By applying the cognitive mediation model, this study seeks to investigate factors influencing public knowledge of nuclear energy in Singapore. In addition, this study seeks to extend the cognitive mediation model by explicating the knowledge variable into four facets – general science knowledge, perceived familiarity, content nuclear knowledge and contextual nuclear knowledge. Using data collected from an interviewer-led door-to-door survey with 1000 Singapore citizens and permanent residents (PRs), we found that attention to TV news, website news and social media news stimulated news elaboration and interpersonal discussion. However, attention to print newspaper was neither associated with news elaboration nor interpersonal discussion. We also found that news elaboration could enhance factual knowledge such as general science knowledge, content nuclear knowledge and contextual nuclear knowledge, while interpersonal discussion could enhance perceived familiarity. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.
AndersonJCGerbingDW (1988) Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin103: 411–423.
2.
BeaudoinCEThorsonE (2004) Testing the cognitive mediation model: The roles of news reliance and three gratifications sought. Communication Research31: 446–471.
3.
BrowneMWCudeckR (1993) Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: BollenKALongJS (eds) Testing Structural Equation Models. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE, pp. 136–162.
4.
ByrneBM (2013) Structural Equation Modeling with Mplus: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. New York, NY: Routledge.
5.
CacciatoreMAAndersonAAChoiDHBrossardDScheufeleDALiangX, et al. (2012) Coverage of emerging technologies: A comparison between print and online media. New Media & Society14(6): 1039–1059.
6.
CarpiniMXDKeeterS (1996) What Americans Know about Politics and Why It Matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
7.
ChuahASLeongADCummingsCLHoSS (2018) Label it or ban it? Public perceptions of nano-food labels and propositions for banning nano-food applications. Journal of Nanoparticle Research20(2): 36.
8.
DrewDWeaverD (1990) Media attention, media exposure, and media effects. Journalism Quarterly67(4): 740–748.
9.
DunningD (2011) The Dunning–Kruger effect: On being ignorant of one’s own ignorance. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology44: 247–296.
EvelandWPJr (1998) The cognitive mediation model: A framework for studying learning from the news with survey methods. In: Annual Meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Baltimore, MD, 5–8 August 1998.
12.
EvelandWPJr (2001) The cognitive mediation model of learning from the news: Evidence from nonelection, off-year election, and presidential election contexts. Communication Research28(5): 571–601.
13.
EvelandWPJrMartonKSeoM (2004) Moving beyond ‘just the facts’ the influence of online news on the content and structure of public affairs knowledge. Communication Research31(1): 82–108.
14.
EvelandWPJrShahDVKwakN (2003) Assessing causality in the cognitive mediation model: A panel study of motivations, information processing, and learning during campaign 2000. Communication Research30(4): 359–386.
15.
EvelandWPJrThomsonT (2006) Is it talking, thinking, or both? A lagged dependent variable model of discussion effects on political knowledge. Journal of Communication56(3): 523–542.
16.
FriedmanSM (2011) Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima: An analysis of traditional and new media coverage of nuclear accidents and radiation. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists67(5): 55–65.
17.
Gil de ZúñigaHJungNValenzuelaS (2012) Social media use for news and individuals’ social capital, civic engagement and political participation. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication17(3): 319–336.
18.
HollanderBA (1995) The new news and the 1992 presidential campaign: Perceived vs. actual political knowledge. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly72: 786–798.
19.
HoSSLeongADLooiJChenLPangNTandocEJr (2018a) Science literacy or value predisposition? A meta-analysis of factors predicting public perceptions of benefits, risks, and acceptance of nuclear energy. Environmental Communication13(4): 1–15.
20.
HoSSLeongADLooiJChuahAS (2019) Online, offline, or word-of-mouth? Complementary media usage patterns and credibility perceptions of nuclear energy information in Southeast Asia. Energy Research & Social Science48: 46–56.
21.
HoSSLooiJChuahASLeongADPangN (2018b) ‘I can live with nuclear energy if. . .’: Exploring public perceptions of nuclear energy in Singapore. Energy Policy120: 436–447.
22.
HoSSPehXSohVW (2013) The cognitive mediation model: Factors influencing public knowledge of the H1N1 pandemic and intention to take precautionary behaviors. Journal of Health Communication18(7): 773–794.
23.
HoSSYangX (2018) Communication, cognitive processing, and public knowledge about climate change. Asian Journal of Communication28(5): 449–467.
24.
HoSSYangXThanwaraniAChanJM (2017) Examining public acquisition of science knowledge from social media in Singapore: An extension of the cognitive mediation model. Asian Journal of Communication27(2): 193–212.
HuLBentlerPM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modelling6(1): 1–55.
27.
JhoHYoonHGKimM (2014) The relationship of science knowledge, attitude and decision making on socio-scientific issues: The case study of students’ debates on a nuclear power plant in Korea. Science & Education23(5): 1131–1151.
28.
JonassenDHBeissnerKYacciM (2013) Structural Knowledge: Techniques for Representing, Conveying, and Acquiring Structural Knowledge. New York, NY: Routledge.
29.
KatzE (1957) The two-step flow of communication: An up-to-date report on an hypothesis. Public Opinion Quarterly21(1): 61–78.
30.
KiousisSMcCombsM (2004) Agenda-setting effects and attitude strength: Political figures during the 1996 presidential election. Communication Research31(1): 36–57.
31.
KratzkeCVilchisHAmatyaA (2013) Breast cancer prevention knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors among college women and mother–daughter communication. Journal of Community Health38: 560–568.
32.
LeeCJScheufeleDALewensteinBV (2005) Public attitudes toward emerging technologies: Examining the interactive effects of cognitions and affect on public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Science Communication27(2): 240–267.
33.
LeeEWJHoSS (2015) Staying abreast of breast cancer: Examining how communication and motivation relate to Singaporean women’s breast cancer knowledge. Asian Journal of Communication25: 422–442.
34.
LeeEWJShinMKawajaAHoSS (2016) The augmented cognitive mediation model: Examining antecedents of factual and structural breast cancer knowledge among Singaporean women. Journal of Health Communication21(5): 583–592.
LevyMRWindahlS (1985) The concept of audience activity. In:RosengrenKEWennerLAPalmgreenP (eds) Media Gratifications Research: Current Perspectives. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE, pp. 109–122.
37.
LiangXHoSSBrossardDXenosMAScheufeleDAAndersonAA, et al. (2015) Value predispositions as perceptual filters: Comparing of public attitudes toward nanotechnology in the United States and Singapore. Public Understanding of Science24(5): 582–600.
38.
MahDNHillsPTaoJ (2014) Risk perception, trust and public engagement in nuclear decision-making in Hong Kong. Energy Policy73: 368–390.
39.
MillerJD (1983) Scientific literacy: A conceptual and empirical review. Daedalus112: 29–48.
40.
MillerJD (1998) The measurement of civic scientific literacy. Public Understanding of Science7: 203–223.
PerseEM (1990) Involvement with local television news: Cognitive and emotional dimensions. Human Communication Research16(4): 556–581.
46.
PopperK (2012) Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
47.
RajuPSLonialSCMangoldWG (1995) Differential effects of subjective knowledge, objective knowledge, and usage experience on decision making: An exploratory investigation. Journal of Consumer Psychology4(2): 153–180.
48.
RosenthalSDetenberBHRojasH (2018) Efficacy beliefs in third-person effects. Communication Research45: 554–576.
49.
RungeKKYeoSKCacciatoreMScheufeleDABrossardDXenosM, et al. (2013) Tweeting nano: How public discourses about nanotechnology develop in social media environments. Journal of Nanoparticle Research15: 1381.
SchumackerRELomaxRG (2004) A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling, 2nd edn.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
52.
ShoemakerPJ (1996) Hardwired for news: Using biological and cultural evolution to explain the surveillance function. Journal of Communication46(3): 32–47.
53.
SimisMJMaddenHCacciatoreMAYeoSK (2016) The lure of rationality: Why does the deficit model persist in science communication?Public Understanding of Science25: 400–414.
YangXChuahASLeeEWHoSS (2017) Extending the cognitive mediation model: Examining factors associated with perceived familiarity and factual knowledge of nanotechnology. Mass Communication and Society20(3): 403–426.
64.
YangZJ (2012) Too scared or too capable? Why do college students stay away from the H1N1 vaccine?Risk Analysis: An International Journal32(10): 1703–1716.
65.
YeoSKCacciatoreMABrossardDScheufeleDARungeKSuLY, et al. (2014) Partisan amplification of risk: American perceptions of nuclear energy risk in the wake of the Fukushima Daiichi disaster. Energy Policy67: 727–736.
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.
