Public responses to scientific research: Does disciplinary attribution matter?

Abstract

Research has shown that the form and content of science communications can influence individuals’ responses. This study examines whether individuals’ perceptions of scientific research are influenced by the discipline to which the research is attributed. Two vignette experiments find that neither the perceived scientific-ness nor trustworthiness of a study originating from sociology is affected by attributing the study to a different social science or to a natural or medical science. These null findings contrast with surveys showing sizable disciplinary differences in public attitudes. It is possible that disciplinary attribution is a less salient cognitive shortcut when presented in longer communications as compared to survey questions that only provide the name of a discipline. We conclude with suggestions for further research on the role of disciplinary attribution on public perceptions of science.

Keywords

cognitive shortcuts discipline media effects press release public perception science

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

American Sociological Association (2016a) Study shows how a community’s culture and social connectedness can increase suicide risk, 22 September. Available at: http://www.asanet.org (accessed 1 September 2017).

American Sociological Association (2016b) Study suggests sex in later years harmful to men’s hearth health, but not women’s, 6 September. Available at: www.asanet.org (accessed 1 September 2017).

Bak

H-J

(2001) Education and public attitudes toward science: Implications for the “deficit model” of education and support for science and technology. Social Science Quarterly 82(4): 779–795.

Baker

(2013) Acceptance of evolution and support for teaching creationism in public schools: The conditional impact of educational attainment. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 52(1): 216–228.

Baram-Tsabari

Lewenstein

(2013) An instrument for assessing scientists’ written skills in public communication of science. Science Communication 35(1): 56–85.

Berinsky

Huber

Lenz

(2012) Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis 20(3): 351–368.

Brewer

(2013) The trappings of science: Media messages, scientific authority, and beliefs about paranormal investigators. Science Communication 35(3): 311–333.

Brossard

Nisbet

(2007) Deference to scientific authority among a low information public: Understanding U.S. opinion on agricultural biotechnology. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 19(1): 24–52.

Bubela

Nisbet

Borchelt

Brunger

Critchley

Einsiedel

et al . (2009) Science communication reconsidered. Nature Biotechnology 27(6): 514–518.

10.

Buhrmester

Kwang

Gosling

(2011) Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science 6(1): 3–5.

11.

Critchley

(2008) Public opinion and trust in scientists: The role of the research context, and the perceived motivation of stem cell researchers. Public Understanding of Science 17(3): 309–327.

12.

DeSante

(2017) They chose to go to the moon: How birth cohorts shape opinions on funding for space exploration. Social Science Quarterly 98(4): 1175–1188.

13.

Durfee

(2006) “Social change” and “status quo” framing effects on risk perception: An exploratory experiment. Science Communication 27(4): 459–495.

14.

Federico

(2017) Why is the GOP tax bill so unpopular? Maybe it’s all relative. POLITICO Magazine. Available at: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/12/21/unpopular-gop-tax-bill-relative-deprivation-216158 (accessed 6 May 2018).

15.

Freeman

Houston

(2011) Rejecting Darwin and support for science funding. Social Science Quarterly 92(5): 1151–1168.

16.

Funk

Kennedy

(2016) The Politics of Climate. Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech. Available at: http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/10/04/the-politics-of-climate/ (accessed 22 February 2018).

17.

Gauchat

(2012) Politicization of science in the public sphere: A study of public trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010. American Sociological Review 77(2): 167–187.

18.

Gauchat

Andrews

(2018) The cultural-cognitive mapping of scientific professions. American Sociological Review 83(3): 567–595.

19.

Goodnow

(2015) Sociology departments: Liberals dominate & conservatives aren’t welcome -national review. Available at: https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/07/sociology-departments-liberal/ (accessed 3 August 2017).

20.

Hays

(2018) Scientists develop possible recipe for first life on Earth. Available at: https://www.upi.com/Scientists-develop-possible-recipe-for-first-life-on-Earth/1731515417054/ (accessed 16 January 2018).

21.

Brossard

Scheufele

(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.

22.

Kortenkamp

Basten

(2015) Environmental science in the media: Effects of opposing viewpoints on risk and uncertainty perceptions. Science Communication 37(3): 287–313.

23.

Lee

C-J

Scheufele

(2006) The influence of knowledge and deference toward scientific authority: A media effects model for public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 83(4): 819–834.

24.

Lee

C-J

Scheufele

Lewenstein

(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.

25.

Levay

Freese

Druckman

(2016) The demographic and political composition of Mechanical Turk samples. SAGE Open 6(1): 1–17.

26.

Limbaugh

(2016) Intolerant leftist sociologist makes amazing discovery about you and me. In: The Rush Limbaugh Show. Available at: https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/11/02/intolerant_leftist_sociologist_makes_amazing_discovery_about_you_and_me/ (accessed 15 August 2017).

27.

Liu

Priest

(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.

28.

Liu

Waite

Shen

Wong

(2016) Is sex good for your health? A national study on partnered sexuality and cardiovascular risk among older men and women. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 57(3): 276–296.

29.

Lorenzoni

Pidgeon

(2006) Public views on climate change: European and USA perspectives. Climatic Change 77(1): 73–95.

30.

Martín-Sempere

Garzón-García

Rey-Rocha

(2008) Scientists’ motivation to communicate science and technology to the public: Surveying participants at the Madrid science fair. Public Understanding of Science 17(3): 349–367.

31.

Medrano

(2018) Physics: Spinning protons change direction when they collide with larger particles, ‘shocking’ scientists. Available at: http://www.newsweek.com/physics-spinning-protons-flip-directions-collide-larger-particles-gold-nuclei-774663 (accessed 6 May 2018).

32.

Miller

(2001) Public understanding of science at the crossroads. Public Understanding of Science 10(1): 115–120.

33.

Montgomery

Nyhan

Torres

(2018) How conditioning on posttreatment variables can ruin your experiment and what to do about it. American Journal of Political Science 62(3): 760–775.

34.

Mueller

Abrutyn

(2016) Adolescents under pressure: A new Durkheimian framework for understanding adolescent suicide in a cohesive community. American Sociological Review 81(5): 877–899.

35.

National Science Board (2014) Science and Engineering Indicators 2014. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

36.

Nisbet

(2005) The competition for worldviews: Values, information, and public support for stem cell research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 17(1): 90–112.

37.

Nisbet

Scheufele

Shanahan

Moy

Brossard

Lewenstein

(2002) Knowledge, reservations, or promise?: A media effects model for public perceptions of science and technology. Communication Research 29(5): 584–608.

38.

Nyhan

Reifler

(2015) Does correcting myths about the flu vaccine work? An experimental evaluation of the effects of corrective information. Vaccine 33(3): 459–464.

39.

Nyhan

Reifler

Richey

Freed

(2014) Effective messages in vaccine promotion: A randomized trial. Pediatrics 133(4): e835–e842.

40.

O’Brien

(2013) Scientific authority in policy contexts: Public attitudes about environmental scientists, medical researchers, and economists. Public Understanding of Science 22(7): 799–816.

41.

Osborne

Simon

Collins

(2003) Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education 25(9): 1049–1079.

42.

Paolacci

Chandler

(2014) Inside the Turk: Understanding Mechanical Turk as a participant pool. Current Directions in Psychological Science 23(3): 184–188.

43.

Pion

Lipsey

(1981) Public attitudes toward science and technology: What have the surveys told us? The Public Opinion Quarterly 45(3): 303–316.

44.

Scheitle

(2018) Politics and the perceived boundaries of science: Activism, sociology, and scientific legitimacy. Socius 4(1): 1–13.

45.

Severson

Coleman

(2015) Moral frames and climate change policy attitudes: Moral frames and climate change policy attitudes. Social Science Quarterly 96(5): 1277–1290.

46.

Weber

Dinc

Williams

(2016) Americans’ support for NASA’s James Webb space telescope: Effects of traditional texts compared to interactive media. Science Communication 38(5): 601–625.

47.

Weinberg

Freese

McElhattan

(2014) Comparing data characteristics and results of an online factorial survey between a population-based and a crowdsource-recruited sample. Sociological Science 1: 292–310.