Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2018-12
Politicized Science Communication: Predicting Scientists’ Acceptance of Overstatements by Their Knowledge Certainty,Media Perceptions,and Presumed Media Effects
Partisans in mediated conflicts usually perceive hostile news media, anticipate undesired media effects, and intend to engage discursively. It is hypothesized that hostile media perceptions also encourage polarizing communication. This is tested for scientists involved in a politicized science dispute. German climate scientists (n = 131) firmly believe in anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Yet not all dismiss alternative hypotheses altogether. Results indicate that the more certain climate scientists are of AGW, the more they perceive that the news media downplay AGW and presume that the media nourish politicians’ doubts about it. This explains their justifications of overstatements of scientific findings in public.
AltheideD. L.SnowR. P. (1979). Media logic. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
2.
AndersonA. A.BrossardD.ScheufeleD. A.XenosM. A.LadwigP. (2014). The “Nasty Effect”: online incivility and risk perceptions of emerging technologies. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19, 373-387. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12009
3.
BarnidgeM.RojasH. (2014). Hostile media perceptions, presumed media influence, and political talk: Expanding the corrective action hypothesis. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 26, 135-156. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edt032
4.
BauerM. W. (2005). Public perceptions and mass media in the biotechnology controversy. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17, 5-22. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edh054
5.
BernhardU.DohleM. (2014). Do even journalists support media restrictions? Presumed political media influences and the consequences. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 91, 250-271.
6.
BolsenT.DruckmanJ. N. (2015). Counteracting the politicization of science. Journal of Communication, 65, 745-769. doi:10.1111/jcom.12171
7.
BolsenT.DruckmanJ. N.CookF. L. (2015). Citizens,’ scientists,’ and policy advisors’ beliefs about global warming. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 658, 271-295. doi:10.1177/0002716214558393
8.
BoykoffM. T.BoykoffJ. M. (2004). Balance as bias: Global warming and the US prestige press. Global Environmental Change, 14, 125-136. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2003.10.001
9.
ChoiJ.YangM.ChangJ. J. (2009). Elaboration of the hostile media phenomenon the roles of involvement, media skepticism, congruency of perceived media influence, and perceived opinion climate. Communication Research, 36, 54-75. doi:10.1177/0093650208326462
10.
CohenJ.WeimannG. (2008). Who’s afraid of reality shows? Exploring the effects of perceived influence of reality shows and the concern over their social effects on willingness to censor. Communication Research, 35, 382-397. doi:10.1177/0093650208315964
11.
CorleyE. A.ScheufeleD. A.HuQ. (2009). Of risks and regulations: how leading US nanoscientists form policy stances about nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 11, 1573-1585. doi:10.1007/s11051-009-9671-5
12.
DavisonW. P. (1983). The third-person effect in communication. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47, 1-15. doi:10.1086/268763
13.
DunwoodyS. (1999). Scientists, journalists, and the meaning of uncertainty. In FriedmanS.DunwoodyS.RogersC. (Eds.), Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science (pp. 59-80). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14.
DunwoodyS.BrossardD.DudoA. (2009). Socialization or rewards? Predicting US scientist-media interactions. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 86, 299-314. doi:10.1177/107769900908600203
15.
FeldmanL.HartP. S.LeiserowitzA.MaibachE.Roser-RenoufC. (2017). Do hostile media perceptions lead to action? The role of hostile media perceptions, political efficacy, and ideology in predicting climate change activism. Communication Research, 44, 1099-1124. doi:10.1177/0093650214565914
16.
FlipseS. M.OsseweijerP. (2013). Media attention to GM food cases: An innovation perspective. Public Understanding of Science, 22, 185-202. doi:10.1177/0963662512458631
17.
GervaisB. T. (2015). Incivility online: Affective and behavioral reactions to uncivil political posts in a web-based experiment. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 12, 167-185. doi:10.1080/19331681.2014.997416
18.
GuntherA. C. (1998). The persuasive press inference: Effects of mass media on perceived public opinion. Communication Research, 25, 486-504.
19.
GuntherA. C. (2008). Hostile media phenomenon. In DonsbachW. (Ed.), International encyclopedia of communication (pp. 2139-2143). Malden, MA: Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9781405186407.wbiech023
20.
GuntherA. C.BoltD.BorzekowskiD. L.LiebhartJ. L.DillardJ. P. (2006). Presumed influence on peer norms: How mass media indirectly affect adolescent smoking. Journal of Communication, 56, 52-68. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00002.x
21.
GuntherA. C.ChiaS. C. Y. (2001). Predicting pluralistic ignorance: The hostile media perception and its consequences. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 78, 688-701. doi:10.1177/107769900107800405
22.
GuntherA. C.StoreyJ. D. (2003). The influence of presumed influence. Journal of Communication, 53, 199-215. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2003.tb02586.x
23.
HartP. S.FeldmanL.LeiserowitzA.MaibachE. (2015). Extending the impacts of hostile media perceptions. Influences on discussion and opinion polarization in the context of climate change. Science Communication, 37, 506-532. doi:10.1177/1075547015592067
24.
HayesA. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Publications.
25.
HmielowskiJ. D.FeldmanL.MyersT. A.LeiserowitzA.MaibachE. (2014). An attack on science? Media use, trust in scientists, and perceptions of global warming. Public Understanding of Science, 23, 866-883. doi:10.1177/0963662513480091
26.
HoS. S.BinderA. R.BeckerA. B.MoyP.ScheufeleD. A.BrossardD.GuntherA. C. (2011). The role of perceptions of media bias in general and issue-specific political participation. Mass Communication and Society, 14, 343-374. doi:10.1080/15205436.2010.491933
27.
HollimanR. (2011). Advocacy in the tail: Exploring the implications of “climategate” for science journalism and public debate in the digital age. Journalism, 12, 832-846.
28.
HwangH.PanZ.SunY. (2008). Influence of hostile media perception on willingness to engage in discursive activities: An examination of the mediating role of media indignation. Media Psychology, 11, 76-97. doi:10.1080/15213260701813454
29.
IvanovaA.SchäferM. S.SchlichtingI.SchmidtA. (2013). Is there a mediatization of climate science? Results from a survey of German climate scientists. Science Communication, 35, 626-653. doi:10.1177/1075547012475226
30.
JacquesP. J.DunlapR. E.FreemanM. (2008). The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism. Environmental Politics, 17, 349-385.
31.
KaiserJ.RhombergM. (2016). Questioning the doubt: Climate skepticism in German newspaper reporting on COP17. Environmental Communication, 10, 556-574. doi:10.1080/17524032.2015.1050435
32.
KepplingerH. M.LemkeR. (2016). Instrumentalizing Fukushima: Comparing media coverage of Fukushima in Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and Switzerland. Political Communication, 33, 351-373. doi:10.1080/10584609.2015.1022240
33.
LeiserowitzA.MaibachE.Roser-RenoufC.RosenthalS.CutlerM.KotcherJ. (2017). Climate change in the American mind: October 2017. New Haven, CT: Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, Yale University and George Mason University.
34.
MatthesJ. (2013). The affective underpinnings of hostile media perceptions exploring the distinct effects of affective and cognitive involvement. Communication Research, 40, 360-387. doi:10.1177/0093650211420255
35.
MatthewsJ. (2015). Maintaining a politicised climate of opinion? Examining how political framing and journalistic logic combine to shape speaking opportunities in UK elite newspaper reporting of climate change. Public Understanding of Science, 26, 467-480. doi:10.1177/0963662515599909
36.
MaurerM. (2011). Wie Journalisten mit Ungewissheit umgehen. Eine Untersuchung am Beispiel der Berichterstattung über die Folgen des Klimawandels [How journalists deals with uncertainty. A study of news coverage of climate change]. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft, 59, 60-74. doi:10.5771/1615-634x-2011-1-60
37.
MutzD. C.ReevesB. (2005). The new videomalaise: Effects of televised incivility on political trust. American Political Science Review, 99, 1-15.
38.
NisbetM. C. (2014). Disruptive ideas: Public intellectuals and their arguments for action on climate change. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 5, 809-823.
39.
NisbetM. C.MarkowitzE. M. (2015). Expertise in an age of polarization evaluating scientists’ political awareness and communication behaviors. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 658, 136-154. doi:10.1177/0002716214559699
40.
Noelle-NeumannE. (1974). The spiral of silence a theory of public opinion. Journal of communication, 24(2), 43-51.
41.
PerloffR. M. (1999). The third person effect: A critical review and synthesis. Media Psychology, 1, 353-378. doi:10.1207/s1532785xmep0104_4
42.
PetersH. P. (2008). Scientists as public experts. In BucchiM.TrenchB. (Eds.), Handbook of public communication of science and technology (pp. 131-146). Oxon, UK: Routledge.
43.
PetersH. P.HeinrichsH. (2005). Öffentliche Kommunikation über Klimawandel und Sturmflutrisiken [Puvlic communication about climate change and risks of storm tides]. Jülich, Germany: Forschungszentrum Jülich.
44.
PielkeR. A. (2004). When scientists politicize science: making sense of controversy over the skeptical environmentalist. Environmental Science & Policy, 7, 405-417. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2004.06.004
45.
PostS. (2009). Klimakatastrophe oder Katastrophenklima? Die Berichterstattung über den Klimawandel aus Sicht der Klimaforscher [Climate catastrophe or catastrophic climate? Climate scientists’ views of News coverage of climate change]. Baden Baden, Germany: Nomos. doi:10.5771/9783845217543
46.
PostS. (2016). Communicating science in public controversies: Strategic considerations of the German climate scientists. Public Understanding of Science, 25, 61-70. doi:10.1177/0963662514521542
47.
PostS. (2017). Incivility in controversies: The influence of presumed media influence und perceived media hostility on the antagonists in the German conflict over aircraft noise. Communication Research, 44, 1149-1175. doi:10.1177/0093650215600491
48.
RojasH. (2010). “Corrective” actions in the public sphere: How perceptions of media and media effects shape political behaviors. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 22, 343-363. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edq018
49.
SarewitzD. (2004). How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environmental Science & Policy, 7, 385-403.
50.
SchäferM. S. (2016). Climate change communication in Germany. In MatthewN.HoS.MarkowitzE.O’NeillS.SchäferM. S.ThakerJ. (Eds.), Oxford encyclopedia of climate change communication. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
51.
ScheufeleD. A. (2014). Science communication as political communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(Suppl. 4), 13585-13592. doi:10.1073/pnas.1317516111
52.
Schmid-PetriH.ArltD. (2016).: Constructing an illusion of scientific uncertainty? Framing climate change in German and British print media. Communications: The European Journal of Communication Research, 41, 265-289. doi:10.1515/commun-2016-0011
53.
SchmidtG. A. (2015). What should climate scientists advocate for?Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 71, 70-74.
54.
SharmanA.HowarthC. (2017). Climate stories: Why do climate scientists and sceptical voices participate in the climate debate?Public Understanding of Science, 26, 826-842.
55.
SingerB. E.EndrenyP. (1987). Reporting hazards: Their benefits and costs. Journal of Communication, 37(3), 10-26. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1987.tb00991.x
56.
SnydermanM.RothmanS. (1988). The IQ controversy, the media and public policy. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
57.
StockingS. H.HolsteinL. W. (1993). Constructing and reconstructing scientific ignorance: Ignorance claims in science and journalism. Science Communication, 15, 186-210. doi:10.1177/107554709301500205
58.
StrömbäckJ. (2008). Four phases of mediatization: An analysis of the mediatization of politics. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 13, 228-246. doi:10.1177/1940161208319097
59.
SumnerP.Vivian-GriffithsS.BoivinJ.WilliamsA.VenetisC. A.DaviesA.. . . BoyF. (2014). The association between exaggeration in health related science news and academic press releases: retrospective observational study. British Medical Journal, 349, Article g7015. doi:10.1136/bmj.g7015
60.
TøsseS. E. (2013). Aiming for social or political robustness? Media strategies among climate scientists. Science Communication, 35, 32-55. doi:10.1177/1075547012438465
61.
Tal-OrN.TsfatiY.GuntherA. C. (2009). The influence of presumed media influence: Origins and implications of the third- person perception. In NabiR.OliverM. B. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of media processes and effects (pp. 99-112). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
62.
TsfatiY. (2007). Hostile media perceptions, presumed media influence, and minority alienation: The case of Arabs in Israel. Journal of Communication, 57, 632-651.
63.
TsfatiY.CohenJ. (2005). The influence of presumed media influence on democratic legitimacy the case of Gaza settlers. Communication Research, 32, 794-821. doi:10.1177/0093650205281057
64.
TsfatiY.CohenJ.GuntherA. C. (2011). The influence of presumed media influence on news about science and scientists. Science Communication, 33, 143-166.
65.
ValloneR. P.RosseL.LepperM. R. (1985). The hostile media phenomenon: Biased perception and perceptions of media bias in coverage of the Beirut massacre. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 577-585. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.49.3.577
66.
WeingartP. (1998). Science and the media. Research Policy, 27, 869-879. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(98)00096-1
67.
WeingartP.EngelsA.PansegrauP. (2000). Risks of communication: discourses on climate change in science, politics, and the mass media. Public Understanding of Science, 9, 261-283. doi:10.1088/0963-6625/9/3/304
68.
YlönenM.LitmanenT.KojoM.LindellP. (2017). The (de)politicisation of nuclear power: The Finnish discussion after Fukushima. Public Understanding of Science, 26, 260-274. doi:10.1177/0963662515613678
