotoAM (2009) Bisphenol-A and the great divide: A review of controversies in the field of endocrine disruption. Endocrine Reviews30(1): 75–95.
46.
VogelSA (2009) The politics of plastics: The making and unmaking of bisphenol A “safety.”American Journal of Public Health99(S3): S559–S565.
47.
Vom SaalFS. (2007) Chapel Hill bisphenol A expert panel consensus statement: Integration of mechanisms, effects in animals and potential to impact human health at current levels of exposure. Reproductive Toxicology24(2): 131–138.
