Can’t You All Just Get Along? Effects of Scientific Disagreement and Incivility on Attention to and Trust in Science

Abstract

Disagreement and incivility are increasingly common in science communication. While previous work has explored effects on issue attitudes, it has not examined how disagreement and incivility in news coverage influence attention to and trust in science. In this study, we investigate how civil and uncivil disagreement about non-politicized issues affects attention to science news, evaluations of research, and scientific trust. Results reveal that disagreement and incivility can not only lead to less attention to and acceptance of particular science issues, but also broader mistrust of scientists and scientific methods.

Keywords

scientific trust attention disagreement incivility science news

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Achterberg

de Koster

van der Waal

(2017). A science confidence gap: Education, trust in scientific methods, and trust in scientific institutions in the United States, 2014. Public Understanding of Science, 26(6), 704–720. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515617367

Aklin

Urpelainen

(2014). Perceptions of scientific dissent undermine public support for environmental policy. Environmental Science & Policy, 38, 173–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.10.006

Anderson

A. A.

Brossard

Scheufele

D. A.

Xenos

M. A.

Ladwig

(2014). The “nasty effect”: Online incivility and risk perceptions of emerging technologies: Crude comments and concern. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(3), 373–387. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12009

Anderson

A. A.

Scheufele

D. A.

Brossard

Corley

E. A.

(2012). The role of media and deference to scientific authority in cultivating trust in sources of information about emerging technologies. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 24(2), 225–237. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edr032

Anderson

A. A.

Yeo

S. K.

Brossard

Scheufele

D. A.

Xenos

M. A.

(2018). Toxic talk: How online incivility can undermine perceptions of media. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 30(1), 156–168. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edw022

Bennett

W. L.

Lawrence

R. G.

Livingston

(2007). When the press fails. University of Chicago Press.

Berger

Milkman

K. L.

(2012). What makes online content viral? Journal of Marketing Research, 49(2), 192–205. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.10.0353

Besley

J. C.

Dudo

A. D.

Yuan

Ghannam

N. A.

(2016). Qualitative interviews with science communication trainers about communication objectives and goals. Science Communication, 38(3), 356–381. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547016645640

Bobkowski

P. S.

(2015). Sharing the news: Effects of informational utility and opinion leadership on online news sharing. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 92(2), 320–345. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699015573194

10.

Borah

(2014). Does it matter where you read the news story? Interaction of incivility and news frames in the political blogosphere. Communication Research, 41(6), 809–827. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650212449353

11.

Boykoff

M. T.

Boykoff

J. M.

(2007). Climate change and journalistic norms: A case-study of US mass-media coverage. Geoforum, 38(6), 1190–1204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2007.01.008

12.

Brooks

D. J.

Geer

J. G.

(2007). Beyond negativity: The effects of incivility on the electorate. American Journal of Political Science, 51(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00233.x

13.

Cacciatore

M. A.

Browning

Scheufele

D. A.

Brossard

Xenos

M. A.

Corley

E. A.

(2018). Opposing ends of the spectrum: Exploring trust in scientific and religious authorities. Public Understanding of Science, 27, 11–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662516661090

14.

Chinn

Hart

P. S.

Soroka

(2020). Politicization and polarization in climate change news content, 1985-2017. Science Communication, 42(1), 112–129. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547019900290

15.

Chinn

Lane

D. S.

Hart

P. S.

(2018). In consensus we trust? Persuasive effects of scientific consensus communication. Public Understanding of Science, 27(7), 807–823. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662518791094

16.

Davenport

(2018, October 7). Major climate report describes a strong risk of crisis as early as 2040. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/07/climate/ipcc-climate-report-2040.html

17.

Dieckmann

N. F.

Johnson

B. B.

Gregory

Mayorga

Han

P. K. J.

Slovic

(2015). Public perceptions of expert disagreement: Bias and incompetence or a complex and random world? Public Understanding of Science, 26(3), 325–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515603271

18.

Dixon

G. N.

Clarke

C. E.

(2013). Heightening uncertainty around certain science: Media coverage, false balance, and the autism-vaccine controversy. Science Communication, 35(3), 358–382.

19.

Dominus

(2017). When the revolution came for Amy Cuddy. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/18/magazine/when-the-revolution-came-for-amy-cuddy.html

20.

Druckman

J. N.

Bolsen

(2011). Framing, motivated reasoning, and opinions about emergent technologies. Journal of Communication, 61(4), 659–688. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01562.x

21.

Dudo

(2015). Scientists, the media, and the public communication of science: Scientists’ public communication activities. Sociology Compass, 9(9), 761–775. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12298

22.

Eiser

J. R.

Stafford

Henneberry

Catney

(2009). “Trust me, I’m a scientist (not a developer)”: Perceived expertise and motives as predictors of trust in assessment of risk from contaminated land. Risk Analysis, 29(2), 288–297. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01131.x

23.

Gelman

(2016). The time-reversal heuristic—A new way to think about a published finding that is followed up by a large, preregistered replication (in context of Amy Cuddy’s claims about power pose). http://andrewgelman.com/2016/01/26/more-power-posing/

24.

Gervais

B. T.

(2014). Following the news? Reception of uncivil partisan media and the use of incivility in political expression. Political Communication, 31(4), 564–583. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2013.852640

25.

Hart

P. S.

Chinn

Soroka

(2020). Politicization and polarization in COVID-19 news coverage. Science Communication, 42, 679–697. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547020950735

26.

Hasell

Tallapragada

Brossard

(2019). Deference to scientific authority, trust in science, and credibility of scientific expertise: Distinguishing the three connected constructs in science communication [Conference session]. International Communications Association Annual Conference, Washington, D.C.

27.

Hasell

Weeks

B. E.

(2016). Partisan provocation: The role of partisan news use and emotional responses in political information sharing in social media. Human Communication Research, 42(4), 641–661. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12092

28.

Hmielowski

J. D.

Feldman

Myers

T. A.

Leiserowitz

Maibach

(2014). An attack on science? Media use, trust in scientists, and perceptions of global warming. Public Understanding of Science, 23(7), 866–883. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662513480091

29.

S. S.

Scheufele

D. A.

Corley

E. A.

(2011). Value Predispositions, mass media, and attitudes toward nanotechnology: The interplay of public and experts. Science Communication, 33(2), 167–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547010380386

30.

Huddy

Feldman

Cassese

(2007). On the distinct political effects of anxiety and anger. In Neuman

R. W.

Marcus

G. E.

Crigler

MacKuen

(Eds.), The affect effect: Dynamics of emotion in political thinking and behavior (pp, 202–230). The University of Chicago Press.

31.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2018). Summary for Policymakers. In: Masson-Delmotte

Zhai

Pörtner

H.-O.

Roberts

Skea

Shukla

P.R.

Pirani

Moufouma-Okia

Péan

Pidcock

Connors

Matthews

J.B.R.

Chen

Zhou

Gomis

M.I.

Lonnoy

Maycock

Tignor

Waterfield

(Eds.), Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty (p. 32). World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.

32.

Kahneman

Tversky

(1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–292.

33.

Karnowski

Kümpel

A. S.

Leonhard

Leiner

D. J.

(2017). From incidental news exposure to news engagement. How perceptions of the news post and news usage patterns influence engagement with news articles encountered on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 76:, 42–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.06.041

34.

Lee

C.-J.

(2005). Public attitudes toward emerging technologies: Examining the interactive effects of cognitions and affect on public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Science Communication, 27(2), 240–267. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547005281474

35.

Malka

Krosnick

J. A.

Debell

Pasek

Schneider

(2009). Featuring skeptics in news media stories about global warming reduces public beliefs in the seriousness of global warming. Woods Institute for the Environment. http://woods.stanford.edu/research/global-warming-skeptics.html

36.

Masullo Chen

(2017). Online political discourse: Exploring differences in effects of civil and uncivil disagreement in news website comments. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 61(1), 108–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2016.1273922

37.

McCright

A. M.

Dunlap

R. E.

(2010). Anti-reflexivity. Theory, Culture & Society, 27(2–3), 100–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276409356001

38.

Mutz

D. C.

(2007). Effects of “in-your-face” television discourse on perceptions of a legitimate opposition. American Political Science Review, 101(4), 621–635. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000305540707044X

39.

Mutz

D. C.

Reeves

(2005). The new videomalaise: Effects of televised incivility on political trust. American Political Science Review, 99(1), 1–15.

40.

Nicholas

Yong

(2020). Fauci: “Bizarre” White House behavior only hurts the president. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/07/trump-fauci-coronavirus-pandemic-oppo/614224/

41.

Oeldorf-Hirsch

Sundar

S. S.

(2015). Posting, commenting, and tagging: Effects of sharing news stories on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 44:, 240–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.024

42.

Simis-Wilkinson

Madden

Lassen

Y.-F.

Brossard

Scheufele

D. A.

Xenos

M. A.

(2018). Scientists joking on social media: An empirical analysis of #overlyhonestmethods. Science Communication, 40(3), 314–339. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547018766557

43.

Sobieraj

Berry

J. M.

(2011). From incivility to outrage: Political discourse in blogs, talk radio, and cable news. Political Communication, 28(1), 19–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2010.542360

44.

Thorson

Vraga

Ekdale

(2010). Credibility in context: How uncivil online commentary affects news credibility. Mass Communication and Society, 13(3), 289–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205430903225571

45.

Turcotte

York

Irving

Scholl

R. M.

Pingree

R. J.

(2015). News recommendations from social media opinion leaders: Effects on media trust and information seeking. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(5), 520–535. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12127

46.

Valentino

a Hutchings

V. L.

Banks

A. J.

Davis

A. K.

(2008). Is a worried citizen a good citizen? Emotions, political information seeking, and learning via the Internet. Political Psychology, 29(2), 247–273. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2008.00625.x

47.

Yuan

Besley

J. C.

Lou

(2018). Does being a jerk work? Examining the effect of aggressive risk communication in the context of science blogs. Journal of Risk Research, 21(4), 502–520. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2016.1223159

48.

Yuan

Besley

J. C.

(2019). Should scientists talk about GMOs nicely? Exploring the effects of communication styles, source expertise, and preexisting attitude. Science Communication, 41(3), 267–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547019837623

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.05 MB