This article shows that attention to television news, science television, and entertainment television are all significantly related to a composite measure of agricultural biotechnology support after controlling for demographics as well as self-reported biotechnology awareness, trust in institutions, and perceived role of science. These findings contradict previous commentary that suggested that no measurable relationship exists between communication variables and biotechnology support. It is also hypothesized that some biotechnology support may be an outcome of heuristic processing by survey respondents.
Bauer, M. W.2002. Controversial medical and agri-food biotechnology: A cultivation analysis. Public Understanding of Science11:93-111.
2.
Baumgartner, F. R.1998. After disaster: Agenda setting, public policy, and focusing events. Political Science Quarterly113:516-517.
3.
Blizzard, R.2003. Genetically altered foods: Hazard or harmless?Gallup Organization2. Available at http://www.gallup.com/poll.
4.
Brosius, H. B.1998. Communication and democracy: Exploring the intellectual frontiers in agenda-setting theory. International Journal of Public Opinion Research10:184-186.
5.
Chaffee, S., and S. Frank. 1996. How Americans get political information: Print versus broadcast news. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science546:45-58.
6.
Chaffee, S. H., and S. F. Kanihan. 1997. Learning about politics from the mass media. Political Communication14:421-430.
7.
Chaffee, S. H., and J. Schleuder. 1986. Measurement and effects of attention to media news. Human Communication Research131:76-107.
8.
Chaffee, S. H., X. S. Zhao, and G. Leshner. 1994. Political knowledge and the campaign media of 1992. Communication Research213:305-324.
9.
Chaiken, S., A. Liberman, and A. H. Eagly. 1989. Heuristic and systematic processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In Unintended thought: Limits of awareness, intention and control, edited by J. S. Uleman, 212-252. New York: Guilford.
10.
Cohen, P., J. Cohen, S. G. West, and L. S. Aiken. 2002. Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. 3rd ed.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
11.
DeVillis, R. F.1991. Scale development: Theory and applications. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
12.
European Opinion Research Group. 2002. The attitudes of Europeans towards the environment. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission. Available at http://europa.eu.int/comm/environemnt/barometer/barometer_2003_en.pdf.
13.
Eveland, W. P., and D. A. Scheufele. 2000. Connecting news media use with gaps in knowledge and participation. Political Communication173:215-237.
14.
Gaskell, G., N. C. Allum, and S. R. Stares. 2003. Europeans and biotechnology in 2002: Eurobarometer 58.0. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission Directorate General for Research: Life Sciences in European Society.
15.
Gaskell, G., M. W. Bauer, J. Durant, and N. C. Allum. 1999. Worlds apart? The reception of genetically modified foods in Europe and the U.S. Science285:384-387.
16.
Gerbner, G.1987. Science on television: How it affects public conceptions. Issues in Science and Technology3:109-115.
17.
Gerbner, G.1998. Telling stories, or how do we know what we know? The story of cultural indicators and the cultural environment movement. Wide Angle: A Quarterly Journal of Film History Theory Criticism & Practice20:116-131.
18.
Gerbner, G., and L. Gross. 1974. System of cultural indicators. Public Opinion Quarterly38:460-461.
19.
Gerbner, G., L. Gross, M. F. Eleey, M. Jacksonbeeck, S. Jeffriesfox, and N. Signorielli. 1977. TV violence profile no. 8: Highlights. Journal of Communication27:171-180.
20.
Gerbner, G., L. Gross, M. Jacksonbeeck, and S. Jeffriesfox. 1978. Cultural indicators: Violence profile no. 9. Journal of Communication28:176-207.
21.
Gerbner, G., L. Gross, M. Morgan, and N. Signorielli. 1981. Scientists on the TV screen. Society18:40-41.
22.
Gerbner, G., L. Gross, N. Signorielli, M. Morgan, and M. Jacksonbeeck. 1979. Demonstration of power: Violence profile no 10. Journal of Communication29:177-196.
23.
Gunter, B., J. Kinderlerer, and D. Beyleveld. 1999. The media and public understanding of biotechnology:A survey of scientists and journalists. Science Communication20(4):373-394.
24.
Guo, Z. S., and P. Moy. 1998. Medium or message? Predicting dimensions of political sophistication. International Journal of Public Opinion Research10:25-50.
25.
Holbert, R. L., D. V. Shah, and N. Kwak. 2003. Political implications of prime-time drama and sitcom use: Genres of representation and opinions concerning women’s rights. Journal of Communication53:45-60.
26.
Hornig, S.1990. Television’s NOVA and the construction of scientific truth. Critical Studies in Mass Communication7 (1): 11-23.
27.
Lewenstein, B. V.1989. Magazine publishing and popular science after World War II. American Journalism6:218-234.
28.
Lewenstein, B. V.1995. Science and the media. In The handbook of science and technology studies, edited by S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Peterson, and T. Pinch, 343-360. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
29.
Long, M., and J. Steinke. 1996. The thrill of everyday science: Images of science and scientists on children’s educational science programmes in the United States. Public Understanding of Science5:101-120.
30.
Maney, A., and E. Plutzer. 1996. Scientific information, elite attitudes, and the public debate over food safety. Policy Studies Journal2:42-46.
31.
Markus, H., and R. Zajonc. 1985. The cognitive perspective in social psychology. In Handbook of social psychology, edited by G. Lindzey and E. Aronson, 137-214. New York: Random House.
32.
Mazur, A.1981. Media coverage and public opinion on scientific controversies. Journal of Communication31:106-115.
33.
Mazur, A.1990. Nuclear-power, chemical hazards, and the quantity of reporting. Minerva28:294-323.
34.
McComas, K. A., J. Shanahan, and J. S. Butler. 2001. Environmental content in prime-time network TV’s non-news entertainment and fictional programs. Society & Natural Resources14:533-542.
35.
McCombs, M.1997. Building consensus:The news media’s agenda-setting roles. Political Communication14:433-443.
36.
McCombs, M. E., and D. L. Shaw. 1972. Agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly36:176-187.
37.
McCombs, M. E., and D. L. Shaw. 1993. The evolution of agenda-setting research—25 years in the marketplace of ideas. Journal of Communication43:58-67.
38.
McLeod, J. M.2000. Media and civic socialization of youth. Journal of Adolescent Health27:45-51.
39.
McLeod, J. M., L. B. Becker, and J.E. Byrnes. 1974. Another look at agenda-setting function of press. Communication Research1:131-166.
40.
McLeod, J. M., K. Daily, Z. S. Guo, W. P. Eveland, J. Bayer, S. C. Yang, and H. Wang. 1996. Community integration, local media use, and democratic processes. Communication Research23:179-209.
41.
McLeod, J. M., D. A. Scheufele, and P. Moy. 1999. Community, communication, and participation: The role of mass media and interpersonal discussion in local political participation. Political Communication16:315-336.
42.
Miller, J. D., R. Pardo, and F. Niwa. 1997. Public perceptions of science and technology: A comparative study of the European Union, the United States, Japan, and Canada. Chicago: Chicago Academy of Science.
43.
Moy, P., and M. Pfau. 2000. With malice toward all?: The media and public confidence in democratic institutions. Westport, CT: Praeger.
44.
Moy, P., and D. A. Scheufele. 2000. Media effects on political and social trust. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly77:744-759.
45.
Mutz, D. C., and P. S. Martin. 2001. Facilitating communication across lines of political difference: The role of mass media. American Political Science Review95:97-114.
46.
New York Agriculture Statistics Service. 2003. New York agricultural statistics annual bulletin. Albany, NY: New York Agriculture Statistics Service.
47.
Nisbet, M. C., and B. V. Lewenstein. 2002. Biotechnology and the American media: The policy process and the elite press, 1970 to 1999. Science Communication23 (4): 359-391.
48.
Nisbet, M. C., D. A. Scheufele, J. Shanahan, P. Moy, D. Brossard, and B. V. Lewenstein. 2002. Knowledge, reservations, or promise? A media effects model for public perceptions of science and technology. Communication Research29:584-608.
49.
O’Guinn, T. C., and R. J. Faber. 1987. Mass mediated consumer socialization: Non-utilitarian and dysfunctional outcomes. Advances in Consumer Research14:473-477.
50.
O’Guinn, T. C., R. J. Faber, N. J. J. Curias, and K. Schmitt. 1989. The cultivation of consumer norms. Advances in Consumer Research16:779-785.
51.
Plein, C.1991. Popularizing biotechnology: The importance of issue definition. Science, Technology and Human Values16:474-490.
52.
Potter, J. W.1993. Cultivation theory and research: A conceptual critique. Human Communication Research19:564-601.
53.
Potter, J. W., and I. C. Chang. 1990. Television exposure measures and the cultivation hypothesis. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media34:313-333.
54.
Priest, S.1994. Structuring public debate on biotechnology: Media frames and public response. Science Communication16 (2): 166-179.
55.
Priest, S.1995. Information equity, public understanding of science, and the biotechnology debate. Journal of Communication45 (1): 39-54.
56.
Priest, S.2000. U. S. public opinion divided over biotechnology?Nature Biotechnology18:939-942.
57.
Priest, S.2001a. A grain of truth: The media, the public, and biotechnology. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
58.
Priest, S.2001b. Misplaced faith: Communication variables as predictors of encouragement for biotechnology development. Science Communication23 (2): 97-110.
59.
Shanahan, J.2003. Biotech communication in New York: Report 1: Opinion and support for biotechnology. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
60.
Shanahan, J., and K. A. McComas. 1997. Television’s portrayal of the environment: 1991-1995. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly74:147-159.
61.
Shanahan, J., and K. A. McComas. 1999. Nature stories: Depictions of the environment and their effects. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
62.
Shanahan, J., and M. Morgan. 1999. Television and its viewers: Cultivation theory and research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
63.
Shanahan, J., M. Morgan, and M. Stenbjerre. 1997. Green or brown? Television and the cultivation of environmental concern. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media41:305-323.
64.
Shanahan, J., D. A. Scheufele, and E. Lee. 2001. The polls-trends: Attitudes about agricultural biotechnology and genetically modified organisms. Public Opinion Quarterly65:267-281.
65.
Shrum, L. J.1998. Development of a cognitive process model to explain the effects of heavy television viewing on social judgment. Advances in Consumer Research25:289-294.
66.
Shrum, L. J.2001. Processing strategy moderates the cultivation effect. Human Communication Research27:94-120.
67.
Shrum, L. J.2002. Media consumption and perceptions of social reality: Effects and underlying processes. Media effects: Advances in theory and research, edited by J. Bryant and D. Zillman, 69-96. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
68.
Shrum, L. J., T. C. O’Guinn, R. J. Semenik, and R. J. Faber. 1991. Processes and effects in the construction of normative consumer beliefs: The role of television. Advances in Consumer Research18:755-763.
69.
Sotirovic, M., and J. M. McLeod. 2001. Values, communication behavior, and political participation. Political Communication18:273-300.
70.
Ten Eyck, T. A., and M. Williment. 2004. The national media and things genetic: Coverage in the New York Times (1971-2001) and the Washington Post (1977-2001). Science Communication25 (2): 129-152.
71.
Yankelovich, D.1982. Changing public attitudes to science and the quality of life: Edited excerpts from a seminar. Science, Technology & Human Values7:23-29.
72.
Yankelovich, D.1991. Coming to public judgment: Making democracy work in a complex world. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
