According to the authors, much of media coverage of science and scientists is explained by scientists’ beliefs regarding the impact of appearing in media on their careers. Their argument rests on recent advances in communication theory, stressing “the influence of presumed media influence,” and contributes to our understanding of why some scientists receive more media coverage than others. Combined data from a survey of scholars in an Israeli research university (n = 166) and content analysis data on the frequency of the scholars’ appearances in the media were used to test this argument. Structural equation modeling revealed that the scholars’ belief in the influence of media increased their motivation and efforts to obtain media coverage, which in turn was related to the number of their actual media appearances.
Andsager, J., & White, H.A. ( 2007). Self versusothers: Media, messages, and the third person effect. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
2.
Berkowitz, D.A. ( 2009). Reporters and their sources. In K. Wahl-Jorgensen & T. Hanitzsch (Eds.), The handbook of journalism studies (pp. 102-115). New York, NY : Routledge.
3.
Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. ( 2005). Does the h-index for ranking of scientists really work ? Scientometrics, 65, 391-392.
4.
Boykoff, M.T. ( 2008). Lost in translation? United States television news coverage of anthropogenic climate change, 1995-2004. Climatic Change , 86(1-2), 1-11.
5.
Brechman, J., Lee, C.J., & Cappella, J.N. (2009). Lost in translation? A comparison of cancer-genetics reporting in the press release and its subsequent coverage in the press. Science Communication, 30, 453-474.
6.
Chia, S. ( 2006). How peers mediate media influence on adolescents’ sexual attitudes and sexual behavior. Journal of Communication , 56, 585-606.
7.
Cohen, A., Vigoda, E., & Samorly, A. ( 2001). Analysis of the mediating effect of personal-psychological variables on the relationship between socioeconomic status and political participation: A structural equations framework. Political Psychology, 22, 727-757.
8.
Cohen, J., & Tsfati, Y. ( 2009). The influence of presumed media influence on strategic voting. Communication Research, 36, 359-378.
9.
Cohen, J., Tsfati, Y., & Sheafer, T. ( 2008). The influence of presumed media influence in politics: Do politicians’ perceptions of media power matter. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72, 331-344.
10.
Cronin, B., & Meho, L. ( 2006) Using the h-Index to rank influential information scientists , Journal of the American Association for Information Science and Technology, 57, 1275-1278.
11.
Davison, W.P. ( 1983). The third-person effect in communication. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47, 1-15.
12.
Dillard, J.P., Shen, L., & Vail, R.G. ( 2007). Does perceived message effectiveness cause persuasion or vice versa? Human Communication Research, 33, 467-488.
13.
Dunwoody, S., Brossard, D., & Dudo, A. ( 2009). Socialization or rewards? Predicting U.S. scientist-media interactions. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly , 86, 299-314.
14.
Dunwoody, S., & Ryan, M. ( 1985). Scientific barriers to the popularization of science in the mass media. Journal of Communication, 35, 26-42.
15.
Eysenck, S.B.G., & Eysenck, H.J. ( 1964). An improved short questionnaire for the measurement of extraversion and neuroticism. Life Sciences, 3, 1103-1109.
16.
Gans, H.J. ( 1979). Deciding what’s news: A study of CBS evening news, NBC nightly news, Newsweek, and Time. New York, NY: Pantheon.
17.
Gunther, A.C. ( 1995). Overrating the X-rating: The third-person perception and support for censorship of pornography. Journal of Communication , 45(1), 27-38.
18.
Gunther, A.C., Bolt, D., Borzekowski, D.L.B., Liebhart, J.L., & Dillard, J.P. ( 2006). Presumed influence on peer norms: How mass media indirectly affect adolescent smoking. Journal of Communication, 56, 52-68.
19.
Gunther, A.C., Perloff, R.M., & Tsfati Y. ( 2008). Public opinion and the third-person effect. In W. Donsbach & M. Traugott (Eds.), Handbook of public opinion research (pp. 184-191). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20.
Gunther, A.C., & Storey, J.D. ( 2003). The influence of presumed influence. Journal of Communication, 53, 199-215.
21.
Hartz, J., & Chappell, R. ( 1997). Worlds apart: How the distance between science and journalism threatens American future. Nashville, TN: First Amendment Center.
22.
Hircsh, J.E. ( 2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0508/0508025v5.pdf
23.
Hoffner, C., Buchanan, M., Anderson, J.D., Hubbs, L.A., Kamigaki, S.K., Kowalczyk, L., . . . Silberg, K.J. ( 1999). Support for censorship of television violence: The role of third person effect and news exposure. Communication Research , 26, 726-742.
24.
Huh, J., & Langteau, R. ( 2007). Presumed influence of DTC prescription drug advertising on patients: Physicians’ perspective. Journal of Advertising , 36, 151-172.
25.
Ilani, O. ( 2009, August 13). Prof. Menachem Ben Sasson explains how to connect the people to the university. Haaretz. Retrieved from http://math.haifa.ac.il/yair/censor-notepad.html
McCroskey, J.C. ( 1977). Oral communication apprehension: A summary of recent theory and research. Human Communication Research, 4, 78-96.
28.
McLeod, D.M., Eveland, W.P., Jr., & Nathanson, A.I. (1997). Support for censorship of violent and misogynic Rap lyrics. Communication Research , 24, 153-174.
29.
Moloch, H., & Lester, M. ( 1973). News as purposive behavior: On the strategic use of routine events, accidents and scandals. American Sociological Review , 39, 101-112.
30.
Peters, H.P. ( 1995). The interaction of journalists and scientific experts: Cooperation and conflict between two professional cultures. Media, Culture & Society, 17, 31-48.
31.
Peters, H.P., Brossard, D., de Cheveinge, S., Dunwoody, S., Kallfass, M., Miller, S., & Tsuchida, S. ( 2008). Interactions with the media. Science , 321, 204-205.
32.
Phillips, D.P., Kanter, E.J., Bednarczyk, B., & Tastad, P.L. ( 1991). Importance of the lay press in the transmission of medical knowledge to the scientific community. New England Journal of Medicine, 325, 1180-1183.
33.
Poliakoff, E., & Webb, T.L. ( 2007). What factors predict scientists’ intentions to participate in public engagement of science activities? Science Communication, 29, 242-263.
34.
Preacher, K.J., & Hayes, A.F. ( 2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879-891.
35.
Reich, Z. ( 2006). The process model of news initiative. Journalism Studies, 7, 497-514.
36.
Reich, Z. ( 2009). Sourcing the news: Key issues in journalism-An innovative study of the Israeli press. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
37.
Rojas, H., Shah, D.V., & Faber, R.J. ( 1996). For the good of others: Censorship and the third-person effect. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 8, 163-186.
38.
Royal Society. (2006). Science communication: Survey of the factors affecting science communication by scientists and engineers. Retrieved from http://royalsociety.org/General_WF.aspx?pageid=7967
39.
Sheafer, T., & Wolfsfeld, G. ( 2004). Production assets, news opportunities, and publicity for legislators: A study of Israeli Knesset members. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 4, 611-630.
40.
Sigal, L.V. ( 1973). Reporter sand officials. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
41.
Scheufele, D.A., Corley, E.A., Shih, T.J., Darlymple, K.E., & Ho, S.S. ( 2009). Religious beliefs and public attitudes toward nanotechnology in Europe and the United States. Nature Nanotechnology, 4, 91-94.
42.
Tal-Or, N., Cohen, J., Tsfati, Y. & Gunther, A. ( 2010). Testing Causal Direction in the Influence of Presumed Media Influence Communication Research first published on June 16, 2010 doi:10.1177/0093650210362684
43.
Tewksbury, D., Moy, P., & Weis, D.S. ( 2004). Preparations for Y2K: Revisiting the behavioral component of the third-person effect. Journal of Communication, 54, 138-155.
44.
Tsfati, Y., Ribak, R., & Cohen, J. ( 2005). Rebelde Way in Israel: Parental perceptions of television influence and monitoring of children’s social and media activities. Mass Communication & Society, 8, 3-22.
45.
Xu, J., & Gonzenbach, W.J. (2008). Does a perceptual discrepancy lead to action? A meta analysis of the behavioral component of the third person effect. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 20, 375-385.
46.
Van Raan, A.F.J. ( 2006). Comparison of the Hirsch index with standard bibliometric indicators and with peer judgment for 147 chemistry research groups. Scientometrics, 67, 491-502.
47.
Willems, J. ( 2003). Bringing down the barriers. Nature, 422, 470.
48.
Weigold, M.F. ( 2001), Communicating science: A review of the literature. Science Communication, 23,164-193.
49.
Wolfendale Committee. (1995). Committee to review the contribution of scientists and engineers to the public understanding of science, engineering and technology- Final report. London, England: Office of Science and Technology.
