This study investigated effects of frames, science background, and stem cell source on attributions of ethicality, credibility, and usefulness of stem cell research. Framing did not influence perceptions of ethicality, but science majors tended to perceive embryonic research to be more ethical than did nonscience majors. Nonscience majors perceived stem cell research to be less credible than did science majors in an Economic Prospects frame. Science majors perceived embryonic research to be more useful than did nonscience majors except in a Conflict frame. Results suggest that frames cue heuristics that bias science and nonscience majors’ cognitions about stem cell research differently.
BrossardD.NisbetM. 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.
ChaikenS.MaheswaranD. (1994). Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 460-473.
4.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5.
CritchleyC. R. (2008). Public opinion and trust in scientists: The role of the research context, and the perceived motivations of stem cell researchers. Public Understanding of Science, 17, 309-327.
6.
DahindenU. (2002). Biotechnology in Switzerland: Frames in a heated debate. Science Communication, 24, 184-197.
7.
DahmenN. S. (2008). Newspapers focus on conflict in stem cell coverage. Newspaper Research Journal, 29, 50-64.
8.
D’AngeloP. (2002). News framing as a multiparadigmatic research program: A response to Entman. Journal of Communication, 52, 870-888.
9.
EntmanR. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51-58.
10.
FahmyS.RellyJ. E.WantaW. (2010). President’s power to frame stem cell views limited. Newspaper Research Journal, 31, 64-74.
11.
GogolinL.SwartzF. (1992). A quantitative and qualitative inquiry into the attitudes toward science of nonscience college students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 487-504.
12.
GregoryJ.MillerS. (1998). Science in public: Communication, culture, and credibility. New York, NY: Plenum.
13.
HoS. S.BrossardD.ScheufeleD. A. (2008). Effects of value predispositions, mass media use, and knowledge on public attitudes toward embryonic stem cell research. International Journal of Public Opinion, 20, 171-192.
14.
IgartuaJ.-J.ChengL. (2009). Moderating effect of group cue while processing news on immigration: Is the framing effect a heuristic process?Journal of Communication, 59, 726-749.
15.
KitzingerJ.WilliamsC. (2005). Forecasting science futures: Legitimising hope and calming fears in the embryo stem cell debate. Social Science & Medicine, 61, 2005.
16.
KoD. M.KimM. S. (2010). Message framing and defensive processing: A cultural examination. Health Communication, 25, 61-68.
17.
LeeN.-J.McLeodD. M.ShahD. V. (2008). Framing policy debates: Issue dualism, journalistic frames, and opinions on controversial policy issues. Communication Research, 35, 695-718.
18.
LiuH.PriestS. (2009). Understanding public support for stem cell research: Media communication, interpersonal communication and trust in key actors. Public Understanding of Science, 18, 704-718.
19.
LynchJ. (2006). Making room for stem cells: Dissociation and establishing new research objects. Argumentation & Advocacy, 42, 143-156.
20.
NisbetM. C. (2004). Public opinion about stem cell research and human cloning. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68, 131-154.
21.
NisbetM. C. (2010). Framing science: A new paradigm in public engagement. In KahlorL.StoutP. A. (Eds.), Communicating science (pp. 40-67). New York, NY: Routledge.
22.
NisbetM. C.BrossardD.KroepschA. (2003). Framing science: The stem cell controversy in an age of press/politics. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 8, 36-70.
23.
NisbetM. C.GoidelR. K. (2007). Understanding citizen perceptions of science controversy: Bridging the ethnographic-survey research divide. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 421-440.
24.
NisbetM. C.LewensteinB. V. (2002). Biotechnology and the American media: The public policy process and the elite process. Science Communication, 23, 359-391.
O’KeefeD. J. (2002). Persuasion: Theory & research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
29.
PardoR.CalvoF. (2008). Attitudes toward embryo research, worldviews, and the moral status of the embryo frame. Science Communication, 30, 8-47.
30.
PerloffR. M. (1993). The dynamics of persuasion. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
31.
PettyR.CacioppoJ. (1986). Communication and persuasion: The central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
32.
ReisR. (2008). How Brazilian and North American newspapers frame the stem cell research debate. Science Communication, 29, 316-334.
33.
ScheufeleB. T.ScheufeleD. A. (2010). Of spreading activation, applicability, and schemas: Conceptual implications for measuring frames and framing effects. In D’AngeloP.KuypersJ. A. (Eds.), Doing news framing analysis: Empirical and theoretical perspectives (pp. 110-134). New York, NY: Routledge.
34.
ScheufeleD. A. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 49, 103-122.
35.
ScottC. T. (2006). Stem cell now: A brief introduction to the coming medical revolution. New York, NY: Plume.
36.
StewartC. O. (2009). Socioscientific controversies: A theoretical and methodological framework. Communication Theory, 19, 124-145.
37.
StewartC. O.DickersonD. L.HathcockS.WestonJ.MinogueJ. (2012). Predicting undergraduate students’ beliefs about science: An exploratory study using the Thinking about Science Survey Instrument (TSSI). Paper to be presented at the American Educational Research Association convention, Vancouver, British Columbia.
38.
StewartC. O.DickersonD. L.HotchkissR. (2009). Beliefs about science and news frames in audience evaluations of embryonic and adult stem cell research. Science Communication, 30, 427-452.
39.
SturgisP.AllumN. (2004). Science in society: Re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Understanding of Science, 13, 55-74.
TodorovA.ChaikenS.HendersonM. D. (2002). The heuristic-systematic model of social information processing. In DillardJ. P.PfauM. (Eds.), The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice (pp. 195-211). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
43.
WilliamsC.KitzingerJ.HendersonL. (2003). Envisaging the embryo in stem cell research: Rhetorical strategies and media reporting of the ethical debates. Sociology of Health & Illness, 25, 793-814.
44.
YunD.NahS.McLeodD. M. (2008). Framing effects of news coverage of the embryonic stem cell controversy: Issue involvement as an effects moderator. Communication Research Reports, 25, 312-315.
