Media reports of environmental science often give equal weight to opposing viewpoints, which can make the science seem more controversial than it actually is. The current study extended the research in this area by examining whether discrediting one expert viewpoint would minimize false perceptions of controversy. Participants (N = 247) read articles about environmental risks containing one viewpoint, two balanced viewpoints, or two viewpoints with one discredited. Results showed that a discredited opposing viewpoint often influenced risk and uncertainty perceptions in similar ways to a balanced opposing viewpoint, implying that this tactic may not necessarily minimize false perceptions of controversy.
AndersonC. A.LepperM. R.RossL. (1980). Perseverance of social theories: The role of explanation in the persistence of discredited information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 1037-1049.
2.
BennettW. L. (1996). An introduction to journalism norms and representations of politics. Political Communication, 13, 373-384.
3.
BöhmG.PfisterH. (2000). Action tendencies and characteristics of environmental risks. Acta Psychologica, 104, 317-337.
4.
BoykoffM. T. (2007a). Flogging a dead norm? Newspaper coverage of anthropogenic climate change in the United States and United Kingdom from 2003-2006. Area, 39, 470-481.
5.
BoykoffM. T. (2007b). From convergence to contention: United States mass media representations of anthropogenic climate change science. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 32, 477-489.
6.
BoykoffM. T.BoykoffJ. M. (2004). Balance as bias: Global warming and the US prestige press. Global Environmental Change, 14, 125-136.
7.
BoykoffM. T.MansfieldM. (2008). “Ye olde hot aire”: Reporting on human contributions to climate change in the UK tabloid press. Environmental Research Letters, 3, 1-8.
8.
BudescuD. V.BroomellS.PorH. (2009). Improving communication of uncertainty in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Psychological Science, 20, 299-308
9.
ChoC. H.MartensM. L.KimH.RodrigueM. (2011). Astroturfing global warming: It isn’t always greener on the other side of the fence. Journal of Business Ethics, 104, 571-587.
10.
CorbettJ. B.DurfeeJ. L. (2004). Testing public (un)certainty of science: Media representations of global warming. Science Communication, 26, 129-151.
11.
DearingJ. W. (1995). Newspaper coverage of maverick science: Creating controversy through balancing. Public Understanding of Science, 4, 341-361.
12.
DixonG. N.ClarkeC. E. (2013). Heightening uncertainty around certain science: Media coverage, false balance, and the autism-vaccine controversy. Science Communication, 35, 358-382.
13.
DunlapR. E.Van LiereK. D. (1978). A proposed measuring instrument and preliminary results: The “new environmental paradigm.”Journal of Environmental Education, 9, 10-19.
14.
DunlapR. E.Van LiereK. D.MertigA. G.JonesR. E. (2000). Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 425-442.
15.
DunwoodyS. (1999). Scientists, journalists, and the meaning of uncertainty. In FriedmanS. M.DunwoodyS.RogersC. L. (Eds.), Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science (pp. 59-79). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
DunwoodyS.GriffinR. J. (2002). Judgmental heuristics and news reporting. In FoxJ. C.GowdaR. (Eds.), Judgments, decisions, and public policy (pp. 177-198). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
18.
DunwoodyS.PetersH. P. (1992). Mass media coverage of technological and environmental risks: A survey of the research in the United States and Germany. Public Understanding of Science, 1, 199-230.
19.
EckerU. K. H.LewandowskyS.SwireB.ChangD. (2011). Correcting false information in memory: Manipulating the strength of misinformation encoding and its retraction. Psychological Bulletin & Review, 18, 570-578.
20.
EdwardsK.BryanT. S. (1997). Judgmental biases produced by instructions to disregard: The paradoxical case of emotional information. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 849-864.
21.
EntmanR. M.RojeckiA. (1993). Freezing out the public: Elite and media framing of the U.S. anti-nuclear movement. Political Communication, 10, 155-173.
22.
EvansJ. B.BarstonJ. L.PollardP. (1983). On the conflict between logic and belief in syllogistic reasoning. Memory & Cognition, 11, 295-306.
23.
FrewerL. J.HuntS.BrennanM.KuznesofS.NessM.RitsonC. (2003). The views of scientific experts on how the public conceptualize uncertainty. Journal of Risk Research, 6, 75-85.
24.
GliskyE. L.PolsterM. R.RouthieauxB. C. (1995). Double dissociation between item and source memory. Neuropsychology, 9, 229-235.
25.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2013). Climate change 2013: The physical science basis. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
26.
JensenJ. D. (2008). Scientific uncertainty in news coverage of cancer research: Effects of hedging on scientists’ and journalists’ credibility. Human Communication Research, 34, 347-369.
27.
JensenJ. D.HurleyR. J. (2012). Conflicting stories about public scientific controversies: Effects of news convergence and divergence on scientists’ credibility. Public Understanding of Science, 21, 689-704.
28.
JohnsonB. B. (2003). Further notes on public responses to uncertainty in risks and science. Risk Analysis, 23, 781-789.
29.
JohnsonB. B.SlovicP. (1998). Lay views on uncertainty in environmental health risk assessment. Journal of Risk Research, 1, 261-279.
30.
JohnsonH. M.SeifertC. M. (1994). Sources of the continued influence effect: When misinformation in memory affects later inferences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 1420-1436.
31.
JuricaP. J.ShimamuraA. P. (1999). Monitoring item and source information: Evidence of a negative generation effect in source memory. Memory & Cognition, 27, 648-656.
32.
KassinS. M.SommersS. R. (1997). Inadmissible testimony, instructions to disregard, and the jury: Substantive versus procedural considerations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1046-1054.
33.
KassinS. M.StudebakerC. A. (1998). Instructions to disregard and the jury: Curative and paradoxical effects. In GoldingJ. M.MacLeodC. M. (Eds.), Intentional forgetting: Interdisciplinary approaches (pp. 413-434). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
34.
KeppelG.WickensT. D. (2004). Design and analysis: A researcher’s handbook (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
35.
KlettkeB.GraesserA. C.PowellM. B. (2010). Expert testimony in child sexual abuse cases: The effects of evidence, coherence and credentials on juror decision making. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24, 481-494.
36.
KlettkeB.PowellM. (2011). The effects of evidence, coherence and credentials on jury decision-making in child sexual abuse trials. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 18, 263-269.
37.
KumkaleG. T.AlbarracínD. (2004). The sleeper effect in persuasion: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 143-172.
38.
LevettL. M.KoveraM. B. (2008). The effectiveness of opposing expert witnesses for educating jurors about unreliable expert evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 363-374.
39.
LevettL. M.KoveraM. B. (2009). Psychological mediators of the effects of opposing expert testimony on juror decisions. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 15, 124-148.
40.
LewandowskyS.EckerU. K. H.SeifertC. M.SchwarzN.CookJ. (2012). Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13, 106-131.
41.
LewisJ.SpeersT. (2003). Misleading media reporting? The MMR story. Nature Reviews: Immunology, 3, 913-918.
42.
LordC. G.RossL.LepperM. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2098-2109.
43.
MillerK. (1992). Smoking up a storm: Public relations and advertising in the construction of the cigarette problem, 1953-1954. Journalism Monographs, 136, 1-35.
44.
National Science Board. (2012). Science and engineering indicators 2012. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
45.
NerbJ.SpadaH.LayK. (2001). Environmental risk in the media: Modeling the reactions of the audience. In YounT. I. K. (Series Ed.) & BömG.NerbJ.McDanielsT.SpadaH. (Eds.), Research in social problems and public policy: Vol. 9. Environmental risks: Perception, evaluation and management (pp. 57-85). Bingley, England: Emerald Group.
46.
PainterJ. (2013). Climate change in the media: Reporting risk and uncertainty. London, England: I. B. Tauris.
PornpitakpanC. (2004). The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of five decades’ evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 243-281.
49.
PowellM.DunwoodyS.GriffinR.NeuwirthK. (2007). Exploring lay uncertainty about an environmental health risk. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 323-343.
50.
RyanM. (2001). Journalistic ethics, objectivity, existential journalism, standpoint epistemology, and public journalism. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 16, 3-22.
51.
StockingS. H. (1999). How journalists deal with scientific uncertainty. In FriedmanS. M.DunwoodyS.RogersC. L. (Eds.), Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science (pp. 23-41). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
52.
StockingS. H.HolsteinL. W. (2009). Manufacturing doubt: Journalists’ roles and the construction of ignorance in a scientific controversy. Public Understanding of Science, 18, 23-42.
53.
SturgisP.AllumN. (2004). Science in society: Re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Understanding of Science, 13, 55-74.
54.
WilsonK. M. (2000). Drought, debate, and uncertainty: measuring reporters’ knowledge and ignorance about climate change. Public Understanding of Science, 9, 1-13.
55.
ZehrS. C. (2000). Public representations of scientific uncertainty about global climate change. Public Understanding of Science, 9, 85-103.
