This study analyzes the predictors of media use for information about science and research by drawing on the theory of planned behavior and audience orientations. It uses data from a representative survey in Switzerland. We find that both audience orientations and motivations explained the use of media to access science information. People with positive attitudes toward science were more likely to use all kinds of media to access information about science. Positive evaluations of mass media coverage predicted print media and website, television and radio use positively but social media use negatively. Thus, social media could be a way to reach people who do not appreciate the coverage of the traditional mass media as much as others but who are still positive toward science. However, people who use social media may possess lesser knowledge to assess to what extent such science information is trustworthy and correct.
AbiGhannamNKahlorLDudoALiangM-CRosenthalSBannerJL (2016) Expectancies and motivations to attend an informal science lecture series. International Journal of Science Education, Part B6(3): 215–238.
2.
AjzenI (1985) From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In: KuhlJBeckmannJ (eds) Action Control: From Cognition to Behavior. Berlin; Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 11–39.
3.
AjzenI (1989) Attitude structure and behavior. In: PratkanisARBrecklerSJGreenwaldAG (eds) Attitude Structure and Function: The Third Ohio State University Volume on Attitudes and Persuasion. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 241–274.
4.
AjzenI (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Theories of Cognitive Self-Regulation50(2): 179–211.
5.
AjzenI (2002) Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology32(4): 665–683.
6.
AjzenIFishbeinM (1980) Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior, Pbk. edn. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
AtkinCK (1972) Anticipated communication and mass media information-seeking. Public Opinion Quarterly36(2): 188–199.
9.
BauerMW (2016) The Culture of Science Indicators. London: LSE.
10.
BBVA Foundation (2011) International Study on Scientific Culture: Understanding of Science. Bilbao: BBVA.
11.
BrossardD (2013) New media landscapes and the science information consumer. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America1103: 14096–14101.
12.
CaseD (2012) Looking for Information: A Survey of Research on Information Seeking, Needs and Behavior, 3rd edn.Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Available at: http://gbv.eblib.com/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=888603
13.
ChoJShahDVMcleodJMMcLeodDMSchollRMGotliebMR (2009) Campaigns, reflection, and deliberation: Advancing an O-S-R-O-R model of communication effects. Communication Theory19(1): 66–88.
14.
De VreeseCHNeijensP (2016) Measuring media exposure in a changing communications environment. Communication Methods and Measures10(2–3): 69–80.
15.
DeciELRyanRM (1985) Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior (Perspectives in Social Psychology). New York: Plenum Press.
FischhoffBScheufeleDA (2013) The science of science communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 110(Suppl. 3): 14031–14032.
18.
FishbeinMAjzenI (2010) Predicting and Changing Behavior: The Reasoned Action Approach. New York: Psychology Press.
19.
GantzWFitzmauriceMFinkE (1991) Assessing the active component of information-seeking. Journalism Quarterly68(4): 630–637.
20.
GoEYouKHJungEShimH (2016) Why do we use different types of websites and assign them different levels of credibility? Structural relations among users’ motives, types of websites, information credibility, and trust in the press. Computers in Human Behavior54: 231–239.
21.
GogolinLSwartzF (1992) A quantitative and qualitative inquiry into the attitudes toward science of nonscience college students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching29(5): 487–504.
22.
GriffinRJDunwoodySNeuwirthK (1999) Proposed model of the relationship of risk information seeking and processing to the development of preventive behaviors. Environmental Research80(2): 230–245.
23.
GuentherLWeingartP (2017) Promises and reservations towards science and technology among South African publics: A culture-sensitive approach. Public Understanding of Science27: 47–58.
24.
HoSSDetenberBHRosenthalSLeeEWJ (2014) Seeking information about climate change: Effects of media use in an extended PRISM. Science Communication36(3): 270–295.
25.
HoffmannCPSuphanAMeckelM (2016) The impact of use motives on politicians’ social media adoption. Journal of Information Technology & Politics13(3): 239–256.
26.
HwangYJeongS-H (2016) Information insufficiency and information seeking: An experiment. Science Communication38(6): 679–698.
27.
KahlorL (2007) An augmented risk information seeking model: The case of global warming. Media Psychology10(3): 414–435.
28.
KahlorL (2010) Prism: A planned risk information seeking model. Health Communication25(4): 345–356.
29.
KahlorLRosenthalS (2009) If we seek, do we learn?Science Communication30(3): 380–414.
30.
KahlorLDunwoodySGriffinRJNeuwirthK (2006) Seeking and processing information about impersonal risk. Science Communication28(2): 163–194.
31.
KawamotoSNakayamaMSaijoM (2011) A survey of scientific literacy to provide a foundation for designing science communication in Japan. Public Understanding of Science22(6): 674–690.
32.
KimSJ (2016) A repertoire approach to cross-platform media use behavior. New Media & Society18(3): 353–372.
33.
LeeC-JScheufeleDALewensteinBV (2005) Public attitudes toward emerging technologies: Examining the interactive effects of cognitions and affect on public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Science Communication27(2): 240–267.
34.
LiuX (2010) Empirical testing of a theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: An exploratory study of educational wikis. Communication Education59(1): 52–69.
35.
Macedo-RouetMRouetJ-FEpsteinIFayardP (2003) Effects of online reading on popular science comprehension. Science Communication25(2): 99–128.
36.
McLeodJMKosickiGMMcLeodDM (1994) The expanding boundaries of political communication effects. In: BryantJZillmannD (eds) Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 123–162.
37.
McLeodJMScheufeleDAMoyP (1999) Community, communication, and participation: The role of mass media and interpersonal discussion in local political participation. Political Communication16(3): 315–336.
38.
MarcinkowskiFMetagJ (2014) Why do candidates use online media in constituency campaigning? An application of the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Information Technology & Politics11(2): 151–168.
39.
MarkusHZajoncRB (1985) The cognitive perspective in social psychology. In: LindzeyGAronsonE (eds) The Handbook of Social Psychology, 3rd edn.New York: Random House, pp. 137–230.
40.
MetagJMaierMFüchslinTBrommeLSchäferMS (2018) Between active seekers and non-users: Segments of science-related media usage in Switzerland and Germany. Environmental Communication12(8): 1077–1094.
41.
National Science Board (2014) Science and Engineering Indicators 2014. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation (NSB 14-01).
42.
National Science Board (2018) Science and Engineering Indicators 2018. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation (NSB 2018-01). Available at: https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2018/nsb20181/
43.
NewhagenJNassC (1989) Differential criteria for evaluating credibility of newspapers and TV news. Journalism Quarterly66(2): 277–284.
44.
NisbetMCMarkowitzEM (2014) Understanding public opinion in debates over biomedical research: Looking beyond political partisanship to focus on beliefs about science and society. PLoS ONE9(2): e88473.
45.
NisbetMCScheufeleDAShanahanJMoyPBrossardDLewensteinBV (2002) Knowledge, reservations, or promise? A media effects model for public perceptions of science and technology. Communication Research29(5): 584–608.
46.
NoySO’BrienTL (2019) Science for good? The effects of education and national context on perceptions of science. Public Understanding of Science (Bristol, England)28(8): 897–916.
47.
OST & The Wellcome Trust (2001) Science and the public: A review of science communication and public attitudes toward science in Britain. Public Understanding of Science10(3): 315–330.
48.
PalmgreenPRayburnJ (1982) Gratifications sought and media exposure. An expectancy value model. Communication Research9(4): 561–580.
49.
PrpicK (2011) Science, the public, and social elites: How the general public, scientists, top politicians and managers perceive science. Public Understanding of Science20(6): 733–750.
50.
RosenthalS (2018) Motivations to seek science videos on YouTube: Free-choice learning in a connected society. International Journal of Science Education, Part B8(1): 22–39.
51.
RösslerP (2011) Skalenhandbuch Kommunikationswissenschaft [Scale Handbook Communication Science], 1. Aufl. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
52.
RossmannC (2011) Theory of Reasoned Action - Theory of Planned Behavior. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
53.
RubinAM (1983) Television uses and gratifications: The interactions of viewing patterns and motivations. Journal of Broadcasting27(1): 37–51.
54.
SchäferMS (2017a) How changing media structures are affecting science news coverage. In: JamiesonKHKahanDMScheufeleDA (eds) Oxford Library of Psychology. The Oxford Handbook on the Science of Science Communication. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 51–57.
55.
SchäferMS (2017b) Wissenschaftskommunikation Online [Science communication online]. In: BonfadelliHFähnrichBLüthjeCMildeJRhombergMSchäferMS (eds) Forschungsfeld Wissenschaftskommunikation [Research field science communication]. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, pp. 275–293.
56.
SchäferMSFüchslinTMetagJKristiansenSRauchfleischA (2018) The different audiences of science communication: A segmentation analysis of the Swiss population’s perceptions of science and their information and media use patterns. Public Understanding of Science27(7): 836–856.
57.
ScheufeleDAKrauseNM (2019) Science audiences, misinformation, and fake news. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America116(16): 7662–7669.
58.
SlaterMD (2004) Operationalizing and analyzing exposure: The foundation of media effects research. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly81(1): 168–183.
59.
TreiseDWalsh-ChildersKWeigoldMFFriedmanM (2003) Cultivating the science internet audience: Impact of brand and domain on source credibility for science information. Science Communication24(3): 309–332.
60.
TsfatiYCohenJGuntherAC (2010) The influence of presumed media influence on news about science and scientists. Science Communication33(2): 143–166.
61.
UtzS (2009) The (potential) benefits of campaigning via social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication14(2): 221–243.
62.
WigfieldA (1994) Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation: A developmental perspective. Educational Psychology Review6(1): 49–78.
63.
YangZJKahlorL (2013) What, me worry? The role of affect in information seeking and avoidance. Science Communication35(2): 189–212.
64.
YangZJRickardLNHarrisonTMSeoM (2014) Applying the risk information seeking and processing model to examine support for climate change mitigation policy. Science Communication36(3): 296–324.
65.
ZhouRFongPSWTanP (2014) Internet use and its impact on engagement in leisure activities in China. PLoS ONE9(2): e89598.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
