Research indicates that balanced news coverage of opposing scientific claims can result in heightened uncertainty among audiences about what is true. In this study, we test the ability of a weight-of-experts statement to enhance individuals’ ability to distinguish between more versus less valid claims. An experiment found that the weight-of-experts narrative led participants to greater certainty about what scientists judged to be true, which made participants more likely to “buy in” to that judgment themselves.
AbelsonR. P.PrenticeD. A. (1997). Contrast tests of interaction hypotheses. Psychological Methods, 2, 315-328. doi:10.1037/1082-989x.2.4.315
2.
BerinskyA. J.HuberG. A.LenzG. S. (2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis, 20, 351-368. doi:10.1093/pan/mpr057
3.
BinderA. R.HillbackE. D.BrossardD. (2015). Conflict or caveats? Effects of media portrayals of scientific uncertainty on audience perceptions of new technologies. Risk Analysis, 36, 831-846. doi:10.1111/risa.12462
4.
BrechmanJ.LeeC. J.CappellaJ. 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.
5.
BrossardD.NisbetM. C. (2007). Deference to scientific authority among a low information public: Understanding US opinion on agricultural biotechnology. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 19, 24-52.
6.
BuhrmesterM.KwangT.GoslingS. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3-5. doi:10.1177/1745691610393980
7.
CacciatoreM. A.ScheufeleD. A.IyengarS. (2016). The end of framing as we know it . . . and the future of media effects. Mass Communication and Society, 19, 7-23.
ChenS.ChaikenS. (1999). The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context. In ChaikenS.TropeY. (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 73-96). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
10.
CialdiniR. B. (2009). Influence: Science and practice (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
11.
ClarkeC. E.DixonG. N.HoltonA.McKeeverB. W. (2015). Including “evidentiary balance” in news media coverage of vaccine risk. Health Communication, 30, 461-472. doi:10.1080/10410236.2013.867006
12.
ClarkeC. E.McKeeverB.HoltonA.DixonG. N. (2015). The influence of weight-of-evidence messages on (vaccine) attitudes: A sequential mediation model. Journal of Health Communication, 20, 1302-1309. doi:10.1080/10810730.2015.1023959
13.
CorbettJ. B.DurfeeJ. L. (2004). Testing public (un)certainty of science: Media representations of global warming. Science Communication, 26, 129-151. doi:10.1177/1075547004270234
14.
DearingJ. W. (1995). Newspaper coverage of maverick science: Creating controversy through balancing. Public Understanding of Science, 4, 341-361.
15.
DixonG. N. (2016). Applying the gateway belief model to genetically modified food perceptions: New insights and additional questions. Journal of Communication, 66, 888-908.
16.
DixonG. N.ClarkeC. E. (2013). Heightening uncertainty around certain science media coverage, false balance, and the autism-vaccine controversy. Science Communication, 35, 358-382.
17.
DixonG. N.McKeeverB. W.HoltonA. E.ClarkeC.EoscoG. (2015). The power of a picture: Overcoming scientific misinformation by communicating weight-of-evidence information with visual exemplars. Journal of Communication, 65, 639-659. doi:10.1111/jcom.12159
18.
DunwoodyS. (1982). A question of accuracy. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, PC-254), 196-199.
19.
DunwoodyS.GriffinR. J. (2002). Judgmental heuristics and news reporting. In GowdaR.FoxJ. C. (Eds.), Judgments, decisions, and public policy (pp. 177-198). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
20.
DunwoodyS.KoniecznaM. (2013). The role of global media in telling the climate change story. In WardS. J. (Ed.), Global media ethics: Problems and perspectives (pp. 171-190). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
21.
EaglyA. H.ChaikenS. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
22.
Fleury-BahiG. (2008). Environmental risk: Perception and target with local versus global evaluation. Psychological Reports, 102, 185-193.
23.
FreudenburgW. R. (2001). Risk, responsibility and recreancy. Research in Social Problems and Public Policy, 9, 87-108.
24.
GiffordR.ScannellL.KormosC.SmolovaL.BielA.BoncuS.. . .UzzellD. (2009). Temporal pessimism and spatial optimism in environmental assessments: An 18-nation study. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 1-12.
25.
GigerenzerG.SeltenR. (2001). Rethinking rationality. In GigerenzerG.SeltenR. (Eds.), Bounded rationality: The adaptive toolbox (pp. 1-2). Cambridge: MIT Press.
26.
HaniganD.ThurmanE. M.FerrerI.ZhaoY.AndrewsS.ZhangJ.. . .WesterhoffP. (2015). Methadone contributes to N-Nitrosodimethylamine formation in surface waters and wastewaters during chloramination. Environmental Science & Technology Letters, 2(6), 151-157. doi:10.1021/acs.estlett.5b00096
27.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
28.
ImaiK.KeeleL.TingleyD.YamamotoT. (2010). Causal mediation analysis using R. In VinodH. D. (Ed.), Advances in social science research using R (pp. 129-154). New York, NY: Springer.
KahanD. M. (2015). What is the “Science of Science Communication”?Journal of Science Communication, 14(3), 1-12.
31.
KahnemanD.TverskyA. (1982). Variants of uncertainty. Cognition, 11, 143-157.
32.
KelmanH. C.HamiltonV. L. (1989). Crimes of obedience: Toward a social psychology of authority and responsibility. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
33.
KoehlerD. J. (2016). Can journalistic “false balance” distort public perception of consensus in expert opinion?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 22, 24-38.
34.
KohlP. A.KimS. Y.PengY.AkinH.KohE. J.HowellA.DunwoodyS. (2016). The influence of weight-of-evidence strategies on audience perceptions of (un)certainty when media cover contested science. Public Understanding of Science, 25, 976-991. doi:10.1177/0963662515615087
35.
KortenkampK. V.BastenB. (2015). Environmental science in the media: Effects of opposing viewpoints on risk and uncertainty perceptions. Science Communication, 37, 287-313. doi:10.1177/1075547015574016
36.
KostichM. S.BattA. L.LazorchakJ. M. (2014). Concentrations of prioritized pharmaceuticals in effluents from 50 large wastewater treatment plants in the US and implications for risk estimation. Environmental Pollution, 184, 354-359.
LevayK. E.FreeseJ.DruckmanJ. N. (2016). The demographic and political composition of Mechanical Turk samples. SAGE Open, 6(1), 1-17.
39.
LewandowskyS.EckerU. K.SeifertC. M.SchwarzN.CookJ. (2012). Misinformation and its correction continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13, 106-131.
40.
LewandowskyS.GignacG. E.VaughanS. (2013). The pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science. Nature Climate Change, 3, 399-404.
41.
LiW. C. (2014). Occurrence, sources, and fate of pharmaceuticals in aquatic environment and soil. Environmental Pollution, 187, 193-201.
42.
LibermanN.TropeY. (2008). The psychology of transcending the here and now. Science, 322, 1201-1205. doi:10.1126/science.1161958
MyersT. A.MaibachE.PetersE.LeiserowitzA. (2015). Simple messages help set the record straight about scientific agreement on human-caused climate change: The results of two experiments. PLoS ONE, 10(3), e0120985. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0120985
45.
NussbaumS.LibermanN.TropeY. (2006). Predicting the near and distant future. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 152-161. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.135.2.152
46.
SimonH. A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review, 63, 129-138.
47.
SingerE. (1990). A question of accuracy: How journalists and scientists report research on hazards. Journal of Communication, 40(4), 102-116.
ThommE.BrommeR. (2012). “It should at least seem scientific!” Textual features of “scientificness” and their impact on lay assessments of online information. Science Education, 96, 187-211.
50.
TropeY.LibermanN. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117, 440-463. doi:10.1037/a0018963
51.
TropeY.LibermanN.WakslakC. (2007). Construal levels and psychological distance: Effects on representation, prediction, evaluation, and behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17, 83-95.
52.
TverskyA.KahnemanD. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1131.
53.
UzzellD. L. (2000). The psycho-spatial dimension of global environmental problems. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20, 307-318. doi:10.1006/jevp.2000.0175
54.
van der LindenS. L.LeiserowitzA. A.FeinbergG. D.MaibachE. W. (2015). The scientific consensus on climate change as a gateway belief: Experimental evidence. PLoS ONE, 10(2), e0118489. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0118489
55.
WeinsteinN. D. (1989). Optimistic biases about personal risks. Science, 246, 1232-1233.