In the context of public introductions to emerging technologies, this study examined effects of priming and Web site interactivity on adolescents’ attitude development and information processing. In a four (priming) by three (interactivity levels) experiment, participants (N = 273) were required to search for and process Web-based information about ecogenomics. Results showed that priming ecogenomics as biotechnology, ecology, economy, or science in general did not affect attitude development. Interactivity levels, manipulated as low, medium, and high, were found to influence adolescents’ time invested in the information-processing task, perceived cognitive load, and Web site evaluations.
Beetlestone, J.G., Johnson, C.H., Quin, M., & White, H. ( 1998). The science center movement: Contexts, practice, next challenges. Public Understanding of Science, 7, 5-26.
2.
Bonfadelli, H., Dahinden, U., & Leonarz, M. ( 2002). Biotechnology in Switzerland: High on the public agenda, but only moderate support. Public Understanding of Science , 11, 113-130.
3.
Bos, M.J.W., Koolstra, C.M., & Willems, J. ( 2009). Adolescent responses toward a new technology: First associations, information seeking, and affective responses to ecogenomics . Public Understanding of Science, 18, 243-253.
4.
Boyle, M.P., Schmierbach, M., Armstrong, C.L., Cho, J., Mccluskey, M., Mcleod, D.M., et al. (2006). Expressive responses to news stories about extremist groups: A framing experiment. Journal of Communication , 56, 271-288.
5.
Brewer, P.R., Graf, J., & Willnat, L. ( 2003). Priming or framing: Influence on attitudes toward foreign countries. International Communication Gazette, 65, 493-508.
6.
Bucchi, M., & Neresini, F. ( 2002). Biotech remains unloved by the more informed: The media may be providing the message-but is anyone heeding the call? Nature, 416, 261.
7.
Burgoon, J.K., Bonito, J.A., Ramirez, A., Jr., Dunbar, N.E., Kam, K., & Fischer, J. ( 2002). Testing the interactivity principle: Effects of mediation, propinquity, and verbal and nonverbal modalities in interpersonal interaction . Journal of Communication, 52, 657-677.
8.
Cobb, M.D. ( 2005). Framing effects on public opinion about nanotechnology . Science Communication, 27, 221-239.
9.
Cobb, M.D., & Macoubrie, J. ( 2004). Public perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks, benefits and trust. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 6, 395-405.
10.
Cocheret de la Monière, E. (2006). De betrokken burger: Een betoog voor meer interactive wetenschapscommunicatie [The engaged citizen: An argument for more interactive science communication]. In B. Broekhans, A. E. Dijkstra , P. Groenewegen, & C. M. Koolstra (Eds.), Verbeelding van wetenschap, Jaarboek kennissamenleving 2 [Images of sciences, Yearbook knowledge society] (pp. 54-68). Amsterdam: Aksant.
11.
Cohen, J. ( 1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin , 112, 155-159.
12.
Daniel, R. ( 2004). The soil metagenome: A rich resource for the discovery of novel natural products. Current Opinion in Biotechnology , 15, 199-204.
13.
Demain, A.L., & Adrio, J.L. ( 2008). Contributions of microorganisms to industrial biology . Molecular Biotechnology, 38, 41-55.
14.
Eagly, A.H., & Chaiken, S. ( 1993). The psychology of attitudes. New York : Harcourt, Brace Jovanovich.
15.
European Commission. (2006). Europeans and biotechnology ion 2005. Patterns and trends. Special Eurobarometer 244b. Retrieved March 20, 2009, from http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_244b_en.pdf
16.
European Commission. (2008). Attitudes of European citizens toward the environment. Special Eurobarometer, 295. Retrieved March 20, 2009, from http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_295_en.pdf
17.
Eveland, W.P., & Dunwoody, S. ( 2001). User control and structural isomorphism or disorientation and cognitive load? Learning from the Web versus print. Communication Research, 28, 48-78.
18.
Festinger, L. ( 1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Gaskell, G., Allum, N., Bauer, M., Durant, J., Allansdottir, A., Bonfadelli, H., et al. (2000). Biotechnology and the European public. Nature Biotechnology, 18, 935-938. Retrieved June 1, 2009, from http://64.26.159.139/docroot/articles/2000253-A.pdf
21.
Jacobson, S.K., & Marynowski, S.B. (1997). Public attitudes and knowledge about ecosystem management on Department of Defense Land in Florida . Conservation Biology, 11, 770-781.
22.
Jensen, J.F. ( 1998). Interactivity: Tracking a new concept in media and communication studies. Nordicom Review, 19, 185-204.
23.
Kalyanaraman, S., & Sundar, S.S. ( 2006). The psychological appeal of personalized content in Web portals: Does customization affect attitudes and behavior? Journal of Communication, 56, 110-132.
24.
Kim, H., & Hirtle, S.C. ( 1995). Spatial metaphors and disorientation in hypertext browsing . Behaviour & Information Technology, 14, 239-250.
25.
Kiousis, S. ( 2002). Interactivity: A concept explication. New Media & Society, 4, 355-383.
26.
Kiousis, S., & McCombs, M. ( 2004). Agenda-setting effects and attitude strength: Political figures during the 1996 presidential election. Communication Research, 31, 36-57.
27.
Koolstra, C.M., & Bos, M.J.W. ( 2009). The development of an instrument to determine different levels of interactivity. International Communication Gazette , 71, 373-391.
28.
Langer, M.L., Gabor, E.M., Liebeton, K., Meurer, G., Niehaus, F., Schulze, R., et al. (2006). Metagenomics: An inexhaustible access to nature’s diversity. Biotechnology Journal, 1, 815-821.
29.
Lee, C.-J., Scheufele, D.A., & Lewenstein, B.V. (2005). Public attitudes toward emerging technologies: Examining the interactive effects of cognitions and affect on public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Science Communication, 27, 240-267.
30.
Lefevre, F., Robe, P., Jarrin, C., Ginolhac, A., Zago, C., Auriol, D., et al. (2008). Drugs from hidden bugs: Their discovery via untapped resources. Research in Microbiology, 159, 153-161.
31.
Liu, Y., & Shrum, L.J. ( 2002). What is interactivity and is it always such a good thing? Implications of definition, person, and situation for the influence of interactivity on advertising effectiveness. Journal of Advertising, 31, 53-64.
32.
Macedo-Rouet, M., Rouet, J.-F., Epstein, I., & Fayard, P. ( 2003). Effects of online reading on popular science comprehension . Science Communication, 25, 99-128.
33.
MacGregor, S.K., & Lou, Y. ( 2004). Web-based learning: How task scaffolding and Web site design support knowledge acquisition. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37, 161-175.
34.
McMillan, S.J. ( 2002). Exploring models of interactivity from multiple research traditions: Users, documents, and systems. In L. A. Lievrouw & S. Livingstone (Eds.), The handbook of new media: Social shaping and consequences of ICTs (pp. 163-182). Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage.
35.
McMillan, S.J., & Hwang, J.-S. ( 2002). Measures of perceived interactivity: An exploration of communication, user control, and time in shaping perceptions of interactivity . Journal of Advertising, 31, 41-54.
36.
Metzger, M.J., Flanagin, A.J., & Zwarun, L. ( 2003). College student web use, perceptions of information credibility, and verification behaviour. Computers & Education , 41, 271-290.
37.
Miller, S. ( 2001). Public understanding of science at the crossroads . Public Understanding of Science, 10, 115-120.
38.
Nahl, D., & Harada, V.H. ( 2004). Composing Boolean search statements: Self-confidence, concept analysis, search logic, and errors. In M. K. Chelton & C. Cool (Eds.), Youth information-seeking behavior: Theories, models, and issues (pp. 119-144). Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.
39.
Nisbet, M.C. ( 2004). The polls-trends: Public opinion about stem cell research and human cloning. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68, 131-154.
40.
O’Keefe, D.J. ( 2007). Post hoc power, observed power, a priori power, retrospective power, prospective power, achieved power: Sorting out appropriate uses of statistical power analyses. Communication Methods and Measures , 1, 291-299.
41.
Orbell, S., & Hagger, M. ( 2006). Temporal framing and the decision to take part in type 2 diabetes screening: Effects of individual differences in consideration of future consequences on persuasion. Health Psychology, 25, 537-548.
42.
Petit, R.K. ( 2004). Soil DNA libraries for anticancer drug discovery . Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology, 54, 1-6.
43.
Petty, R.E., & Cacioppo, J.T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York : Springer Verlag.
44.
Priest, S.H. ( 2006). The public opinion climate for gene technologies in Canada and the United States: Competing voices, contrasting frames. Public Understanding of Science, 15, 55-71.
45.
Rafaeli, S. ( 1988). Interactivity: From new media to communication . In R. P. Hawkins, J. M. Wiemann, & S. Pingree (Eds.), Advancing communication science: Merging mass and interpersonal processes (pp. 110-134). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
46.
Rafaeli, S., & Sudweeks, F. ( 1997). Networked interactivity. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 2. Retrieved October 26, 2006, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol2/issue4/rafaeli.sudweeks.html
47.
Riesenfeld, C.S., Goodman, R.M., & Handelsman, J. (2004). Uncultured soil bacteria are a reservoir of new antibiotic resistance genes. Environmental Microbiology, 6, 981-989.
48.
Roelofsen, A., Broerse, J.E.W., De Cock Buning, Tj., & Bunders, J.F.G. (2008). Exploring the future of ecological genomics: Integrating CTA with vision assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 75, 334-355.
49.
Rowe, G., Horlick-Jones, T., Walls, J., & Pidgeon, N. ( 2005). Difficulties in evaluating public engagement initiatives: Reflections on an evaluation of the UK GM Nation? Public debate about transgenic crops. Public Understanding of Science, 14, 331-352.
50.
Scheufele, D.A. ( 2000). Agenda-setting, priming, and framing revisited: Another look at cognitive effects of political communication. Mass Communication and Society, 3, 297-316.
51.
Scheufele, D.A., & Lewenstein, B.V. (2005). The public and nanotechnology: How citizens make sense of emerging Technologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 7, 659-667.
52.
Scheufele, D.A., & Tewksbury, D. ( 2007). Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effects models. Journal of Communication, 57, 9-20.
53.
Schütz, H., & Wiedemann, P.M. (2008). Framing effects on risk perception of nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science , 17, 369-379.
54.
Shanahan, J., Scheufele, D., & Lee, E. ( 2001). Trends: Attitudes about agricultural biotechnology and genetically modified organisms. Public Opinion Quarterly , 65, 267-281.
55.
Sundar, S.S., & Kalyanaraman, S. (2004). Arousal, memory, and impression-formation effects of animation speed in web advertising. Journal of Advertising, 33, 7-17.
56.
Smitt, N. ( 1996). Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha. Psychological Assessment8, 350-353.
57.
Sundar, S.S., Kalyanaraman, S., & Brown, J. ( 2003). Explicating web site interactivity: Impression formation effects in political campaign sites. Communication Research , 30, 30-59.
58.
Tremayne, M., & Dunwoody, S. ( 2001). Interactivity, information processing, and learning on the World Wide Web. Science Communication, 23, 111-134.
59.
Van Woerkum, C., & Van der Auweraert, A. (2004). Wetenschapscommunicatie: Where science meets society [Science communication: Where science meets society] . In C. J. Hamelink, I. van Veen, & J. W. J. T. Willems (Eds.), Interactieve wetenschapscommunicatie [Interactive science communication] (pp. 43-53). Bussum, the Netherlands: Couthinho.
60.
Vorderer, P., Knobloch, S., & Schramm, H. ( 2001). Does entertainment suffer from interactivity? The impact of watching an interactive TV movie on viewers’ experience of entertainment . Media Psychology, 3, 343-363.
61.
Weigold, M.F., & Treise, D. ( 2004). Attracting teen surfers to science web sites. Public Understanding of Science, 13, 229-248.
62.
Whitmire, E. ( 2004). The relationship between undergraduates’ epistemological beliefs, reflective judgment and their information-seeking behavior. Information Processing & Management, 40, 97-111.
63.
Wu, G. ( 1999). Perceived interactivity and attitude toward website . In M. S. Roberts (Ed.), Proceedings of the American Academy of Advertising (pp. 254-262). Gainesville : University of Florida.
64.
Wu, Y-T., & Tsai, C-C. ( 2005). Information commitments: Evaluative standards and information searching strategies in web-based learning environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 374-385.
65.
Wynne, B. ( 2005). Reflexing complexity: Post-genomic knowledge and reductionist returns in public science. Theory, Culture & Society, 22, 67-94.
