This study tested responses to traditional or interactive material about NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) project. A total of 660 participants were divided into three groups: a science guide group that viewed an online PDF, an interactive group that viewed a YouTube video and FlyBy simulation, and a control group that received no supporting texts about JWST. Interactive media outperformed traditional texts in increasing levels of support for JWST construction. However, the traditional text and interactive media showed no difference in other measures of support for JWST construction. No texts increased support for NASA funding or prompted participant advocacy.
BirchH.WeitkampE. (2010). Podologues: Conversations created by science podcasts. New Media & Society, 12, 889-909.
2.
BrewerP. R.LeyB. L. (2011). Multiple exposures: Scientific controversy, the media, and public responses to bisphenol A. Science Communication, 33, 76-97.
3.
CacciatoreM. A.ScheufeleD. A.CorleyE. A. (2014). Another (methodological) look at knowledge gaps and the Internet’s potential for closing them. Public Understanding of Science, 23, 376-394.
4.
ClaassenR. L.MonsonJ. Q. (2013, February). New media, civic learning, and civic action among young people. Paper presented at the APSA Teaching & Learning conference, Long Beach, CA.
5.
CobbW. N. W. (2011). Who’s supporting space activities? An “issue public” for US space policy. Space Policy, 27, 234-239.
6.
CobbW. N. W. (2015). Trending now: Using big data to examine public opinion of space policy. Space Policy, 32, 11-16.
7.
CookS. B.DrugerM.Ploutz-SnyderL. L. (2011). Scientific literacy and attitudes towards American space exploration among college undergraduates. Space Policy, 27(1), 48-52.
8.
CoyleJ. R.ThorsonE. (2001). The effects of progressive levels of interactivity and vividness in web marketing sites. Journal of Advertising, 30, 65-77.
9.
CyrD.HeadM.IvanovA. (2009). Perceived interactivity leading to e-loyalty: Development of a model for cognitive–affective user responses. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 67, 850-869.
10.
DimopoulosK.AsimakopoulosA. (2010). Science on the web: Secondary school students’ navigation patterns and preferred pages’ characteristics. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19, 246-265.
11.
EhrenfreundP.PeterN.BillingsL. (2010). Building long-term constituencies for space exploration: the challenge of raising public awareness and engagement in the United States and in Europe. Acta Astronautica, 67, 502-512.
12.
EntradasM.MillerS.PetersH. P. (2011). Preaching to the converted? An analysis of the UK public for space exploration. Public Understanding of Science, 22, 269-286.
13.
GehlR. W. (2011). The archive and the processor: The internal logic of web 2.0. New Media & Society, 13, 1228-1244.
14.
GaoQ.RauP. L. P.SalvendyG. (2009). Perception of interactivity: Affects of four key variables in mobile advertising. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 25, 479-505.
15.
HineC. (2014). Headlice eradication as everyday engagement with science: An analysis of online parenting discussions. Public Understanding of Science, 23, 574-591.
16.
JangS. M. (2014). Seeking congruency or incongruency online? Examining selective exposure to four controversial science issues. Science Communication, 36, 143-167.
KimH.StoutP. A. (2010). The effects of interactivity on information processing and attitude change: Implications for mental health stigma. Health Communication, 25, 142-154.
19.
Knobloch-WesterwickS.JohnsonB. K.SilverN. A.WesterwickA. (2015). Science exemplars in the eye of the beholder: How exposure to online science information affects attitudes. Science Communication, 37, 575-601.
20.
KuangK.ChoH. (2015). Delivering vaccination messages via interactive channels: Examining the interaction among threat, response efficacy, and interactivity in risk communication. Journal of Risk Research, 19, 476-495.
21.
LasloE.Baram-TsabariA.LewensteinB. V. (2011). A growth medium for the message: Online science journalism affordances for exploring public discourse of science and ethics. Journalism, 12, 847-870.
22.
LauniusR. D. (2003). Public opinion polls and perceptions of US human spaceflight. Space Policy, 19, 163-175.
23.
LombardM.Snyder-DuchJ. J. (2001) :Interactive advertising and presence: A framework. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 1(2), 56-65.
24.
LustriaM. L. (2007). Can interactivity make a difference? Effects of interactivity on the comprehension of an attitudes toward online health content. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58, 766-776.
25.
LuzonM. J. (2013). Public communication of science in blogs: Recontextualizing scientific discourse for a diversified audience. Written Communication, 30, 428-457.
26.
MahmoudA.AuterP. J. (2009). The interactive nature of computer mediated communication. American Communication Journal, 11, 99-122.
27.
MinolK.SpelsbergG.SchulteE.MorrisN. (2007). Portals, blogs and co.: The role of the Internet as a medium of science communication. Biotechnology Journal, 2, 1129-1140.
OhJ.SundarS. S. (2015). How does interactivity persuade? An experimental test of interactivity on cognitive absorption, elaboration, and attitudes. Journal of Communication, 65, 213-236.
31.
QuiringO. (2009). What do users associate with ‘interactivity’? A qualitative study on user schemata. New Media & Society, 11, 899-920.
32.
RafaeliS.ArielY. (2007). Assessing interactivity in CMC research. In JoinsonA. N.McKennaK. Y. A.PostmesT.ReipsU. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of internet psychology (pp. 71-88). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
33.
ReevesB.NassC. (2000). Perceptual user interfaces: Perceptual bandwidth. Communications of the ACM, 43(3), 65-70.
34.
RozendaalM. C.KeysonD. V.de RidderH. (2007). Interactivity, vividness and richness in user interfaces. In NijholtA.StockO.NishidaT. (Eds.), International conference on social intelligence design (SID07) (pp. 269-278). Enschede, Netherlands: University of Twente. Retrieved from http://eprints.eemcs.utwente.nl/10263/01/sid07.pdf#page=277
35.
SchmidS.YeungA.GeorgeA. V.KingM. M. (2009). Designing effective e-learning environments: Should we use still pictures, animations or interactivity? In BhowonM. G.Jhaumeer-LaulloS.Kam WahH. L.RamasamiP. (Eds.), Chemistry education in the ICT age (pp. 235-247). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
36.
SegevE.Baram-TsabariA. (2010). Seeking science information online: Data mining Google to better understand the roles of the media and the education system. Public Understanding of Science, 21, 813-829.
37.
SmithL. F.ArcandK. K.SmithJ. KSmithR. K.BookbinderJ.WatzkeM. (2014). Examining perceptions of astronomy images across mobile platforms. Journal of Science Communication, 13(2), 2-15.
38.
SmithL. F.SmithJ. K.ArcandK. K.SmithR. K.BookbinderJ.KeachK. (2011). Aesthetics and astronomy: Studying the public’s perception and understanding of imagery from space. Science Communication, 33, 201-238.
39.
SohnD. (2011). Anatomy of interaction experience: Distinguishing sensory, semantic, and behavioral dimensions of interactivity. New Media & Society, 13, 1320-1335.
40.
SteinbergA. (2011). Space policy responsiveness: The relationship between public opinion and NASA funding. Space Policy, 27, 240-246.
41.
SteinbergA. (2013). Influencing public opinion of space policy: Programmatic effects versus education effects. Astropolitics, 11, 187-202.
42.
SundarS. S. (2007). Social psychology of interactivity in human-website interaction. In JoinsonA. N.McKennaK. Y. A.PostmesT.ReipsU. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of internet psychology (pp. 89-104). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
43.
TreiseD.Walsh-ChildersK.WeigoldM.F.FriedmanM. (2003). Cultivating the science internet audience: Impact of brand and domain on source credibility for science information. Science Communication, 24, 309-332.
44.
VeltriG. A. (2012). Microblogging and nanotweets: Nanotechnology on twitter. Public Understanding of Science, 22, 832-849.
45.
WilloughbyJ. F.L’EngleK. L. (2015). Influence of perceived interactivity of a sexual health text message service on young people’s attitudes, satisfaction and repeat use. Health Education Research, 30, 996-1003.
46.
WinterS.KramerN.C. (2012). Selecting science information in web 2.0: How source cues, message sidedness, and need for cognition influence users’ exposure to blog posts. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18, 80-96.
47.
XenosM.MoyP. (2007). Direct and differential effects of the Internet on political and civic engagement. Journal of Communication, 57, 704-718.
48.
YarosR. A. (2011). Effects of text and hypertext structures on user interest and understanding of science and technology. Science Communication, 33, 275-308.
