This study uses survey data to examine how various forms of media use are related to public perceptions of DNA evidence, including self-perceived understanding of DNA, perceptions of DNA evidence as reliable, weight attached to DNA evidence (or the absence thereof) in jury decision making, and support for a national DNA databank.The hypotheses build on cultivation theory, priming theory, and research regarding the “CSI effect.” The findings indicate that overall television viewing, crime television viewing, and news media use predict perceptions of DNA evidence. Moreover, a question-order experiment produced evidence that priming thoughts about media can influence such perceptions.
Besley, J.C., & Shanahan, J. ( 2005). Media attention and exposure in relation to support for agricultural biotechnology. Science Communication, 26, 347-367.
2.
Blumler, J.G., & McQuail, D. ( 1969). Television in politics: Its uses and influences . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
3.
Brossard, D., & Nisbet, M.C. ( 2006). Deference to scientific authority among a low information public: Understanding U.S. opinion on agricultural biotechnology . International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 19, 24-52.
4.
Brossard, D., & Shanahan, J. ( 2003). Do citizens want to have their say? Media, agricultural biotechnology, and authoritarian views of democratic processes in science . Mass Communication and Society, 6, 291-312.
5.
Cavender, G., & Deutsch, S.K. ( 2007). CSI and moral authority: The police and science . Crime, Media, Culture, 3, 67-81.
6.
Chaffee, S.H., & Schleuder, J. ( 1986). Measurement and effects of attention to news media . Human Communication Research, 13, 76-107.
7.
Cole, S.A. ( 2001). Suspect identities: A history of fingerprinting and criminal identification. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
8.
Connors, E., Lundregan, T., Miller, N., & McEwan, T. (1996). Convicted by juries, exonerated by science: Case studies in the use of DNA evidence to establish innocence after trial. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
9.
Dale, W.M., Greenspan, O., & Orokos, D. ( 2006). DNA forensics: Expanding uses and information sharing . Sacramento, CA: SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics.
10.
Duster, T. ( 2006). Explaining differential trust of DNA forensic technology: Grounded assessment or inexplicable paranoia? Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics, 34, 293-300.
11.
Gerbner, G., & Gross, L. ( 1976). Living with television: The violence profile. Journal of Communication, 26, 173-199.
12.
Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1981). Scientists on the TV screen . Culture and Society, 18, 41-44.
13.
Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1985). Television entertainment and viewers’ conceptions of science. Research report to the National Science Foundation, Pennsylvania University .
14.
Gever, M. ( 2005). The spectacle of crime, digitized: CSI: Crime Scene Investigation and social anatomy. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 8, 445-463.
15.
Ho, S.S., Brossard, D., & Scheufele, D.A. (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, 171-192.
Hurwitz, J., & Peffley, M. ( 2005). Explaining the great racial divide: Perceptions of fairness in the U.S. criminal justice system. Journal of Politics, 67, 762-783.
18.
Iyengar, S., & Kinder, D.R. ( 1987). News that matters: Television and American opinion . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
19.
Klite, P., Bardwell, R.A., & Salzman, J. ( 1997). Local TV news: Getting away with murder. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 2,102-112.
20.
Lee, C., Scheufele, D.A., & Lewenstein, B.V. (2005). Public attitudes toward emerging technologies: Examining the interactive effects of cognitions and affect on public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Science Communication, 27, 240-267.
21.
Ley, B.L., Jankowski, N., & Brewer, P.R. ( 2009). Investigating CSI: Portrayals of DNA testing on a forensic crime show and their social implications. Unpublished manuscript, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
22.
Miller, J.D., Augenbraun, E., Schulhof, J., & Kimmel, L.G. ( 2006). Adult science learning from local television newscasts . Science Communication, 28, 216-242.
23.
National Research Council. (1996). The evaluation of forensic DNA evidence. Washington, DC : National Academies Press.
24.
Nisbet, M.C. ( 2005). The competition for worldviews: Values, information, and public support for stem cell research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17, 90-112.
25.
Nisbet, M.C., & Goidel, R.K. ( 2007). Understanding citizen perceptions of science controversy: Bridging the ethnographic-survey research divide. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 421-440.
26.
Nisbet, M.C., Scheufele, D.A., Shanahan, J., Moy, P., Brossard, D., & Lewenstein, B.V. (2002). Knowledge, reservation, or promise? A media effects model for public perceptions of science and technology . Communication Research, 29, 584-608.
27.
Penn, M.J. ( 2000). Why voters care about the quality of life. Retrieved May 5, 2009, from http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=2182&kaid=127&subid=269
28.
Pfau, M. ( 1995). Television viewing and public perceptions of attorneys . Human Communication Research, 21, 307-330.
29.
Podlas, K. ( 2002). Blame Judge Judy: The effects of syndicated courtrooms on jurors. American Journal of Trial Advocacy, 25, 557-586.
30.
Podlas, K. ( 2006). "The CSI effect": Exposing the media myth. Fordham Intellectual Property, Media, and Entertainment Law Journal , 16, 429-465.
31.
Roane, K. ( 2005). The CSI effect. U.S. News and World Report , 138, 48-54.
32.
Romer, D., Jamieson, K.H., & Aday, S. ( 2003). Television news and the cultivation of fear of crime . Journal of Communication, 53, 88-104.
33.
Scheck, B., Neufeld, P., & Dwyer, J. ( 2001). Actual innocence: When justice goes wrong and how to make it right. New York: Signet .
34.
Scheufele, D.A., & Lewenstein, B.V. (2005). The public and nanotechnology: How citizens make sense of emerging technologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 7, 659-667.
35.
Schweitzer, N.J., & Saks, M.J. ( 2007). The CSI effect: Popular fiction about forensic science affects the public’s expectations about real forensic science . Jurimetrics, 47, 357-364.
36.
Shanahan, J., & Morgan, M. ( 1999). Television and its viewers: Cultivation theory and research . New York: Cambridge University Press.
37.
Shanahan, J., Morgan, M., & Stenbjerre, M. (1997). Green or brown: Television and the cultivation of environmental concern. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 41, 305-323.
38.
Shelton, D.E., Kim, Y.S., & Barak, G. ( 2006). A study of juror expectations and demands concerning scientific evidence: Does the "CSI effect" exist? Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law, 9, 331-368.
39.
Shrum, L.J. ( 2002). Media consumption and perceptions of social reality: Effects and underlying processes. In J. Bryant & D. Zillman (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 69-96). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
40.
Tyler, T.R. ( 2006). Viewing CSI and the threshold of guilt: Managing truth and justice in reality and fiction. Yale Law Journal , 115, 1050-1085.
41.
Wagner, S. ( 2008). To know where he lies: DNA technology and the search for Srebrenica’s missing children. Berkeley : University of California Press.
42.
Willing, R. ( 2004, August 5). "CSI effect" has juries wanting more evidence . USA Today, p. 1A.
43.
Zaller, J.R. ( 1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.
